The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True - by Richard Dawkins

[LanDroid]

It's idiotic to claim there in no "god" by saying there is no Zuess or Apollo.

You don't believe in Zeus, Apollo, or Thor? Yet no one has ever disproved their existence. Indeed, how could their existence be definitively disproved, have any ideas? Would different gods require different proofs? In the absence of such proof, why don't you believe in them?

And this continual attack on an Old Testament god is child's play.

Wait. In addition to Zeus, Apollo, and Thor, you also do not believe in the eternal God of the Old Testament, in spite of the fact that Yahweh's existence has never been (and cannot be) disproved? I'd venture to say there are thousands of other gods you don't believe in, so let's just say we are atheist towards exactly one more god than you are and leave it at that.

[youkrst]

You and other atheists like Dawkins are simply guessing there's "probably almost certainly no god" as you safely put it.

it's the definition of "god" that is a problem though

if "god" means "the yahweh who literally smote historical amalekites" or "the krishna who actually was a literally blue person" then i think the atheists or anyone else would be perfectly justified in rejecting such a dud and somewhat retarded literal interpretation.

however if "god" means "unknown mystery beyond the normal 5 sense perception" then that would be a different idea. most people love a good mystery, including scientists.

so if someone says there is probably no god as talked about by orthodox literalist fundamentalism then i would say yeah not a chance, that god would be dumber than the chickens that hatched him.

but equally if someone says there is nothing beyond what we currently understand well that would be dumb too. (i cant recall hearing ANYONE say that)

if we just ditch literalism then we can all get along fine.

[youkrst]

The trouble with cowardly agnostics is that they trumpet science as the only source of knowledge
That is quite ignorant

can you then name some other sources ant? so i can understand better what you mean.

[ant]

All my responses vanished from here.
Nice

[geo]

The trouble with cowardly agnostics is that they trumpet science as the only source of knowledge
That is quite ignorant

can you then name some other sources ant? so i can understand better what you mean.

Good luck trying to get anything out of Ant except for these tirades and rants. I don't know if he can make a distinction between agnostics and atheists. He likes to depict all atheists as a monolithic two-dimensional cardboard cutout so he can just attack it. That's all he seems to want to do.

[ant]

I actually had a few responses but like I said, all gone.

[Interbane]

And further more, I hate to break the news to all the pure logical scientific worshiping minds but "logic" only goes so far and you will NOT, repeat after me, you will NOT be able to arrive at a definitive definition of "reality" with it.
The foundations of the material world seems to be the quantum relm
Quantum mechanics is NOT logical. It does not subscribe to man's logic.

The trouble with cowardly agnostics is that they trumpet science as the only source of knowledge
That is quite ignorant

Cowardly agnostics, eh? Better than being a jelly-brained bible thumper. How about dropping the emotion-laden language? It goes both ways ant.

You aren't breaking news to anyone. What you think is "news" is well understood by atheistic philosophers the world over. This world is difficult to understand. Where all our tools fall short independently, we need to combine the understanding gained from them as a whole. Even then, the picture we're able to paint is left wanting.

That doesn't justify believing in mythical stories of gods and resurrections. These processes that have delivered us pudding have proven themselves reliable. If you mock them as you are, it shows you don't understand their true place. Or are you angry at a scarecrow?

[ant]

we need to combine the understanding gained from them as a whole. Even then, the picture we're able to paint is left wanting.

I don't know what the heck happened to all my responses. Nevertheless..,

So you do agree that there are more schools of thought that we need to help our understanding, as best we can, of "reality," right?

I actually agreed with some of what our friend Yorky posted about the definition of "god."
"God" has become a loaded word. Most hardboiled atheists can not get past their anger at the god of the old testament.

And, yes, agnostics are nothing more than cowardly atheists who can not fully commit to an admission of ignorance about reality because of their gross arrogance.

Most here merely parrot Dawkins, Atkins, Hitch, etc.
Actually, I respect someone like Sam Harris, now that he has begun to distance himself from fellow atheists that do not distinguish the smaller segments of radical religious ideologists from others that practice their faith peacefully and lovingly.

"Religion" doesn't fly people into buildings. Idiotic, murderous radicals that pervert religion fly into buildings.
I object to people like our friend here, Mr. Johnson, who preach these myopic views of religion.

[ant]

Ps.

Happy holiday to you

[tbarron]

All my responses vanished from here.
Nice

Weird. I still see seven messages from you in this thread before your post saying all your responses had vanished.

I hear that you don't like atheists because you don't believe they can prove their assertion that god does not exist.

I hear that you don't like agnostics because you see them as wishy-washy atheists who aren't brave enough to make an assertion you believe to be untrue.

And, yes, agnostics are nothing more than cowardly atheists who can not fully commit to an admission of ignorance about reality because of their gross arrogance.

This seems exactly backwards to me. The agnostic position as I understand it *is* an admission of ignorance about reality -- that we can't know whether gods exist. And that seems to me the opposite of arrogance. So I don't understand why you think people who adopt that position are arrogant or cowardly. It seems to me than someone who identifies themselves as an agnostic is "fully [committing] to an admission of ignorance about reality" and therefore don't fit your description above.

Actually, I respect someone like Sam Harris, now that he has begun to distance himself from fellow atheists that do not distinguish the smaller segments of radical religious ideologists from others that practice their faith peacefully and lovingly.

In the writings of Harris that I've read, he distinguishes religious radicals and moderates in order to make the point that peaceful moderate religion and the cultural baggage that goes with it ("tolerance means that all religious opinions must be respected") enables and protects violent radical religious thought and activity. As far as I can tell, it's not that he likes moderate religion more than radical religion. My impression is that he's less tolerant of moderate religion than other atheists who emphasize the distinction less.

In one of your disappeared responses that I still see, you said

It's idiotic to claim there in no "god" by saying there is no Zuess or Apollo.
And this continual attack on an Old Testament god is child's play.

This was in response to

"No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, the nonexistence of Zeus or Thor - but they have few followers now."
- Sir Arthur C. Clarke

Why would you think Sir Arthur Clarke was attacking the Old Testament god? I don't have the context in which he said what LanDroid quoted, but as far as I can tell, it applies equally to Allah, Shiva, Brahman, Quan Ying, and any other deities I can think of.

As you said, may we all enjoy the holidays.