Is there a GOD?

2020hindsight · 30 November 2007

Wysiwyg said:
G`evening,
1. i don`t think nature `expects` us to respect the planet.

2. Why nature allowed the expansion of thought and (for want of a better word) intelligence in the first place is unknown and certainly not self preserving but more self destructing.

3. So it makes me wonder why thought has been allowed to continue when life does not need thought to exist.

gday wys

I'll start with 3...(easiest in my way of thinking anyway)
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=219493&highlight=galileo#post219493

"I do not think it is necessary to believe that the same God who has given us our senses, reason, and intelligence wished us to abandon their use, giving us by some other means the information that we could gain through them." ibid., p. 226
--Galileo Galilei (1564--1642)

I'm with this old fashioned theory (400year old

)

PS I agree with you that we have the power to reason , let's use it ! (not sure I understand why it should be self destructing)

2020hindsight · 30 November 2007

from a previous post ...

I also believe in a life force - gotta feeling these quotes ( which I scribbled / copied as a much younger man) are based on a book I found on Wordsworth, and also on Paul William's "Das Energi".
http://paulwilliams.com/Das.html

"In the poetry of Wordsworth, the pleasure taken in the forms of the natural world, especially in rural scenes , is almost invariably associated with the thought of universal nature conceived of as an orderly system." etcetc (since then it's become a bit more disorderly lol)

Quote:
"If we make a list of words for God, we will have a list of words, we will not have God. Energy flows through all things.

"When we draw lines - between black and white, young and old, our side and your side, - maybe we should learn to draw in vanishing ink.
Babies draw no lines. Children by nature draw lines with disappearing ink. Only adults who do not choose otherwise are guilty of the lines in our society , and of teaching these lines to children.

"The lines between right and wrong, good and evil, are the only lines worth drawing. Honesty is such a line, We must test all the options and learn truth - discarding wrong as panning for gold washes away dirt. It is the process of elimination that reveals the true metal.

"How can we draw a line between ourselves and God, when our souls are part of God? when Nature lives in us? "

just something to think about over a beer

Quote:
"Man that creature who believes his purpose is to control and conquer Nature must remember the obvious - that he is part of Nature himself.

2020hindsight · 30 November 2007

But I agree wys - the personification of god or nature is totally "optional"-

but (IMO)
whether or not nature is involved , in the end "morality" demands that we look after the planet and the others in the third world and the animal kingdom and wildlife generally who also rely on it (IMO).

Wysiwyg said:
So it makes me wonder why thought has been allowed to continue when life does not need thought to exist.

survival of the mentally fittest? - I dont know either, lol

Julia · 30 November 2007

MS+Tradesim said:
Hopefully, my final post in this thread:

It is very easy to discuss all this abstractly. I've spent years studying philosophy and religion in both formal and private settings. I've been an atheist. I'm now a believer. There are others who have gone the opposite direction. I am now far more interested in the practical outcome of belief or disbelief.

I now find for me that the important questions are....

Am I a better person?
Am I less selfish?
How can I positively impact others?
How can I use my wealth to get the best bang for my buck in terms of funding organisations working to eradicate poverty, preventable disease, sex slave trade, education and development in third world nations, worthwhile causes in Australia etc?

Your posts suggests that before you became a believer, you had not formulated the above set of questions to ask yourself. Is this right?
Do you not think it's possible to be, e.g. less selfish, positively impact on others, and use your wealth responsibly without believing in a God?

2020hindsight · 30 November 2007

............
wizard of id on the subject of the meaning of life

MS+Tradesim · 30 November 2007

2020hindsight said:
2. like you, (and Richard Dawkins) I am also interested in the practical outcomes of these beliefs - and there's a heap of evidence in his lectures that suggest that belief can lead to big problems - total scientific blindness for a start.

Do you think disbelief naturally lends itself to a positive and helpful way of life? Hmmm....Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and no doubt more. It is ridiculous to argue that because some believers despise science and act atrociously, then all belief is wrong. There is nothing remotely logical or sensible about that claim. Unbelief has more than its share of atrocity but I would be embarrassed and displaying irrationality to use that as an argument that therefore unbelief should be rejected. And Dawkins is not a poster child for progressive discussion between different worldviews. I'd suggest spending more reading time with guys like Michael Ruse or Quentin Smith. Dawkins is about as intellectually inspiring to a well-read theist as Answers-in-Genesis is to a thoughtful unbeliever. Fundamentalists of any persuasion generally shut down dialogue.

http://www.csicop.org/si/2007-02/fundamentalists.html

MS+Tradesim · 30 November 2007

Julia said:
Your posts suggests that before you became a believer, you had not formulated the above set of questions to ask yourself. Is this right?

No. Sorry for not wording it more clearly. What I meant was that in terms of reflective thought I now prefer to spend more time on these issues than in abstract thinking and discussion on whether or not God exists.

Do you not think it's possible to be, e.g. less selfish, positively impact on others, and use your wealth responsibly without believing in a God?

Of course it's possible. Not only possible but actual. I know of people who have no belief in God or at least are agnostic yet are models of generosity and compassion.

Wysiwyg · 30 November 2007

2020hindsight said:
But I agree wys - the personification of god or nature is totally "optional"-

but (IMO)
whether or not nature is involved , in the end "morality" demands that we look after the planet and the others in the third world and the animal kingdom and wildlife generally who also rely on it (IMO).

survival of the mentally fittest? - I dont know either, lol

Yes, dealing with the situation in front of humanity now is more practical than asking/contemplating why.I have to admit i care more for animals and plants than many humans. (including my own selfishness implant)

On the quotes thing i think Steven King sums up the best.Thanks for good discussion/reasoning on the subject hindsight 2020

ps it is going to rain in the s.e. of Queensland `cause the ants are going munyuck on water and food particles around the house.

2020hindsight · 30 November 2007

MS+Tradesim said:
Do you think disbelief naturally lends itself to a positive and helpful way of life? Hmmm....Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and no doubt more. It is ridiculous to argue that because some believers despise science and act atrociously, then all belief is wrong. There is nothing remotely logical or sensible about that claim. Unbelief has more than its share of atrocity but I would be embarrassed and displaying irrationality to use that as an argument that therefore unbelief should be rejected. And Dawkins is not a poster child for progressive discussion between different worldviews. I'd suggest spending more reading time with guys like Michael Ruse or Quentin Smith. Dawkins is about as intellectually inspiring to a well-read theist as Answers-in-Genesis is to a thoughtful unbeliever. Fundamentalists of any persuasion generally shut down dialogue.

http://www.csicop.org/si/2007-02/fundamentalists.html

m8 - I am so so sick of people telling me how intellectually deficient Dawkins is -
I still wait for one twig of evidence that something he said is wrong.

of course generalisations are dangerous.
corollaries don't automatically follow.
because one atheist (perhaps Pol Pot etc) is 'wrong' in many directions doesn't mean another is wrong , or monotheists are correct.

what's your opinion of Hovind?
now there is an ignorant bore of the first order. (IMO)
and so easily proven to be wrong on almost everything he says.

2020hindsight · 30 November 2007

MS+Tradesim said:
Of course it's possible. Not only possible but actual. I know of people who have no belief in God or at least are agnostic yet are models of generosity and compassion.

I'm pleased we agree that religion is irrelevant to whether or not someone is capable of doing a good deed.

Now to explore motives - here's Einstein on that topic

A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
--Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

2020hindsight · 1 December 2007

2020hindsight said:
what's your opinion of Hovind?
now there is an ignorant bore of the first order. (IMO)
and so easily proven to be wrong on almost everything he says.

Kent Hovind - Truth in Arguments

Ali G has him figured ...

Science, evolution, and creation: Ali G vs Kent Hovind

2020hindsight · 1 December 2007

Proof (for those who like this sort of reasoning)

The Argument from Beauty (challenged by Richard Dawkins)

MS+Tradesim · 1 December 2007

2020hindsight said:
m8 - I am so so sick of people telling me how intellectually deficient Dawkins is -
I still wait for one twig of evidence that something he said is wrong.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/002/1.21.html
http://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/The_Dawkins_Delusion.aspx?ArticleID=50&PageID=47&RefPageID=11
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19775
http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7803

what's your opinion of Hovind?
now there is an ignorant bore of the first order. (IMO)
and so easily proven to be wrong on almost everything he says.

Hovind...hmmm. Not my idea of a dinner party guest.

jessicaroy · 1 December 2007

tech/a said:
Do you believe in god.

Of course, I do. Who else would I blame for my failures then?

wayneL · 1 December 2007

2020hindsight said:
m8 - I am so so sick of people telling me how intellectually deficient Dawkins is...

Jeez mate, your sounding a bit like a... disciple?

Come now; Dawkins is an intelligent theorist and hypothesizer, but a monopoly on the ultimate truth he ain't got. As MS's links show, some of his hypotheses can be shown to be total rubbish. :2twocents

Sean K · 1 December 2007

MS+Tradesim said:
Hopefully, my final post in this thread:

It is very easy to discuss all this abstractly. I've spent years studying philosophy and religion in both formal and private settings. I've been an atheist. I'm now a believer.

Believer in what MS+T? Please define your God for us. I don't think I've heard about your God yet, and I'm very interested in learning about another one. Cheers, kennas

2020hindsight · 1 December 2007

MS+Tradesim said:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/002/1.21.html
http://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/The_Dawkins_Delusion.aspx?ArticleID=50&PageID=47&RefPageID=11
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19775
http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7803

Hovind...hmmm. Not my idea of a dinner party guest.

Ok you give no specifics (despite the fact that that was the point of my complaint), so I guess I'm expected to read em all to try to find out if there's any substance

from your first link ...

The God Delusion is an extended diatribe against religion in general and belief in God in particular; Dawkins and Daniel Dennett (whose recent Breaking the Spell is his contribution to this genre) are the touchdown twins of current academic atheism.

don't see much evidence there ... plenty of emotive claims of course

1 Dawkins has written his book, he says, partly to encourage timorous atheists to come out of the closet. He and Dennett both appear to think it requires considerable courage to attack religion these days; says Dennett, "I risk a fist to the face or worse. Yet I persist." Apparently atheism has its own heroes of the faith—at any rate its own self-styled heroes. Here it's not easy to take them seriously; religion-bashing in the current Western academy is about as dangerous as endorsing the party's candidate at a Republican rally.

This is nonsense - Dawkins has interviewed atheists in USA bible belts who are ostracised!! meet like a mob of social outcasts . plenty of you tube on that .

Dawkins is perhaps the world's most popular science writer; he is also an extremely gifted science writer.

No argument from me there -

(For example, his account of bats and their ways in his earlier book The Blind Watchmaker is a brilliant and fascinating tour de force.) The God Delusion, however, contains little science;

maybe less science than his other books - of which there are many - science at a detail which this critic wouldn't even begin to understand probably (not saying I could either - I'm not a University professor - and Oxford after all is hardly a mug's school for also-rans)

it is mainly philosophy and theology (perhaps "atheology" would be a better term) and evolutionary psychology, along with a substantial dash of social commentary decrying religion and its allegedly baneful effects. As the above quotation suggests, one shouldn't look to this book for evenhanded and thoughtful commentary.

So we are to take your "above quotation" as correct and move on to the next level of this logical stairway to the truth in the matter ...

In fact the proportion of insult, ridicule, mockery, spleen, and vitriol is astounding.

But is it true or not .....

I have already posted his comments on "the God of the old testament" elsewhere.

Does this critic (or anyone here) doubt what he says?

(Could it be that his mother, while carrying him, was frightened by an Anglican clergyman on the rampage?) If Dawkins ever gets tired of his day job, a promising future awaits him as a writer of political attack ads.

wowo lol so scientific here lol.
About the same level of wit and humour as Hovind

I guess I check out another of those links ...

Incidentally, :topic rumour only, but probably more factual than anything I'll read on that first link .......heard it on ABC radio yesterday, Adam Spencer -

Hitler's great great grandmother was a Jewish maid apparently. Spencer concludes that she was either a terrible grandmother, or a terrible maid, but certainly something seems to have pissed off young Adolf along the way

2020hindsight · 1 December 2007

MS here's one for you to read ..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins

Dawkins is an outspoken antireligionist, atheist, secular humanist, and sceptic, and he is a supporter of the Brights movement.[1] In a play on Thomas Huxley's epithet "Darwin's bulldog", Dawkins' impassioned advocacy of evolution has earned him the appellation "Darwin's rottweiler". [2]

Maybe I just like rotties

MS+Tradesim · 1 December 2007

No, I didn't give specifics because I generally don't do homework for other people. Of the first link I offered, you appear to have quoted a few soundbites from early in the piece. Well, yes, the first 4-5 paragraphs are really just overall impressions that Plantinga has about Dawkins book. But if you read and digest the whole article you will find some more overt interaction with some of Dawkin's main premises, and those arguments are developed in great detail and sophistication elsewhere in the literature. For instance, if you really actually want to grapple with the supposed problem that evil creates for theists then read God, Freedom and Evil by Alvin Plantinga.

As I've elsewhere stated the unbelievers I take seriously are guys like Michael Ruse and Quentin Smith (just for example, there are also others). But you will not move me, or in fact any thinking theist, by approvingly pointing to Dawkins. Dawkins is about as convincing as Hovind. Why is that so surprising? Do you have a prior commitment to Dawkins? Or to reasoned thought? If reasoned thought, then read reasonable atheistic/agnostic/theistic/whatever thinkers.

2020hindsight · 1 December 2007

MS+Tradesim said:
Dawkins is about as convincing as Hovind. Why is that so surprising? Do you have a prior commitment to Dawkins?

MS, I'd be amazed if more than 5% of people around here agreed with you that Dawkins and Hovind are equally convincing.

If you insist on that line, (when one is shown to be wrong at almost every quote, and the other yet to be specifically faulted) - then I consider your recommendations of what more to read etc to be pretty optional reading .

Apart from that I have already agreed with you that god is an idea that cannot be touched, observed or measured.

And I've agreed that a person doesn't have to believe in God to do a good deed but I like Einstein's judgment that it's more noble to do it out of generosity rather than a hope of eternal heavenly reward

I disagree with your previous post :-

MS+Tradesim said:
People actually still think this is a logical objection?! There are only three possibilities.
1) The universe created itself
2) The universe is uncreated
3) Something/someone created the universe

1) is impossible. It would need to exist prior to itself in order to create itself.
2) has been shown wrong. The universe had a beginning.
3) hence, something/someone created the universe

While this does not prove God, it shows the universe had a creator.

It proves nothing. - and I could care less how long you have studied philosophy or anything else ...

But to finish on an agreement .....

So whether or not you like it, ultimately everyone makes certain basic assumptions about reality which are untestable and unprovable. Pick one. Just don't consider yourself more logical, rational or enlightened because you picked a different one to someone else.

spot on . .... untestable, unproven (just some take the guesswork further than others)

......faith, hope,

......and hopefully a bit of charity thrown in

..... ideally for unselfish motives

As someone said, "A philosopher is a blind man looking for a black cat in a darkened room on a pitch back night. A religious man finds it." :2twocents

Is there a GOD?

Do you believe in GOD?

Absolutely no question--I know

I cannot know for sure--but strongly believe in the existance of god

I am very uncertain but inclined to believe in god

God's existance is equally probable and improbable

I dont think the existance of god is probable

I know there is no GOD we are a random quirk of nature

2020hindsight

2020hindsight

2020hindsight

Julia

In Memoriam

2020hindsight

Attachments

MS+Tradesim

MS+Tradesim

Wysiwyg

Everyone wants money

2020hindsight

2020hindsight

2020hindsight

2020hindsight

MS+Tradesim

jessicaroy

wayneL

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

Sean K

Moderator

2020hindsight

2020hindsight

MS+Tradesim

2020hindsight

Similar threads

Connect with us