The God Delusion

**Norton** · 05-12-2008, 06:10 PM

We create gods to explain the unexplainable. We sacrifice them on the the alter of knowledge only to resurrect new ones when again we are faced with the unknown.

**The Zapster** · 05-12-2008, 06:51 PM

Originally Posted by Bugs

Originally Posted by The Zapster

Evolution's a pretty obvious concept, and the creationists miss a trick here. Rather than droning on about ID or other such palpable nonsense, they should focus on the physical act of creation itself: is it possible for something (everything) to come from nothing? I would argue no, ergo there was a moment of creation and therefore a god.

I really cannot accept the concepts of heaven and hell etc, however - I am far more interested in the meaning of life itself. I am convinced there are no forms of life other than that which exists on our own planet, and it is my contention that the meaning of life is for human beings to use the tools we have been given in order to populate the wider universe. Then we'll win a prize or something.

Even focusing on the physical act of creation is a no go for me. If it is not possible for something (everything) to come from nothing - then where did god come from? Or is she made of nothing? Which all harkens back to the first mover or first cause arguments - which lead to the same circular arguments - if it is necessary to have a god to be the first mover, the creator, the first cause - then what moved/ created/ caused god?

Even though it seems scientifically to be loosing favor I like to think of something along the lines of some kind of circular never ending - thus no begining and no end - cycle of a big bang, followed by a big crunch.

We as humans have certain perconceptions of things; everything needing to have a begining and an end, along with what seems like the need for everything to have a meaning are just a few of the things that keep us searching for solutions that may never be there - or may not fit with the concepts of what we accept as plausable right now.

Our history is pepper with instances where we have convinced ourselves that this thing or that thing could never be obtained. The speed of sound is a good fairly recent example. There were plenty of well educated people that did not think it possible for us to ever break the speed of sound - but it was. Now there are many people that seem to think it is impossible for us to ever accelerate up to the speed of light - but maybe it is. Now there are plenty well educated people that seem to think that we will never be able to prove god exists or not - perhaps someday we will.

I used to call myself an agonstic. Mainly because I thought that I really needed some kind of proof to come down firmly in the camp of the atheists. Maybe I was simply affraid to commit or something. Now I have no problem calling myself an atheist - and it's not because anyone has proven to me that no god exists. It is because I feel based upon what I know that it is not very probable that a god exists. If someone comes up with some form of evidence that I can directly experience or some form of argument that I find reasonable and more acceptable than any other I have heard to date, I would be happy to move my tent from the atheist camp to the theist camp - maybe some day that will happen.

The problem I with your stance is thus. You say 'who created god'? A perfectly valid question. You then say the universe could have existed in perpetuity, with no moment of creation. Couldn't that argument also be extended to god?

There is an inherent contradiction here.

And god as a woman? Don't...

**Bugs** · 05-12-2008, 07:48 PM

Originally Posted by The Zapster

The problem I with your stance is thus. You say 'who created god'? A perfectly valid question. You then say the universe could have existed in perpetuity, with no moment of creation. Couldn't that argument also be extended to god?

There is an inherent contradiction here.

And god as a woman? Don't...

I don’t see where I have made any form of contradiction. I indicated that the god must exist because someone/something had to have created the universe, does not fly with me. Because if one buys into the need/requirement for someone/something to have created the universe they must somehow explain why the universe must have a creator, but the creator does not need a creator?

I personally have never said that there is no possibility that if a god does exist, then it could possibly have always existed. I am more than willing to accept the idea of a god that has always existed, but at the same time I am also willing to accept the idea of a universe that has always existed (in some form), and as such did not need or have a creator. In which case why do we need god?

For me there is no one specific reason why I don’t believe there is, ever has been, nor ever will be a god. I think that there simply is no logical reason to support the idea that a god exists, nor sufficient evidence that one does or did exist. Faith in and of itself, to me, is simply not something I have ever experienced, and as such maybe that is my shortcoming. But I must play the cards that have been dealt to me, and based upon those cards, at this point in the game of life – I don’t not believe in god.

**Butterfly** · 05-12-2008, 07:52 PM

not sure which one is more annoying, the believers or the atheists

could it be possible that they are both wrong ?

**ChiangMai noon** · 05-12-2008, 07:54 PM

Originally Posted by Butterfly

could it be possible that they are both wrong ?

i don't think so butterfly.

there's either a creator that people think is god or there isn't.

**DrivingForce** · 05-12-2008, 07:56 PM

Originally Posted by wandering

God chooses who He will take and keep. It has nothing with who He loves.

says who??

Originally Posted by wandering

What audacity for a human to assume.

nearly as much as you display by pretending to KNOW gods master plan..

Originally Posted by wandering

You say God is evil, He allows cruelty.....

where did I say that? linky please?

Originally Posted by wandering

I am only judgmental of Christopher Reeves for pushing the boundaries on which babies we can harvest (murder) for our own selfish gain. So you advocate killing people for their stem cells huh?

inaccurate and uninformed........stem cells are being harvested from a given persons own tissues from such places as the nose, hips and other various locations.. having nothing to do with fetuses your information is as outdated as your perspective..

Originally Posted by wandering

Does that mean the scientific community can use yours? right now? I didn't think so

sure they could, and it would be a painless procedure relatively speaking if it would save my childs life or someone else in my family it would be well worth it if it wasn't a painless procedure..

Originally Posted by wandering

Medicine in USA sucks and he received no help from the hospital or the insurance company after one month after the surgery to fused his neck bones together.

sorry but...........

why did you go to a hospital in the first place then? instead you should have just brought him home and prayed over his injuries..then if he healed as you say you might have some real claim of devine intervention..but since you didn't have that much "faith" your claim is spurious...

**Mid** · 05-12-2008, 07:59 PM

Agnosticism

**ChiangMai noon** · 05-12-2008, 08:00 PM

^
fence sitting.

**Bung** · 05-12-2008, 08:04 PM

Originally Posted by wandering

Had the attacks happened one day earlier there would have been tens of thousands more dead than were.

Now there is a true blue crack pot comment.

**Mid** · 05-12-2008, 08:07 PM

there's either a creator that people think is god or there isn't.

proof of one or the other please ?

**ChiangMai noon** · 05-12-2008, 08:11 PM

Originally Posted by Mid

proof of one or the other please ?

righteeho.

I'm an elf agnostic, a teapot in the sky agnostic and a yeti agnostic.

**Butterfly** · 05-12-2008, 08:13 PM

Originally Posted by ChiangMai noon

there's either a creator that people think is god or there isn't.

what makes you think it has to be a binary outcome ?

**Mid** · 05-12-2008, 08:18 PM

indeed , why not

depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently impossible to prove or disprove

**ChiangMai noon** · 05-12-2008, 08:28 PM

doesn't make any sense to me.

either there's a god, which of course there isn't or there isn't which of course there is.

**Butterfly** · 05-12-2008, 10:03 PM

Originally Posted by ChiangMai noon

doesn't make any sense to me.

of course it doesn't, like everything else you said in this thread

**wandering** · 05-12-2008, 10:46 PM

Originally Posted by DrivingForce

Originally Posted by wandering

I am only judgmental of Christopher Reeves for pushing the boundaries on which babies we can harvest (murder) for our own selfish gain. So you advocate killing people for their stem cells huh?

inaccurate and uninformed........stem cells are being harvested from a given persons own tissues from such places as the nose, hips and other various locations.. having nothing to do with fetuses your information is as outdated as your perspective..

Originally Posted by wandering

Does that mean the scientific community can use yours? right now? I didn't think so

sure they could, and it would be a painless procedure relatively speaking if it would save my childs life or someone else in my family it would be well worth it if it wasn't a painless procedure..

It is only a very recent turn of events in the scientific community that they have found a way to make full use of adult stem cells. But for many years until 2007 many scientists believed that fetus stem-cells were of higher value because they could be used to mutate into any part of the human body. It turns out that fetus cells are too hard to control.

Christopher Reeves, Hillary Clinton, Obama, and many other well known induhviduals tried hard to push the boundaries of 3rd trimester abortions so that their personal political or health agenda could be achieved.

Personally, I would not be willing to accept any health benefits that came from the suffering of other humans (such as from the advances in medicine made by Nazi torture).

DaffyDuck · 06-12-2008, 12:28 AM

Originally Posted by keda

I just think it's odd when gods get the credit for everything good and the devil for negatives...sounds a bit unfair to me, especially since it's not even clear that either exists.

Yeah, always amusing when religious people attribute a the survivors in a plane accident to God's 'grace', essentially implying that the other godless heathens on that plane deserved to die. This was particularly amusing in the case of a plane full of missionaries once.

Originally Posted by wandering

I don't know why He does what He does and neither do you.

Ah, yes, the old cop-out -- "God works in mysterious ways" or a variation of "Everything happens for a reason".

These people all follow the same scripts, I tell you.

Originally Posted by wandering

How can you judge His motives when He sees things so differently. It's easy to misjudge other humans motivations without proper explanation, so how about Someone who is so outside our comprehension that we couldn't fathom the answer.

Yet, oddly, you seem to be confident in knowing your god's purposes and motives... all the while claiming how non-believers couldn't possibly know... Kinda self-righteous...

Oh, and that stuff about how someone like Christopher Reeves deserved to die for not accepting God -- you truly are one very pathetic, sad, little person, illustrating the pathetic depths religious people stoop to in order to justify themselves.

**DrivingForce** · 06-12-2008, 12:33 AM

Originally Posted by DaffyDuck

Originally Posted by keda

I just think it's odd when gods get the credit for everything good and the devil for negatives...sounds a bit unfair to me, especially since it's not even clear that either exists.

Yeah, always amusing when religious people attribute a the survivors in a plane accident to God's 'grace', essentially implying that the other godless heathens on that plane deserved to die. This was particularly amusing in the case of a plane full of missionaries once.

Originally Posted by wandering

I don't know why He does what He does and neither do you.

Ah, yes, the old cop-out -- "God works in mysterious ways" or a variation of "Everything happens for a reason".

These people all follow the same scripts, I tell you.

Originally Posted by wandering

How can you judge His motives when He sees things so differently. It's easy to misjudge other humans motivations without proper explanation, so how about Someone who is so outside our comprehension that we couldn't fathom the answer.

Yet, oddly, you seem to be confident in knowing your god's purposes and motives... all the while claiming how non-believers couldn't possibly know... Kinda self-righteous...

Oh, and that stuff about how someone like Christopher Reeves deserved to die for not accepting God -- you truly are one very pathetic, sad, little person, illustrating the pathetic depths religious people stoop to in order to justify themselves.

well said, have no more ammo so take this..

**spiff** · 06-12-2008, 12:45 AM

Originally Posted by ChiangMai noon

doesn't make any sense to me.

either there's a god, which of course there isn't or there isn't which of course there is.

Didn't you complain earlier about others trolling your "serious" thread with non-sense?

**spiff** · 06-12-2008, 02:09 AM

Originally Posted by MeMock

Spiff you came on very strong on this thread so I just assumed you were looking for an argument.

If you are curious to learn then thats great and I will lay off the personal digs.

I am going to direct you back to the same web site for Ken Ham as he is the CEO and the man behind it all. This is what they say on the age of the earth.

How old is the earth? - Answers in Genesis

I do tend to "come on very strong" when I detect bullshit.

Ok, thanks for the link, from the same partisan Christian apologist website. Let's have a look at it:

It's introduction:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1).
The question of the age of the earth has produced heated discussions on debate boards, classrooms, TV, radio, and in many churches, Christian colleges, and seminaries. The primary sides are:

Young earth proponents (biblical age of the earth and universe of about 6,000 years)1
Old earth proponents (secular age of the earth of about 4.5 billion years and a universe about 14 billion years old)2

The difference is immense! Let’s give a little history of where these two basic calculations came from and which worldview is more reasonable.

Right, an immense differences, indeed.
How come?

Where did a young-earth worldview come from?

Simply put, it came from the Bible.
...

Exactly.

Where did the old-earth worldview come from?

Prior to the 1700s, few believed in an old earth. The approximate 6,000-year age for the earth was challenged only rather recently, beginning in the late 18th century. These opponents of the biblical chronology essentially left God out of the picture. Three of the old-earth advocates included Comte de Buffon, who thought the earth was at least 75,000 years old. Pièrre LaPlace imagined an indefinite but very long history. And Jean Lamarck also proposed long ages.

Yep, science does leave god and the bible out of the picture.
The 'youngest' non-biblical estimate the article specifies is in fact the 75.000 years, from the 18th century Comte.

...From these men and others came the consensus view that the geologic layers were laid down slowly over long periods of time based on the rates we see them accumulating today. Hutton said:

The past history of our globe must be explained by what can be seen to be happening now. ... No powers are to be employed that are not natural to the globe, no action to be admitted except those of which we know the principle.14

This viewpoint is called naturalistic uniformitarianism, and would exclude any major catastrophes like Noah’s Flood. Though some, such as Cuvier and Smith, believed in multiple catastrophes separated by long periods of time, the uniformitarian concept became the ruling dogma in geology.

Yep, no biblical references or supernatural aspersions in science. And no, it does not "exclude" natural catastrophies such as floods.

Thinking biblically, we can see that the global Flood in Genesis 6–8 would wipe away the concept of millions of years, for this Flood would explain massive amounts of fossil layers.

Well, I thought we were thinking scientific "old-earth worldview" in this chapter?

Table 5 Summary of the old-earth proponents for long ages

Who? Age of the earth When was this? Comte de Buffon
78 thousand years old
1779
Abraham Werner
1 million years
1786
James Hutton
Perhaps eternal, long Ages
1795
Pièrre LaPlace
Long ages
1796
Jean Lamarck
Long ages
1809
William Smith
Long ages
1835
Georges Cuvier
Long ages
1812
Charles Lyell
Millions of years
1830-1833
Lord Kelvin
20-100 million years
1862-1899
Arthur Holmes
1.6 billion years
1913

It gives estimates in chronological order, from 79.000 years in 1779 to 1.6 million in 1913.
All well beyond the biblical age.

Henry Morris accumulated a list of 68 uniformitarian estimates for the age of the earth by Christian and secular sources.19 The current accepted age of the earth is about 4.54 billion years based on radiometric dating meteorites,20 so keep this in mind when viewing Table 6.Table 6 Uniformitarian Estimates for earth’s Age accumulated by Dr Henry Morris

0 – 10,000 years
>10,000 – 100,000 years
>100,000 – 1 million years
>1 million – 500 million years
>500 million – 4 billion years
>4 billion – 5 billion years
Number of uniformitarian methods21
23
10
11
23
0
0

Ref. "19" links to an USGS article which asserts that "The oldest rocks on Earth, found in western Greenland, have been dated by four independent radiometric dating methods at 3.7-3.8 billion years.", not Henry Morris.

Presumably the 23 sources for 0-10.000 years are from the "Christian sources". Quite a peculiar and misleading table as the lowest specified non-biblical number in the 10-100.000 range in the is 79.000 years.

MeMock's article continues to go into the unreliability of radio-metric dating methods, and reaches the (predictable) conclusion:

If radiometric dating fails to get an accurate date on something of which we do know the true age, then how can it be trusted to give us the correct age for rocks that had no human observers to record when they formed? If the methods don’t work on rocks of known age, it is most unreasonable to trust that they work on rocks of unknown age. It is far more rational to trust the Word of the God who created the world, knows its history perfectly, and has revealed sufficient information in the Bible for us to understand that history and the age of the creation.

Not the slightest biased or irrational slant in the article, is there, MeMock?

The final chapter in the article:

When we start our thinking with God’s Word, we see that the world is about 6,000 years old. When we rely on man’s fallible (and often demonstrably false) dating methods, we can get a confusing range of ages from a few thousand to billions of years, though the vast majority of methods do not give dates even close to billions.
Cultures around the world give an age of the earth which confirms what the Bible teaches. Radiometric dates, on the other hand, have been shown to be wildly in error.

The age of the earth ultimately comes down to a matter of trust—it’s a worldview issue. Will you trust what an all-knowing God says on the subject or will you trust imperfect man’s assumptions and imaginations about the past that regularly are changing?

Thus says the LORD: “Heaven is My throne, and earth is My footstool. Where is the house that you will build Me? And where is the place of My rest? For all those things My hand has made, and all those things exist,” says the LORD.
But on this one will I look: On him who is poor and of a contrite spirit, and who trembles at My word (Isaiah 66:1–2).

Let me just point out that the article has not named a single scientist who puts the age at "a few thousand years", nor have you, MeMock.

Apart from the obvious bias, the article is rather sloppily reasearched and misrepresenting science.

For rebuttals of the creationist criticism of earth-dating, see Radiometric Dating for a brief and easy summary, or Comments on "The Radiometric Dating Game" - Part 1 for a detailed response to a particular creationist geo-scientist.

**Panda** · 06-12-2008, 05:46 AM

I have been a confirmed atheist since I was 13 and started thinking for myself.
Virtually all my friends and family hold religious beliefs of some description and it doesn't bother me as they are entitled to believe what they want. In addition, I do believe some kind of religious belief is needed by most people to keep them (sort of) honest and give them some direction in life.

My ex-wife sent our daughter to a Catholic school. And as a non-custodial parent I was worried it might drive a wedge between us. In primary school my daughter topped the class in religious studies. Eventually, came the day I Was dreading when she asked about my religious beliefs. I told her that I believed God and the Devil were inside all of us and its up to us to decide which one we are going to follow. Basically just Freuds theory about Id and Ego. She was quite happy about that and I breathed a sigh of relief. As my daughter got older she wanted to discuss things like "the ascension". She was getting smarter now so I had to be honest with her. Wont go into that discussion here, but we did have some interesting discussions.

As said earlier my daughter topped the class in religious studies at primary school. But in high school she started to challenge some of the teachings and was eventually barred from religious studies class as being a disruptive influence on the other students. That was probably a good thing for her as it showed her that those who don't just blindly obey and follow the teachings of the church will be ostracised and alienated.

My daughter is now 28 and has grown up into a wonderful person with a strong set of moral values. I think she is probably an atheist but I have never bothered to ask her about it as it doesn't matter to me.

**Looper** · 06-12-2008, 09:08 AM

Originally Posted by watterinja

You only need look around you to see that the universe was designed by a superior being

There is a lot of evidence to support the theory of evolution. We are clearly evolved from lesser beings. So if eyes and all that are too complex to evolve how come the supreme being only created us half way there and then let us evolve the rest of the way?

However the theory does fall over a bit when you notice, as CMn pointed out, that dogs do not have hands

**Butterfly** · 06-12-2008, 09:42 AM

There is no such thing as an atheist,

DaffyDuck · 06-12-2008, 12:40 PM

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. There is no such thing as a 'lesser' being - creatures you consider 'lesser' can be tremendously better adapted to conditions you could not handle, just as we are adapted to different conditions, and we each have different adapted abilities.

Evolution is erroneously often perceived as a development from 'lesser' to 'higher' life forms, when it is in fact simply a mechanism of adaptation and the resultant process of speciation and differentiation.

'lesser' and 'higher' somehow denotes that we as humans are assumed to be 'higher' when we are nothing of the sort.

DaffyDuck · 06-12-2008, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by spiff

Where did wandering suggest Reeves deserved to die???

Oh, I'm sorry, you must have missed:

Originally Posted by wandering

Christopher reeves specifically asked people Not to Pray for him since he was going to rely on science not some silly fairy tale.
My dad had lots of people praying for him.
Christopher Reeves invested in a horrible form of stem-cell research where just aborted babies have spinal fluid sucked out of them. He chose to believe that life only begins after a 9 month delivery. Christopher believed that this research would offer a cure. He also had several human ginea-pigs do some trial surgeries just to get it right before he was willing to venture with those procedures. There were some deaths.
My dad is someone who on numerous occasions risked his life for others. But really, I think it was more about prayer than him being a good person.
Was Christopher evil? No. I just think he didn't understand this complex universe.

Through the transparent juxtaposition of Christopher Reeves (did evil and horrible things and rejected God) and Wandering's Dad (much deserving and was prayed for by 'good' people), and the explanation how Daddy was 'saved' and 'healed' --- the silent implication of "...and we all know how Christopher Reeves died" the implication is more than spoken out loud that Wandering clearly feels Reeves deserved his fate (well, as much as W could say so without catapulting themselves into the confessional). It's a passive aggressive verbal backstabbing almost as old as the Universe (i.e. 6,000 years, for the gullible), and I simply call people on it when I see it.

Originally Posted by spiff

What is pathetic is your unprovoked denigrating and resorting to personal insults.

Apologies accepted anytime...

Thread: The God Delusion

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions