New Dawkins book: "The God Delusion"

[tarav]

LOL! Seriously though, I can't wait for that new Dawkins book to come out. If this thread is any indication of how a discussion of that book will go, it should prove to be a great discussion if it wins.

[Mr. P]

MAuron:Quote:It goes beyond just what we'd call nature. It encompases many feilds, physics for one, astronamy.And we all know that physics and astronomy have nothing at all to do with nature... Mr. P. Mr. P's place. I warned you!!!The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

[Frank 013]

MaesterAuron151We are still talking about nature. You are sighting constant laws, these do not show intelligence. I might agree with you if they changed sharply to make some event or another happen but they do not, they simply are. Here is an example: Without gravity there could be no life as we know it. But gravity is there, a constant pull from objects in space. It does not change or waver it just pulls, indifferent to the musings of men.It is not intelligence.Later

[Chris OConnor]

MaesterAuron151Quote:Nature generally is reguarded as adhering to biology. According to Dictionary.com Nature is defined as:Quote:1. the material world, esp. as surrounding humankind and existing independently of human activities. 2. the natural world as it exists without human beings or civilization. 3. the elements of the natural world, as mountains, trees, animals, or rivers. 4. natural scenery. 5. the universe, with all its phenomena. 6. the sum total of the forces at work throughout the universe. 7. reality, as distinguished from any effect of art: a portrait true to nature. 8. the particular combination of qualities belonging to a person, animal, thing, or class by birth, origin, or constitution; native or inherent character: human nature. 9. the instincts or inherent tendencies directing conduct: a man of good nature. 10. character, kind, or sort: two books of the same nature. 11. characteristic disposition; temperament: a self-willed nature; an evil nature. 12. the original, natural, uncivilized condition of humankind. 13. the biological functions or the urges to satisfy their requirements. 14. a primitive, wild condition; an uncultivated state. 15. a simple, uncluttered mode of life without the conveniences or distractions of civilization: a return to nature. 16. (initial capital letter, italics) a prose work (1836), by Ralph Waldo Emerson, expounding transcendentalism. 17. Theology. the moral state as unaffected by grace. Edited by: Chris OConnor  at: 9/16/06 1:47 am

[Chris OConnor]

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines Nature as:Quote:1 a : the inherent character or basic constitution of a person or thing : ESSENCE b : DISPOSITION, TEMPERAMENT2 a : a creative and controlling force in the universe b : an inner force or the sum of such forces in an individual3 : a kind or class usually distinguished by fundamental or essential characteristics 4 : the physical constitution or drives of an organism; especially : an excretory organ or function -- used in phrases like the call of nature5 : a spontaneous attitude (as of generosity)6 : the external world in its entirety7 a : humankind's original or natural condition b : a simplified mode of life resembling this condition8 : the genetically controlled qualities of an organism9 : natural sceneryAgain, biology is not mentioned even once.MaesterAuron151, I do hope you stick around. We all stand to learn from our discussions here at BookTalk. It appears you have a strong interest in some really exciting subjects, but your self-confidence might be out-weighing your real education level. I know you're only 16 years old, so you deserve kudos for even caring about these subjects, but you sure have a great deal of bad information in your head - probably injected by reading the wrong material or listening to uneducated and biased religious leaders.

[MaesterAuron151]

Quote:MaesterAuron151We are still talking about nature. You are sighting constant laws, these do not show intelligence. I might agree with you if they changed sharply to make some event or another happen but they do not, they simply are.Here is an example: Without gravity there could be no life as we know it. But gravity is there, a constant pull from objects in space. It does not change or waver it just pulls, indifferent to the musings of men.It is not intelligence.I never said individual forces were intelegent. I believe the overal pattern has an order.Quote:MaesterAuron151, I do hope you stick around. We all stand to learn from our discussions here at BookTalk. It appears you have a strong interest in some really exciting subjects, but your self-confidence might be out-weighing your real education level. I know you're only 16 years old, so you deserve kudos for even caring about these subjects, but you sure have a great deal of bad information in your head - probably injected by reading the wrong material or listening to uneducated and biased religious leaders.Quite on the contrary it is such individuals that have turned me away from the Church. What really did it was an anti abortion presentation. I don't even support abortion but the shear bias was just too much. I got confirmed entirely for my parent's sake.I have made a conclusion about the religeon argument. Its just like any other argument, endless and futile. Both sides are blind to the other's argument and continue lashing out at one another secure in the "knowledge" that they are right and that only through getting everyone else to adhere to their point of view will the world find harmony.Let me explain why what you're doing is futile. Lots of very religeous people believe that they can actually sense god when they pray. How do you combat this? Religeon is too personal, you can't defeate a theists faith any more then a religeous person can make you pick up some rosary beads.

[Saint Gasoline]

Quote:In our world objects are constantly going from a state of motion to a state of rest. The outside forces alway seem to be objects also going from a state of motion to a state of rest. An intelectual void still exists.I'm not sure why you think this is relevant to the existence of God. That "intellectual void" could be filled by anything, even something natural. You are using an argument known as a "God of the gaps" argument. It amounts to little more than this: "We have no explanation for X, so God must explain it!" As you can see, though, this is not an adequate argument for God's existence. For instance, before people had explained how the sun produces energy, it would have been quite wrong to argue that since we have no explanation, it must mean that magical elves explain this fact.But, to be sure, I think you misunderstand Newtonian physics. There is no intellectual void. Think of the Newtonian world as a pool table. Motion and rest are products of forces, and objects in motion or at rest tend to stay that way, unless acted on by something else. So, we look at the table and see that some of the balls that are resting are hit by other balls and subsequently move, and that some balls that are moving hit balls and subsequently stop. As you can see, there is no "intellectual void"--Newtonian physics accounts for how motion and rest are possible without resorting to using God as an explanation. Newton's conception of God, for instance, was that God created the initial physical constants and laws--not that he was needed to explain empirical facts about reality.Quote:Just as easily. Would you like to rephrase that because that's what I've been getting at.I don't think you understand the implications of my argument. I basically said that given cosmological arguments, one could just as easily attribute "first cause' status to the universe or other natural objects instead of God. Does this mean God is just as good a hypothesis? Not at all.When I say it is "just as easy" to attribute this quality to natural objects, this is NOT the same thing as saying that both hypotheses are of equal validity.The reason why is obvious--the concept of God is invented SOLELY to explain existence of various physical objects. We don't know that such a God exists, but only infer it as an explanatory entity. However, once we realize that we can "explain" this fact without inventing a God concept, and by using objects we already know to exist, then this hypothesis is far more likely to be correct because it doesn't assume the existence of something without warrant. For instance, if I say the universe is the first cause, I'm not assuming the existence of the universe--I already know it exists.

[Saint Gasoline]

Quote:I never said individual forces were intelegent. I believe the overal pattern has an order.What makes you think order is God, as you have said earlier? If I take some disorganized CDs and put them into alphabetical order, I have created order, but few would respond that this means I have created God.If you are arguing that order needs to be explained with God, then you are simply wrong. We know from various physical theories, evolution to name one, that order can spring from disorder without any need to posit a divine, intelligent designer. Selection pressures and trial and error can create order just fine.

[Chris OConnor]

Quote:Both sides are blind to the other's argument...The atheists on this site are far from blind to theistic arguments. In fact I know few atheists that don't fully understand the theists arguments. They find them irrational, unsupported and rather silly.Now, on the other hand, almost all theists I have interacted with have little to no understanding of atheism. Heck, they cannot even spell or define the word, have never read a book or essay from an atheist author, and cannot refute a single one of our arguments.I strongly believe the average atheist devotes much more time to understanding theism than theists do to atheism. Watch what happens in Q4 on BookTalk. Will you read and participate in the freethinker book? Of course you won't. Yes, this is a challenge. And I have read dozens of books written by theists.Edit:I'd like to add something in defense of the theists of BookTalk. You guys are not the norm, and I hope you can at least aree with me on that. You thrive on reading, thinking and discussing your faith and the opposing views. I've been debating faith vs. reason for a looong time. Rarely do I come across such educated and articulate theists. Yes, I know there are plenty of them out there, but my point is that they are not the norm. The average atheist comes across as educated. Edited by: Chris OConnor  at: 9/17/06 4:59 pm

[MaesterAuron151]

Quote:What makes you think order is God, as you have said earlier? If I take some disorganized CDs and put them into alphabetical order, I have created order, but few would respond that this means I have created God.Its an overal pattern thing. I actually realize now that my concept of god has varied in three distinct stages.Right now I'm on the god which my old Bio teacher recognizes. The unification of various forces in the universe. The only intelegence eing that of intelegent beings. These various forces combine to form an overal unity.Quote:If you are arguing that order needs to be explained with God, then you are simply wrong. We know from various physical theories, evolution to name one, that order can spring from disorder without any need to posit a divine, intelligent designer. Selection pressures and trial and error can create order just fine.In the exact same quote I said I don't believe that god explains order.Quote:The atheists on this site are far from blind to theistic arguments. In fact I know few atheists that don't fully understand the theists arguments. They find them irrational, unsupported and rather silly.They are far from blind to the ones they can refute. If I said that a Democrat was blind to a Republican's arguments he'd say exactly what you just said.Quote:I strongly believe the average atheist devotes much more time to understanding theism than theists do to atheism. Watch what happens in Q4 on BookTalk. Will you read and participate in the freethinker book? Of course you won't. Yes, this is a challenge. And I have read dozens of books written by theists.A challenge to me? I really wouldn't like to read either book. Just as I wouldn't want to read a Democrat's or a Republican's book. I'd want a book with an unbiased overview of the whole debate so I can sort out my own beliefes as I gain an understanding of the situation.