QUOTE(gronned @ Mar 13 2008, 12:06 PM)
Is it really flawed? There are way too many things we cannot disprove, yet there's absolutely no logical reason whatsoever to believe in them, such as Russel's teapot, or any of the other gods out there, such as Zeus, Thor or Vishnu. Do you really think we should not say Zeus cannot exist, because we cannot definitely disprove his existence? Should we really put energy in debating whether it's likely Thor exists or not? I cannot disprove any gods existence, but I find the logical arguments for their non-existence to be overwhelmingly great. If god exists or not, is a yes or no-question, whereas I don't find the question to be a 50-50% shot in whether it's likely or not. With arguments and personal experiences(I guess) you have come to the conclusion that she exists, and likewise I have come to the conclusion with arguments that she cannot exist. Therefore the more arguments we get on the matter, our percentages on the yes or no-scale will differ. Rendering it theoretically possible to switch ones mind with arguments to the opposite side.
I am definitely suggesting I would be able to become a theist if someone could convince me it's likely god exists, or that she shows herself.
Your point about the dogmas surrounding a deity are well taken and I agree with them. However, the idea of a creator in general is not that outlandish. Ra, zeus, etc are all references to the same idea that something created all this initially which remains a valid theory about what was going on if and when time=0. Applying morality to that creator is a different topic and bringing names of deities present and past into the discussion is tantamount to building a straw man. Just because the stories of zeus sound funny to us today, does not invalidate the basic theory of a creator which zeus represents.
QUOTE(gronned @ Mar 13 2008, 12:06 PM)
Ok, maybe that's a question about oppressed minorities, over here an absolute majority are atheists or agnostics so maybe the christian minority is cocky because they feel oppressed. I always thought they were cocky because they thought they could do whatever as they were sure they were going to heaven anyway.
I had someone from England tell me the same thing. That Christians were smug because they thought they were going to heaven. I suppose that those Christians probably do exist, but I dont feel that I am one of them. I can tell you that from my perspective, atheist seem smug because they feel a sense of intellectual superiority. That theists are simpletons, prisoners of flawed thought, etc. I am not confident that I am going to heaven if hell does indeed exist. While I do believe in an after life, I dont really believe in the doctrine of hell. So if there is an afterlife, but no hell, then why would we not all end up in the same place regardless of our faith or lack there of it?
QUOTE(gronned @ Mar 13 2008, 12:06 PM)
My definition of rational may be wrong, but if killing people in order to achieve some goal is rational, then I need a better explanation(I'm not ironic, btw).
The holocaust started with the sterilization of mentally retarded people and ended with the attempted extermination of jews. There are entire books which discuss in detail how this path was followed by the respected philosphers at the time. I simply cannot address the complexity in a forum like this, but I encourage you to read up on it because the parallels to the current rationalist movement to which dawkins and singer are a part of is eerie to say the least. In a nutshell, it started by applying the theories in evolution and other sciences by stating that these people are genetic dead ends so lets sterilize them to ensure they dont reproduce, and moved to these people are genetic dead ends and not fully human so lets just kill them because they are a drain on society so that we can focus on the genetically viable population whom is fully human.
So that would never happen today right? Science, logic, and rationalists philosophy would never be used to justify the killing of innocent human beings today. Well the humanists movement to which Dawkins is a self selected member of have outlined when it is ethical to kill innocent people. For example, Singer, a leading philosopher in the humanist movement and 2004 Humanist of the Year, has stated that "I do not think it is always wrong to kill an innocent human being," He has written papers that justify killing babies one month after which they are born for any reason at all whether it be economic reasons or simply not wanting the responsibility anymore. He has also justified the killing of infants post birth who have any genetic abnormalities at all as they become apparent. Now, I am not sure about Sweden, but in America one thing that is generally agreed upon about abortion is that once the baby is born full term, you should take care of it and otherwise let it live. Yet these are rational arguments put forthe by collegues of dawkins that argue that infanticide is not wrong because while they are humans they are not a fully human person defined as a self conscious being that sees itself over time. Having gone through child bearing and child rearing, I have an extremely difficult time with people saying that the child is not self aware in the third trimester, let alone one month after they are born.
QUOTE(gronned @ Mar 13 2008, 12:06 PM)
Honestly, I respect you in so many ways, but I completely disagree with you here and cannot understand how you came to that conclusion. Sure, the reasons for many of the atrocities by religious people have not been for god herself, but they've always used god to justify their deeds. Practically meaning there was nothing holding them back when they had god's approval. You claim they did not commit atrocities for their gods, but atheists did commit atrocities for atheism? Stalin committed atrocities for a belief in socialism, not because of his non-belief in a deity. I don't really have anything in common with him, Hitler, Mao or Pol Pot apart from our non-belief in a deity that hasn't been proven, meaning we have nothing in common. If you could give me some reasons to believe they did it for the sake of atheism, I'd be more than interested.
First, there are people who have killed for their g-d. there is no doubt about it. Bin Laden comes to mind. Also I dont have anything in common with them either, other than I believe in the idea of a creator too. I totally disagree with their methodology.
But Honestly, I dont know how you can separate communism as represented in Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Lenin, and Marx and atheism. You, Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Lenin, Dawkins and Marx all seem to agree upon the idea that religion somehow imprisons people, creates the false illusion of happiness, and keeps them from rational thought. You and company also seem to agree that the cure for the prison called religion, is atheism. Mao, Pol Pot, and Stalin sought to do a forced conversions to atheism. Towards that end, they would often kill all the religious leaders first when taking over an area whehter they be christian, muslim, buddhist, etc. Like me, however, you disagree in their methodology to attain an atheist society. The conversion to an atheist society was a key idea of marx actually. Through atheism and rational thought the people would be freed from social constructs and hence would be truly free, or so the story goes. I dont think i am saying anything you are not already aware of though.
QUOTE(gronned @ Mar 13 2008, 12:06 PM)
No atheism is definitely not immune to the desire for power, it's very human actually. I do believe the world would be a better place without religion actually. I'm not talking about some kind of utopia, but a better place where reason will not be interfered with superstition. If you read my third post on the first page I say I've read a quote about how few are non-believers in american prisons versus believers..
Atheist tend to be upperclass people in america so its not exactly the demographic found in prison. Also, religion is seen as a way out of prison by many prisoners. Its often seen as "proof" of a heart felt change of character. So the fact that atheism appears to be 10x lower in prison is skewed.
A world led by people like singer and dawkins would be a scary world indeed. Its a world I dont even think I would recognize. But if you honestly think that it would be a better place and have really read what they are talking about, then all I can do is shrug my shoulders and say hey I guess we disagree on that. I love you to death gronne, but i truly fear this path you are going down. I really encourage you to read deeply into the movements surrounding dawkins to which he has lent his name too. Get beyond the superficial stuff, and start digging into what they are really saying, and the world they invision.
Author
Topic: God's Existence? (Read 641 times)