Dawkins!

[Storm]

But it's not. There is strong evidence that there is no God who answers prayers. Therefore belief in any such God is mistaken, wrong, false, a delusion. What's wrong with that argument?

What's wrong with that argument is that any devout 5-year-old has a rebuttal. This is not impressive, or original, or convincing. And that comes form someone who agrees with the basic premise.

Read back to the post I'm responding to. Yours, that is. Condescending? Just a tad?

I'm making a tremendous effort to remain civil towards someone who keeps insisting that I am delusional.

 

[Storm]

I already provided strong evidence (and can cite studies) that any personal God who answers prayers does not exist. As for a God who does not intervene in the real world--no evidence is possible, nor is it necessary. That God is defined as non-existent in our world.

Problem is, the evidence flops in the face of the theology. I don't even agree with that point of theology, and I am unimpressed.

 

[Autodidact]

And that would be a generous assessment. So, how to assess Dawkins' use of the same term? He is, at best, being deliberately inflammatory.

I don't think there's any question that Professor Dawkins is deliberately provocative, which is a good thing IMO.

 

[lilithu]

Or you might think that his opinion is wrong, but does not represent bigotry, only his opinion about the truth.

If someone makes a derogatory generalization about the entirety of a group of people, that is bigotry imo. Otherwise, what is your definition of bigotry?

 

[Autodidact]

Problem is, the evidence flops in the face of the theology. I don't even agree with that point of theology, and I am unimpressed.

How so? The theology that God doesn't answer prayers? O.K., the theology wins. God doesn't answer prayers. Please tell the Christians. Also the Muslims. And all those other people out there praying to their Gods. Now, what does God do?

 

[Storm]

I don't think there's any question that Professor Dawkins is deliberately provocative, which is a good thing IMO.

Really? How? Does it encourage productive conversation? Does it get "religionists" to consider his points?

 

[Storm]

How so? The theology that God doesn't answer prayers? O.K., the theology wins. God doesn't answer prayers. Please tell the Christians. Also the Muslims. And all those other people out there praying to their Gods. Now, what does God do?

"God answers all prayers, and sometimes the answer is 'no.'" This is very basic stuff.

 

[Autodidact]

If someone makes a derogatory generalization about the entirety of a group of people, that is bigotry imo. Otherwise, what is your definition of bigotry?

"Everyone who believes the earth is flat is wrong." Not bigotry. It's the logical extension of asserting that the earth is round.
"Muslims are evil, violent fanatics." Bigotry.

"All communists are wrong." Not bigotry.
"All communists are evil." Bigotry.

What Dawkins is saying is simply that God does not exist. If you believe He does, you are wrong, that is, suffering from a delusion. That's it. Not bigotry.

 

[Autodidact]

"God answers all prayers, and sometimes the answer is 'no.'" This is very basic stuff.

I did this already. The answer is no at the exact same mathematically precise rate as if He did not exist. This God "exists" in the exact same sense as "not existing."

"The invisible bears a powerful resemblance to the non-existent."

 

[Autodidact]

Really? How? Does it encourage productive conversation? Does it get "religionists" to consider his points?

Yes, witness this interesting thread.

 

[Storm]

"Everyone who believes the earth is flat is wrong." Not bigotry. It's the logical extension of asserting that the earth is round.
"Muslims are evil, violent fanatics." Bigotry.

"All communists are wrong." Not bigotry.
"All communists are evil." Bigotry.

What Dawkins is saying is simply that God does not exist. If you believe He does, you are wrong, that is, suffering from a delusion. That's it. Not bigotry.

It's only a delusion if you can present invalidating evidence. You still haven't done so, so please drop the ad hom.

 

[Sunstone]

Really? How? Does it encourage productive conversation? Does it get "religionists" to consider his points?

Dawkins has stated in a number of interviews that his target audience are people who are on the fence regarding religion, not people who are "religionists". So, he really isn't even trying to convert "religionists" to his views, nor is he trying to engage that group in a productive conversation.

 

[Storm]

Yes, witness this interesting thread.

You and I have different opinions of "productive". THerefore, yours is delusional.

 

[Valjean]

It's only a delusion if you can present invalidating evidence. You still haven't done so, so please drop the ad hom.

It is not up to the atheist to present invalidating evidence. It's the religionists making the extraordinary claims. The burden of proof is on them.

 

[Storm]

It is not up to the atheist to present invalidating evidence. It's the religionists making the extraordinary claims. The burden of proof is on them.

You can't have it both ways. Either you can prove that belief in God is false, or you can't justify calling it delusion.

 

[Storm]

Oh, and FTR, Burden of Proof is on anyone who makes positive claim. Positive claim is a statement of fact as opposed to opinion.

 

[Valjean]

I would alter that to "compelling evidence." Anecdotal evidence may not be worth a hill of beans, but it does qualify as evidence. Which is, of course, not to argue that anyone should be onvinced by it.

I aknowledge that individual experience can be very compelling. I've shaped my whole philosophy around it, but my experiences are mine alone. They're not evidence. Anyone accepting my outlook on the basis of my experience I'd consider a wako.

 

[lilithu]

Yes, witness this interesting thread.

Oh yeah, LOTS of productive conversation going on here.

 

[lilithu]

What Dawkins is saying is simply that God does not exist. If you believe He does, you are wrong, that is, suffering from a delusion. That's it. Not bigotry.

AGAIN, how you react to this hinges on whether or not you think what he's stating is actually TRUE.

Try it on the other way around.

Person X is simply saying that God does exist. If you believe that God does not, then you are wrong, that is, suffering from a delusion. Therefore all atheists are delusional.

Is this a statement which which you merely disagree, or do you find it offensive?

 

[Valjean]

You can't have it both ways. Either you can prove that belief in God is false, or you can't justify calling it delusion.

Athiests don't seek to prove that God doesn't exist. Their non-belief is based solely on the fact that there is no positive evidence for God, exactly the same as non-belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Tooth fairy.

Non-belief is the default position. We start out believing nothing, then formulate beliefs as evidence rolls in.
If it were reasonable to believe in something until evidence against it was presented, we'd all have to believe in Marduk and little green men from Mars.