Thread: The God Delusion

Originally Posted by wandering

I've only seen 1 person come back to life after being completely dead. (After a bus ran over his head)
Oh and my brother. He was dying. I prayed and he recovered to compete health in minutes.

Lying's a sin.

Originally Posted by wandering

Like the time I prayed for a woman deaf since birth and her hearing came back completely.

Lying's a sin.

Originally Posted by wandering

Or the time I prayed and saw a guy with no arm and his arm grew back. It was freaky. It kind of painfully twisted into place, and fingers grew out. All the villagers freaked out too (in a good way).
Why doesn't everyone get to see this stuff???? I have no idea. Right place at the right time? All I can say is that Prayer was the catalyst.

So is trolling. Even more so than lying. Look it up - Leviticus.

The unfortunate thing is there are people that genuinely believe such stuff -- QED about religion being dangerous (though, it often does keep the stupid in line... for a little while)

Originally Posted by spiff

I was wondering how you would read a deathwish for Reeves into this. Your explanation of "the transparent juxtaposition" of the quoted and other comments is your interpretation, and less than convincing.

Yeah. Okay. Whatever.

I guess the Lord works in mysterious ways, and His ways are inscrutable.

Praise be.

Basically God was and still is the sun, that is what they used to worship years ago, yet somehow the sun became a mythical creature and religion as we know it today was born.

You're a Northern pagan, ramboy?

Originally Posted by DaffyDuck

I guess the Lord works in mysterious ways, and His ways are inscrutable.

If you say so...
But I hope you realise this is neither funny nor related to my post.

Originally Posted by DaffyDuck

Originally Posted by Looper

We are clearly evolved from lesser beings.

I would really prefer it if people would not use the term 'lesser' to denote an evolutionary position.

Life which has evolved to a level where it is capable of reflective self-awareness and is able to ponder the past, future, life, death and morailty is superior to basic non-reflective sentient animals. Life endowed with reflective consiousness has an intrinsically higher value.

Humans are the only such life-form we are aware of at present but there is nothing to say that chimpanzees couldn't evolve a large enough brain to develop the same skills given enough time. But, at the moment, chimpanzees are lesser beings.

To get back on topic - religious belief is a symptom of mans attempt to deal with the void that opens up within the self when reflective self awareness becomes an evolved characteristic.

When a species evolves to be smart enough to realize they are going to die one day, its time to call in a belief in some kind of eternal life. All the religions have this central theme running through them. If you can ponder life, you can ponder death and that either its final or there might be something after death. That's the fundamental reason why we have religion. No one wants to die for forever.

Sorry to disappoint you folks, but I wont be there when you get to the land of milk and honey.

I believe the Catholics have their own section in heaven with a very high wall around it. Reason being is that they want to believe they are the only ones there.

I think that line came from the British comedian Dave Allen. He always used to finish up his show by saying, -- " Good night, and may your God go with you".

^Irish Comedian, not British. Lapsed Catholic humour. Very funny man. He's burning in Hell now, of course

Originally Posted by Looper

To get back on topic - religious belief is a symptom of mans attempt to deal with the void that opens up within the self when reflective self awareness becomes an evolved characteristic.

agree, very insightful..

Originally Posted by Butterfly

There is no such thing as an atheist,

Especially one in a foxhole with incoming...

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Especially one in a foxhole with incoming...

not true.....


atheists in foxholes have their own forum.....

they get pretty pissed of with people like you saying they aint atheist.

RichardDawkins.net Forum • View forum - There are Atheists in Foxholes

boner.....

Originally Posted by Looper

Life which has evolved to a level where it is capable of reflective self-awareness and is able to ponder the past, future, life, death and morailty is superior to basic non-reflective sentient animals. Life endowed with reflective consiousness has an intrinsically higher value.

That's because YOU say so, and because you are creating the criteria of self-awareness, and claiming that it is 'higher', because those criteria somehow apply to you. Doesn't make it universally 'higher', that's all I'm saying.

Originally Posted by Looper

To get back on topic - religious belief is a symptom of mans attempt to deal with the void that opens up within the self when reflective self awareness becomes an evolved characteristic.

Religious belief is the result when someone lacks self-awareness / sentience, and prefers to have others do the thinking for them. That's all there is to it.

Originally Posted by DaffyDuck

Originally Posted by Looper

Life which has evolved to a level where it is capable of reflective self-awareness and is able to ponder the past, future, life, death and morailty is superior to basic non-reflective sentient animals. Life endowed with reflective consiousness has an intrinsically higher value.

That's because YOU say so, and because you are creating the criteria of self-awareness, and claiming that it is 'higher', because those criteria somehow apply to you. Doesn't make it universally 'higher', that's all I'm saying.

Yes, I was wondering how one life-form is 'intrinsically' more valuable because of its place on the scale of evolution.
But put it to a test, would you have different degrees of hesitation and reservation about killing:
- an ant
- a fish
- a mouse
- a dog
- a human

Religious belief is the result when someone lacks self-awareness / sentience, and prefers to have others do the thinking for them. That's all there is to it.

Now you're just spouting offensive non-sense, Daffy.

CMN, you should be ashamed, using Religion as a topic and it's an easy triple century

Originally Posted by Butterfly

using Religion as a topic and it's an easy triple century

to be honest butterfly, once it's gone past 100, it doesn't matter much, but I'd like to see memock and watterinja re entering the fray.

Originally Posted by ChiangMai noon

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Especially one in a foxhole with incoming...

not true.....


atheists in foxholes have their own forum.....

they get pretty pissed of with people like you saying they aint atheist.

RichardDawkins.net Forum • View forum - There are Atheists in Foxholes

boner.....

Right...well, you know what they say about opinions and ring pieces too, eh?

Originally Posted by spiff

But put it to a test, would you have different degrees of hesitation and reservation about killing:
- an ant
- a fish
- a mouse
- a dog
- a human

Good question -- and, the answer would be, 'no'.

If each one fits my criteria of 'need for killing', I would not have any reservation about swatting either of them - or, conversely, protecting their life.

Nevertheless, apart from the moral aspects of the question, again, you are neglecting the core point I made, which has nothing to do with the intrinsic value of the individual's life, but rather about their different adaptabilities and advantages.

To re-use your example -- globally, ants, fish, mice, dogs or humans have absolutely no qualms eating any of the other listed species, including their own. Of the list you provided, there is not a single exception.

Which begs the question -- what was the point you were trying to make, again?

I don't think many people will agree with your analysis of Spiff's list Daffy.

I think you can look at the characteristics of a lifeform and then put it on a scale of worth.

For example an ascending scale of characteristics might be something like

Biological lifeform - plants, sponges, bacteria
Physical development - eyes legs - ability to move around and visibly react to situations - small insects
Sentience - basic consiousness - the ability to feel pain, hunger etc. - most animals
Visible relationship bonding within its own species - most developed mammals birds and reptiles
Relationship bonding with humans - dogs
Complex social interaction - chimpanzees, dolphins etc.
Ability to hold conversations - parrots*
Reflective self awareness and higher intelligence - humans

I think as you go down the list most people would have increasing hesitance over killing such a creature.

*just kidding

My point is that you are being ethnocentrists... assuming that your perspective is the only one that matters :-)

Originally Posted by DaffyDuck

Good question -- and, the answer would be, 'no'.

Interesting - my personal scruples increase with each one further down the list.

Originally Posted by DaffyDuck

If each one fits my criteria of 'need for killing', I would not have any reservation about swatting either of them - or, conversely, protecting their life.

Yes, except I would not make any attempt to rescue an ant from a predator.

Originally Posted by DaffyDuck

Nevertheless, apart from the moral aspects of the question, again, you are neglecting the core point I made, which has nothing to do with the intrinsic value of the individual's life, but rather about their different adaptabilities and advantages.

I thought your point was that you disagree with the stage of evolvement, i.e. 'self-awareness' as an intrinsic value, since this is selected by the creature who does possess this quality and is thus favouring itself. I agree there are other criteria which make one life less valuable than others, circumstances of self-defense, hunger, overpopulation are some, but I'd still hold a value-scale based on evolution as an underlying, intrinsic value. This is confirmed for me by my reaction to the above list.

This overlaps with the other thread.

Originally Posted by DaffyDuck

To re-use your example -- globally, ants, fish, mice, dogs or humans have absolutely no qualms eating any of the other listed species, including their own. Of the list you provided, there is not a single exception. Which begs the question -- what was the point you were trying to make, again?

Not really making a point, just wondering about values.
In line with what Looper said, self-awareness is what sets humans apart, we do have a choice, humans can and do have qualms about killing and eating other species or their own. Otherwise it would not make sense to even discuss a value system. How far you'd want to recognise this difference as an intrinsic value itself can be argued, as we've been doing.

Religions offer values in this regard, for example, human life is valued sacrosanct above all other in Christianity.

Originally Posted by ChiangMai noon

I'd like to see memock and watterinja re entering the fray.

Not going to happen.
I won't make the mistake again of taking MeMock seriously and wasting my time composing reasoned responses to his Christian propaganda.

Originally Posted by spiff

Religions offer values in this regard, for example, human life is valued sacrosanct above all other in Christianity.

Bad example, if you wanted me to judged Christianity by the actions of its adherents...

Besides that, you are conveniently confusing 'values' (the moral kind) (which govern (allegedly) the taking of lives), with claimed bio diversity values (the numeric kind). They are not related.

Not sure which values I am supposed to "conveniently" confuse here.

Bio-diversity as a value has not been "claimed" in this thread.
You did, however, assert that the various species (including humans) have no qualms about killing.

Care to summarise your argument and "core point" for stupid little me, since I keep missing it?

Originally Posted by spiff

Care to summarise your argument and "core point" for stupid little me, since I keep missing it?

Easy.

Just because you say something is hierarchically on a higher level, according to your perception, doesn't actually make it so. Just because you have more or less of an abhorrence to terminate its life, based on it's arbitrary position on a scale you posit, doesn't make that scale universal, or even a 'scale' (i.e. mounting or differing values) at all.

Pretty clear, though I'd assume you'd keep missing it.

As a valid example -- while you may keep missing pretty obvious core points (on purpose, or simply by conjecture), some people may subsequently label and consider you to be 'dumb', 'illiterate', 'clueless', [insert your own debasing qualifier here] - in essence, placing you on a lower rung to their own higher position, on an arbitrary scale of 'smart' to 'ludicrous idiot' (let's say).

While this may make mud slinging and character assassination certainly easier, nevertheless, all it means is that you both share different value systems, different priorities, and different backgrounds - similarly, your antagonists may excel (compared to you) at educational backgrounds, literacy, perspective, or other intellectual and professional abilities -- yet, you may have them beat at fish gutting, beer guzzling, can skull crushing, engine repair, bar room brawls, dog grooming, and sheep shearing - abilities which they suck at. The key is being aware that within each of your specific environments you each can excel at your specific adaptations, whereas the other will not - which neither makes either of you better or worse, yet simply makes you differently abled.

The same applies to nearly all organisms on this planet -- so no matter how much superior you consider yourself to another organism, you're not. The claimed superiority is only in your head, based on a arbitrarily established set of rules, which you cling to, claiming they are 'values'. They are no such thing, IMO.

That's it.