"You can't prove God doesn't exist!"

[Tatterdemalion]

"God is based on faith, which is the idea of believing in something with no evidence to prove it existence, thous this meant when scientists finally proved God did infact exist, god was destroyed"

"Man goes on to prove that black was white, and gets himself killed at the next pedestrian crossing."

[Omega]

I could go on for pages regarding specifics here but my belief is that I don't want the way I live my life dictated by a force in the sky that may or may not exist.

Fuck that noise. Live fast, die fun. You only get one life, might as well enjoy it while you can.

[RationalInquirer]

"Man goes on to brove that black was white, and gets himself killed at the next pedestrian crossing."

"The Babel Fish is small, yellow, and simultaneously translates from one spoken language to another. When inserted into the ear, its nutrition processes convert sound waves into brain waves, neatly crossing the language divide between any species you should happen to meet whilst travelling in space. Meanwhile, the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different races and cultures, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation"

Way off topic but coudn't resist!

[Fat1Fared]

Dam I did it again

Please everyone stop letting turn all the posts away from their points

Though "H Guide to Galaxy is amazing"

[Tatterdemalion]

Dam I did it again

Please everyone stop letting turn all the posts away from their points

Though "H Guide to Galaxy is amazing"

Just one more time.

Since RationalInquirer seems to love books of this subject mater I recommend that once he check out Where God Went Wrong, Some More of God's Greatest Mistakes, and Who Is This God Person, Anyway? All written by Oolon Colluphid.

[Tatterdemalion]

I'm answering this here because I think the response more relevant in this thread than the thread in which the original comment posted.

By the way, what is this animosity you harbour towards Richard Dawkins? Do you actually believe that he is an attention seeking extortionist who's inflated ego caused him to supposedly go beyond his field in Science? One does not need a degree in fairyology before assessing the existence of fairies. Dawkins doesn't need to delve into the cherry picking, constant rationalizing, universe of theologians before questioning the existence of a God. Let alone one created by humans in his own image.

Yes, I do believe that, and I will once again explain why. I'll explain what it is about your statements that I strongly dislike as well.

I'm not saying that in order to not believe in God you have to have particular qualifications. You don't need any more qualifications to not believe in God that you do to believe in God. Overall, I don't care what you believe, either way, so long as you're thoughtful and respectful of others, I'm not going to tell you not to think what you think.

That being said, there are two big problems.

First off, keep in mind that not believing in God doesn't make you special. It doesn't make you smart, it doesn't make you insightful. It doesn't make you anything. "Does God exist?" is not a deep, relevant philosophical question. It's barely even a question worth discussing.

Secondly, not believing in God does not in any way make you an expert on religion. It doesn't give you an understanding of religion. To the contrary, it probably leaves you with even less of an understanding of religion.

So that being said, using atheism as a foundation to make attacks against, inflamatory comments towards, or, worst of all, evaluatory blanket statements regarding religion is a silly and ill-informed thing to do. And no, religion is not centered around the question "Does God exist?" so whatever answer you have to that question would be irrelevant in that discussion.

What you blatantly ignore every single time I bring it up is that there's a tremendous difference between theism and religion, and that once you start stepping out of that pointless question you love so much, and start actually attacking religion, and talking about religion, all of the atheism in the world can't help you. Once you get into religion you're foraying into the social sciences. Not theology, which you so vehemently assert is irrelevant, but sociology, anthropology, religious studies, and a whole host of others. These are well-established academic fields that you turn a blind eye to time and again. These are the fields through which you can actually study religion, not in a way designed to sell books, but in a serious, objective, and comprehensive manner.

And yet you always deny recognition to the fact this entire group of fields through which one can actually understand religion as a whole, in an unbiased, secular way. You dismiss them as being unnecessary, assert that they're irrelevant. To be honest, I get the impression that you don't even want to understand religion. And that wouldn't be a problem if not for the fact that you then constantly make ill-infomed attacks on religion that have no foundation whatsoever, and don't even realize how narrow your perspective is in doing so.

Who do I blame for this? Richard Dawkins, amongst others.

There were, at one time, philosophers, not just writers but philosophers, who wrote from an atheistic perspective. And they actually had meaningful things to say, because rather than dwelling on the subject of theism, they actuallty had meaningful things to sy about the nature of man, about life, about society, and the like, providing actual insight into matters worth devoting attention to. They also all happen to be dead.

Dawkins, on the other hand, is not one of these philosophers. He's not even a philosopher. He is instead one of a group of people who make up the new wave of atheist spokespeople, not dwelling on things like meaning, and instead doing what sells, by telling members of a newer generation what they want to hear.

The world of the 21st century is a more secular place than it has been at any other point in history. Say what you will about religion, that much is true. So you have a lmarket for the material, yes. Once you've got it, all you have to do is say what people want. People like to feel like they're right. People like to feel as though they've got someone else's number. People like to feel just a little oppressed, so they can feel like they're rebels. People like to think that they're defying the status quo. People like to think that they're part of something new, brilliant and revolutionary in a world that refuses to appreciate them. Dawkins just gives it to them.

But what's the smartest thing he does? He takes an inflammatory position. Just saying something is one thing, but controversy sells, and people like to feel like they're on the right side of a controversy, even if it's n engineered one, with little actual relevance.

So people listen. They do it without thinking too much, and they do it without considering just how meaningful what they're being told actually is.

So yeah, my problem with Dawkins is that by pandering to peoples' most base instincts, he's lowering the bar for religious discussion, and bringing down the level of thoughtfulness, insight and intelligence involved in such discussion, promoting dismissiveness and ignorance over curiosity and insight, all the while making people think that they're being smart.

Or maybe you could spot the inconsistency yourself: The man asserts that theology is stupid, then goes on to write several books attempting to address a theological question.


I don't know, maybe he's a very clever author trying to exploit his audience or maybe he actually believes that he's saying something meaningful. Or maybe it's a combination of the two. Either way, to use a phrase I once read somewhere, the man is as deep as a puddle.

Oh, and if you want I'll go into more detail about this:

One does not need a degree in fairyology before assessing the existence of fairies.

No, one doesn't need a degree in fairyology to assess the existence of fairies. But at the same time not believing in fairies doesn't make one an expert on folkore. There is indeed an entire field of cultural studies devoted to folklore and mythology, a serious and respectable field examining the origins of folklore, the cultural impact of folklore, the role folklore plays in society, taxonomical classification of folklore, research into various folklores, the geographical origins of particular mythology and its spread from region to region, etc., etc.

Now, you don't need a degree in fairyology to say that fairies don't exist. But at the same time, if you were to say "fairies are nothing but a silly lie made up by parents to make their children behave," you'd be dead wrong, and a folklorist may be one to point out this fact. Now, if you were to then say in response that you know you're right, and that you're just as well versed on the subject because, while you haven't actually devoted a great deal of study to the subject, or done any first hand research, you read a book that said fairies don't exist, you wouldn't be making a brilliant observation. To the contrary, you'd look like a damn fool.

And then I would be one to point that out.

Now keep in mind, I'm not trying to criticize you for not being an expert. That would be silly of me. What does bother me, however, is that you refuse to recognize that there's not only one, but several respectable scholarly fields you're making claims that relate to, without even attempting to explore them, then dismissing these fields as being irrelevant to your argument.

And on top of that, what gets me is that you're smug about it. You're smug, you're brash, and all with a trace of arrogance, made all the worse by a self-contradictory affection of humility. And there are some people who are allowed to be smug. Why? Because they've earned it by being right. None of us here, however, has earned the privilege of smugness. Yet you, of all people, seem to think that you have. But at the same time you have all of the foolishness of a person who feels completely self assured that he has the answer, only to not realize he's misread the question. And who refuses to consider that there may be more to the question than what he's already made up his mind about.

It would be humorous, if not for the fact that you take yourself seriously.