Religion - The Bible. Real Or Not Real?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I take issue with Dawkins on this issue too in that he as much pushes atheism as religious nutcases push god, when he can't prove logically there isn't a god, though I agree it is unlikely and a low possibility wrt our universe - but even a low probability dictates that he should say he is agnostic.

 

You don't seem to know why he pushes atheism. And you often use the term agnostic when it is really isn't important to the debate.

 

I think you would have to have a simplistic understanding if you thought the motivation behind Dawkins arguments were summed up by "There is no God, so shut up everyone". Given the role that religion plays in society, the mental abuse of children, the miseducation on matters relating to evolution; ignorance or rejection of scientific discoveries etc. then it makes it a very worthy matter to take-up and challenge. Childish beliefs are holding us back. I mean everyone has an interest in the society they live in. Now some are interested in the truth and they would like to think that others are too rather than believing in supernatural and spiritual rubbish.

 

Dawkins would probably describe himself as an agnostic AS WELL as an atheist. Nobody can know with absolutely certainty whether a God exists. Though saying that a great deal of deluded people are gnostic theists. They apparently KNOW that God exists, but this is simply based on their faith or a closed-minded mentality.

 

I am an agnostic atheist. And a strong or hard atheist at that. I cannot absolutely know that a supreme being exists and I do not believe he exists. I would go further and also that I am pretty certain he doesn't exist either given the lack of evidence for his existence, based on the contradictions and nature of very human supernatural beliefs, and because of the scientific discoveries that have debunked earlier supernatural beliefs and currently to debunk modern-day ones.

 

But stating that we cannot know certain things for certain doesn't really get us anywhere. The point is that nobody KNOWS for certain, but given this why believe in it when there is no evidence?

[VinnieK]

Albert, I think there's a little bit of confusion here caused by that video: it somehow manages to muddle String Theory, the many universe hypothesis of quantum mechanics, and general relativity, and is based on the work of Rob Bryanton, a composer and president of a recording studio in Canada and an author with little to no scientific experience.

 

I'm sorry to say that from what I can gather (and it's telling that the vast majority of information I can find on his perspective is on vaguely new agey sites), the interpretation offered is at best a fringe belief with little rigorous basis in mathematical or scientific thought.

[Albert Tatlock]

Albert, I think there's a little bit of confusion here caused by that video: it somehow manages to muddle String Theory, the many universe hypothesis of quantum mechanics, and general relativity, and is based on the work of Rob Bryanton, a composer and president of a recording studio in Canada and an author with little to no scientific experience.

 

I'm sorry to say that from what I can gather (and it's telling that the vast majority of information I can find on his perspective is on vaguely new agey sites), the interpretation offered is at best a fringe belief with little rigorous basis in mathematical or scientific thought.

Well, it made perfect sense to me, as I said, admittedly after quite a few watches. It is simply about possible paths and combinations of paths, caused by an infinite amount of universes with an infinite number of different initial conditions and laws etc. and how dimensions and the paths with them fold into others. It doesn't need detailed maths to explain it, it is a concept.

 

It certainly opened my eyes to all those possibilities, and has got me convinced that we know next to nothing in the big scheme of things.

 

In laymens terms it explains this quite well, but still requires some effort to get a grip of. It has changed my view on things quite fundamentally and substantially, and that usually takes a lot to do.

 

And I know nothing of Rob Bryanton so will not make a judgement, but I will remind you that Albert Einstein was a patent clerk who also didn't do very well at school.

[VinnieK]

And I know nothing of Rob Bryanton so will not make a judgement, but I will remind you that Albert Einstein was a patent clerk who also didn't do very well at school.

 

That's something of a myth, Einstein perfomed exceptionally in mathematics and physics, and graduated with a diploma in both. His work was fully grounded in science, incorporating much previous work along the same lines and was assessed and published in a scientific journal. By comparison, Bryanton has no such experience, no such grounding, or to my knowledge education, and his work is published as a pop-science/philosophy book. If Bryanton's work is to be taken seriously on the basis that it kind of makes sense to some people, then we may as well dispense entirely with the idea of science and just go with whatever set of conjectures or hypotheses appeals to us the most and call that truth.

 

Of course, it's fair enough if people want believe in it, that being their decision. My point is merely that it's not science and doesn't really have much of a basis in it either.

[Albert Tatlock]

Of course, it's fair enough if people want believe in it, that being their decision. My point is merely that it's not science and doesn't really have much of a basis in it either.

Length has no mathematical bearing to depth or time in most people's eyes either. As I said it's conceptual.

[Terse]

Dawkins would probably describe himself as an agnostic AS WELL as an atheist.

Dawkins makes it very clear that he is an agnostic, not an atheist.

Since it is (currently, at least) impossible to scientifically prove that there is no god, he insists that atheism is no more valid than any other form of belief.

However much he may doubt the existence of god, and no matter how illogical the existence of such a being might be, until it can be proven beyond doubt that no such entity exists, he says that he must remain an agnostic.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Of course he is an atheist. Does Dawkins believe in gods? No. Where are you reading this? I seen quite a few bits of footage where he describes himself as an atheist! And he probably also describes himself as an agnostic. You can be both.

 

Since it is (currently, at least) impossible to scientifically prove that there is no god, he insists that atheism is no more valid than any other form of belief.

Are you sure you are paraphrasing from something he says. It is a ridiculous argument to make. Atheism is just the absence of belief. Is the simply absence of beliefs in Gods can be called 'weak' or 'soft' atheism. However, even Dawkins makes claims that Gods do not exist, he makes this claim though also qualifies it with the comment that absolute knowledge cannot be gained to know for certain.

 

I don't need to have absolute knowledge of the non-existence of Gods to not believe there are any, and I can go further and argue that I am almost certain they don't.

 

I do think a lot of people who just say they are agnostics are trying to be little clever without realising how little they are being. "I am an agnostic" = "I don't know, we can't know". Well, that's very interesting, I don't absolutely know either, so what? It doesn't get us anywhere recognising that.

[Terse]

I, too have not the slightest trace of belief in any god(s). To take that as definitive, however, is to follow the same philosophical path that early Christians did - that personal faith is superior to logic.

Therefore I cannot say - definitively - that there is no god, only that I am personally certain that no such creature exists.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

And in such a way we are both 'hard' atheists.

[Terse]

And in such a way we are both 'hard' atheists.

I don't get that excited about it.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

To take that as definitive, however, is to follow the same philosophical path that early Christians did - that personal faith is superior to logic.

Well you are right if we were to argue that we KNOW for sure that a god doesn't exist. Atheists do not argue this. And they take the logical approach of having no belief because there is no evidence and without that evidence no reason to believe in gods anymore than we would believe that there is a magic spider that controls all ours lives. We don't know that there is not a magic spider for certain, we can't possibly know, but in stating that we are almost certain and 'know' there isn't we are not the same as those who have faith in gods and claim to know.

[Vulgarian]

Atheists... take the logical approach of having no belief because there is no evidence and without that evidence no reason to believe in gods anymore than we would believe that there is a magic spider that controls all ours lives. We don't know that there is not a magic spider for certain, we can't possibly know, but in stating that we are almost certain and 'know' there isn't we are not the same as those who have faith in gods and claim to know.

 

I'll take this up, seeing as it's 4am and i can't sleep.

 

I'm not a logician, but it seems to me that your logic there is a bit skewed. The existence and nature of god is not known, and since we are lacking in any evidence by which we might deduce it, as far as we know, god could exist or not exist, and if it does, it could have any form whatsoever.

 

In saying that you "know" that god does not exist you are in the same position as those who say it does, because neither of your beliefs are based on evidence. You are both making assumptions about something of which we know nothing.

 

It is no more logical to say that god does not exist than it is to say that it does and that it is a magical spider, or a piece of toast, or whatever you like.

 

Atheists are quick to ridicule the beliefs of religious people, but logically their ideas are no more ridiculous than their own fervent belief, which has no more evidence to credit it, that god does not exist. The Agnostics might be a bit cleverer than you think.

[Evil Goblin]

Vulgarian - given a traditional notion of the idea of the nature of God as some sort of supranatural being which interferes directly in the affairs of the world your logic is impeccable and I would totally agree with you. Logically, we can only be agnostic and atheism is simply a secular religion.

 

Not so sure the same logic applies to a different notion of God such as the Gnostic concept of "Anthropos", a notion with which Jung was comfortable. In this case it is possible to postulate the existance of God without the concommitant necessity of attributing supranaturalism to it.

[bluemonday]

Gnostic concept of "Anthropos", a notion with which Jung was comfortable.

 

I prefer cushions.

 

God - dog backwards, same effect.

 

Too many people spend their time slavering over it and most can't stand the crap.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I'm not a logician, but it seems to me that your logic there is a bit skewed. The existence and nature of god is not known, and since we are lacking in any evidence by which we might deduce it, as far as we know, god could exist or not exist, and if it does, it could have any form whatsoever.

That's right. Just the same as we do not know for CERTAIN if we are all actually part of a computer game controlled by a supernatural caterpillar. Or that fairies and leprecahauns are real.

 

In saying that you "know" that god does not exist you are in the same position as those who say it does, because neither of your beliefs are based on evidence. You are both making assumptions about something of which we know nothing.

However, the theist is in the position of stating that they KNOW. They argue that they KNOW a God is real and exists and often have a complex set of traits and attributes that they add to this God.

The 'knowing' I have in reference to when I say 'I know a God does not exist' is not some statement of absolute knowledge, but is a result of my non-belief in what theists state. In the same way as I would respond to tales of fairies, monsters, and other supernatural beings. If anything, however, I have far stronger ground to claim to know that God does not exist when it comes to religious beliefs as opposed to simply whether some non-descript God exists.

 

My claims to knowing are simply a response to the beliefs of others in something SPECIFIC. In the same way as someone trying to tell me their cat has magical powers. The burden of proof is on them and I come to my conclusions based on why they believe such things and from looking at the evidence. But I can never know for certain.

 

I can never know for certain whether fairies exist, whether trolls exists, or invisible flying pigs, or Lhiannan Shee, or even Jimmy Squarefoot himself.

And in the same way cannot know about whether some non-descript supernatural entity exists. I simply don't believe he does exist.

 

Whereas when it comes to RELIGIOUS belief, Christianity, Islam, etc. we enter into an area where I can say I know, it isn't absolute knowledge (whatever that is) but only in sense of responding to the religious person's inability to provide evidence BUT ALSO in their explanation and recognition of how they came to this belief, and in the contradictions that this belief system is composed of.

 

I think there is a habit of thinking that the idea of a supernatural being is quite an understandable thing to be believe, in the sense that someone who was trying to understand the world would automatically consider a supernatural intelligent force as a likely factor behind the creation and maintainence of the universe.

 

Atheists are quick to ridicule the beliefs of religious people, but logically their ideas are no more ridiculous than their own fervent belief, which has no more evidence to credit it, that god does not exist. The Agnostics might be a bit cleverer than you think.

Do you understand what atheism is? It is simply a lack of belief in something specific, i.e. a God or The God of religious belief. But in being presented with the reasons for Christian belief (for example), the conclusion for many is that that particular God does not exist and we feel we can be pretty sure about that.

 

I am criticising the agnosticism thing because many people use the term because they ignorantly believe that atheist in knowing tha God doesn't exists and therefore is a stupid a religion. They therefore think they are making the more logical stand by claiming to just 'not know'. Well...I don't care. I don't know for absolute certain no more than I absolutely know ANYTHING. But it says nothing about your beliefs, i.e. why you don't believe in the things that the religious say they absolutely KNOW.

 

we can only be agnostic and atheism is simply a secular religion.

Secular religion? I don't think so!

 

Not so sure the same logic applies to a different notion of God such as the Gnostic concept of "Anthropos", a notion with which Jung was comfortable. In this case it is possible to postulate the existance of God without the concommitant necessity of attributing supranaturalism to it.

Can you elaborate on this further, before I respond as I would rather be sure about what you mean before I respond.