Is it delusion of “The God delusion”?

[paarsurrey]

Seems that what flies in the name of 'science' is a bit interesting. First, the scientific method was formulated by Sir Fransic Bacan, a Christian Theist. Second, science if limited to whats in the box, the normative laws of nature set by the creator but can't go outside the box where a creator outside of time space and matter is. Third, it is falsely claimed science only deals with facts, science starts with faith claims whether naturalistic or otherwise taken a priori and goes from there.... religious assumptions of sort and often hidden assumptions..

Informative post:
"The Latin phrases a priori (lit. "from the earlier") and a posteriori (lit. "from the latter") are philosophical terms of art popularized by Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (first published in 1781, second edition in 1787), one of the most influential works in the history of philosophy.[1] However, in their Latin forms they appear in Latin translations of Euclid's Elements, of about 300 bce, a work widely considered during the early European modern period as the model for precise thinking.
These terms are used with respect to reasoning (epistemology) to distinguish "necessary conclusions from first premises" (i.e., what must come before sense observation) from "conclusions based on sense observation" (which must follow it). Thus, the two kinds of knowledge, justification, or argument[clarification needed] may be glossed:

• A priori knowledge or justification is independent of experience, as with mathematics (3 000 + 2 000 = 5 000), tautologies ("All bachelors are unmarried"), and deduction from pure reason (e.g., ontological proofs).[3]
• A posteriori knowledge or justification is dependent on experience or empirical evidence, as with most aspects of science and personal knowledge.

A priori and a posteriori - Wikipedia
Regards

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I didn't say anything about what type of evidence science is founded,

No; that was me.

however much of it isn't based on any evidence at all.

Care to give some examples to back up this claim?

What is the "it" referring to?

The god you referred to.

That was not the point. Your responses have almost nothing to do with what your responding to.

They were pointing out problems with your line of thinking. The fact that you don't see these problems as important just emphasizes this.

Basically someone said something about whether God can be detected by science.

1. I do not necessarily disagree with your statements about science but they don't change anything.

So you agree that there is no evidence for God within the scope of science?

2. I was addressing the philosophical mistake which was driving the line of reasoning I responded to. The claim that there is a lack of evidence for God is only valid if there should be more evidence and we do not have it. That isn't the case and I was starting the line of argumentation to show that.

This makes no sense. The bar for how much evidence you need to rationally justify a belief doesn't magically lower simply because you don't expect to get more evidence for God.

"I'd like to buy this Ferarri."
"Great - it's $300,000."
"I only have $10,000."
"That's too bad. The price is $300,000."
"Well, I'm not able to get any more than $10,000, so $10,000 is enough to buy it. Here's a cheque; can I have the keys, please?"

Do you think this is how the world works? That insufficient evidence somehow becomes sufficient if you can't get more?

3. I think your responses are in a different context.

As I said, was I was pointing out a problem with your line of thinking.

Excuses for why you don't have good justification aren't justification themselves.

Edit: Even if you established that science isn't up to the task of answering the question of whether gods exist, you still have the problem of establishing some other method to try to answer the question rationally. Until you do, your conclusion that your god exists is an irrational assumption.

There are two possibilities:

- you have justification for belief in God. Great - tell us what it is.
- you don't have justification for belief in God. In this case, it would be unjustified to believe in God.

Which is it? Making claims about how science isn't equipped to examine the question of gods does nothing to support the idea that your beliefs are justified.

 

[paarsurrey]

Then why do religious people think they can comment on science?
Dawkins, was religious as a child, he then started looking into scriptures and the likes and found errors, lack of evidence, etc. He started questioning the assertions made by vicars, priest, etc.
They could not give satisfactory answers. So he realised that god was man made and wrote a book explaining his thoughts.
If you ban non-religious people from writing about religion it gets a free pass. Religion is an idea, just like capitalism or socialism that should be scrutinised.

Look, the book is fine, but it does not claim to be a 'scripture' or a 'revealed word', it is just a book. A book that is easier to read and less ambiguous than any of the so called holy books

"Then why do religious people think they can comment on science?"
Did I? Please
Regards

 

[Altfish]

"He started questioning the assertions made by vicars, priest, etc". of Christianity.

That was OK, then he should have looked into other religions and prayed to G-d to find the truthful religion.
But he became superstitious in religious matters and subscribed to Atheism.
There he was wrong.

Regards

The abbreviation "etc." was meant to cover Imams, ayatollahs, mullahs, rabbis and any other denomination of a religion you care to mention.

He did not become superstitious in religious matters and one doesn't subscribe to atheism.
Atheism is not like a religion, it has no rituals, no creeds, no tenants, no laws, no commitments - it is very simply a lack of belief in gods.

 

[David T]

Well whatever he is doing he is producing a reaction. Theist can't seem to stop talking about the guy.

Of course not, he justifies neo-theism fantasies. It's like seeing ones own fantasies in an opposite and justifying them because they see his as not their own. He is a neo theist himself. He is mad if religion dissapeared in totality.. a person lost in fantasy can come up to me on The street and go I believe in 2idnre. All I am not going to go I don't believe in 2idnre because scientific evidence points to the emperical fact that 2 does not precede diner random chance determines that 2 must be x not 2. It's like a crazy arguing with a crazy, which crazy is correct?

 

[Altfish]

"Then why do religious people think they can comment on science?"
Did I? Please
Regards

I never said you said that, it is just a fact that many religious spokesmen have much to say about science.

Interesting how you ignore most of the content of my posts (Can I assume that you agree with everything else I say?)

 

[paarsurrey]

The abbreviation "etc." was meant to cover Imams, ayatollahs, mullahs, rabbis and any other denomination of a religion you care to mention.

He did not become superstitious in religious matters and one doesn't subscribe to atheism.
Atheism is not like a religion, it has no rituals, no creeds, no tenants, no laws, no commitments - it is very simply a lack of belief in gods.

"it is very simply a lack of belief in gods." the other form of superstition.

And without any justification and positive and reasonable arguments, leaping into the dark, not-knowing what lies there. Please
Regards

 

[David T]

I wonder how much free advertisement Dawkins has gotten from the religious community complaining about him.

All of it

 

[Altfish]

"it is very simply a lack of belief in gods." the other form of superstition.

And without any justification and positive and reasonable arguments, leaping into the dark, not-knowing what lies there. Please
Regards

It is NOT a superstition, why cannot you accept this? What is superstitious about not believing in ghosts? It is just the same about believing in gods.

You are asking me to prove a negative.

But, we have seen some religions actually emerge and take root in recent centuries, e.g. Mormonism, Scientology, Flying Spaghetti Monster to name but 3. We can see how they were man made. Why should the older religions be any different?

 

[Sunstone]

"it is very simply a lack of belief in gods." the other form of superstition.

And without any justification and positive and reasonable arguments, leaping into the dark, not-knowing what lies there. Please
Regards

If you disbelieve that an undetectable unicorn is belching equally undetectable rainbows beneath your window at this very moment, and if you cannot come up with some "positive and reasonable arguments" why that is not so, do you then admit you are superstitious for disbelieving in the unicorn?

 

[paarsurrey]

It is NOT a superstition, why cannot you accept this? What is superstitious about not believing in ghosts? It is just the same about believing in gods.

You are asking me to prove a negative.

But, we have seen some religions actually emerge and take root in recent centuries, e.g. Mormonism, Scientology, Flying Spaghetti Monster to name but 3. We can see how they were man made. Why should the older religions be any different?

"What is superstitious about not believing in ghosts?"

Is their any restriction on Atheism on not believing in Ghost? There is none. Please
One has just to be superstitiously ignorant to belong to Atheism. There is no restriction on "not-knowing" in Atheism.
Right? Please
Regards

 

[Jeremiahcp]

"What is superstitious about not believing in ghosts?"

Is their any restriction on Atheism on not believing in Ghost? There is none. Please
One has just to be superstitiously ignorant to belong to Atheism. There is no restriction on "not-knowing" in Atheism.
Right? Please
Regards

"There is no restriction on "not-knowing" in Atheism."

How do you put restrictions on something that is not there?

 

[paarsurrey]

"There is no restriction on "not-knowing" in Atheism."
How do you put restrictions on something that is not there?

Restriction from Atheism position/no-position, as they don't have a discipline of any kind .

Regards

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Restriction from Atheism position/no-position, as they don't have a discipline of any kind .

Regards

"Restriction from Atheism position/no-position"

I have no idea what you are trying to say with this.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Restriction from Atheism position/no-position, as they don't have a discipline of any kind .

Regards

The fact that atheism is not a position does not mean that atheists do not hold positions.

 

[paarsurrey]

"Restriction from Atheism position/no-position"

I have no idea what you are trying to say with this.

Any person could hold Atheism however ignorant, unreasonable and superstitious person he could be he has simply to deny god and he becomes Atheist.Right? Please
Regards

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Any person could hold Atheism however ignorant, unreasonable and superstitious person he could be he has simply to deny god and he becomes Atheist.Right? Please
Regards

Any person could hold Theism however ignorant, unreasonable and superstitious person he could be he has simply to accept god and he becomes Theist.Right? Please
Regards

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Tag question
Tag question - Wikipedia

In most languages, tag questions are more common in colloquial spoken usage than in formal written usage. They can be an indicator of politeness, hedging, consensus seeking, emphasis and/or irony. They may suggest confidence or lack of confidence; they may be confrontational, defensive or tentative. Although they have the grammatical form of a question, they may be rhetorical (not expecting an answer). In other cases, when they do expect a response, they may differ from straightforward questions in that they cue the listener as to what response is desired. In legal settings, tag questions can often be found in a leading question. According to a specialist children's lawyer at the NSPCC, children find it difficult to answer tag questions other than in accordance with the expectation of the questioner[1] using or tagging a question.

In case you didn't realize what you are doing, Paarsurrey, since English does not seem to be your first language. But when you add "right?" to the end of your statements you change the intent of that statement.

 

[paarsurrey]

The fact that atheism is not a position does not mean that atheists do not hold positions.

In worldly subjects I am secular. The Atheists could hold and they hold many positions in a country, they should not be treated with a bias.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Is it delusion of “The God delusion”?

Sure it is.
Regards