It's Time the West Gave Up the Infantile Belief in an Invisible Sky-God

In September 1997 Richard Dawkins allowed an Australian film crew into his Oxford home, only to realise in the course of a particularly inept interview that they were creationists trying to trap him.

Tumbling to this, he paused some moments while deciding whether to throw them out or attempt a long and thoughtful explanation that they didn't want to hear.

In their resulting film, his hesitation is dishonestly edited to look like intellectual doubt on his part. Creationists and believers in God are right to see him as their arch-enemy.

In The God Delusion he displays what a formidable adversary he is. It is a spirited and exhilarating read. In the current climate of papal/Islamic stand-off, it is timely too.

There is no hesitancy or doubt here. Dawkins comes roaring forth in the full vigour of his powerful arguments, laying into fallacies and false doctrines with the energy of the polemicist at his most fiery.

"My earlier books did not set out to convert anyone ... this book does," he declares. Its tone is chattier than usual, given to conversational asides, even urgent pleadings - "Please, please raise your consciousness about this!" he begs about the religious indoctrination of tiny children.

And should you doubt his intent, an appendix lists "friendly addresses for individuals needing support in escaping from religion".

The words "humanist", "rationalist", "secular", "atheist" dot those addresses. Dawkins is, if he will excuse the word, on a crusade.

Perhaps he won't excuse the word. It is the slack use of words and the misunderstanding of metaphor that he sees as underpinning the cases made for the existence of a deity.

He starts with some sharp definitions of his own: God he takes to mean "a supernatural creator it is appropriate to worship"; pantheism "is sexed-up atheism. Deism is watered-down theism".

There are plenty of "isms" to choose from, but to Dawkins they all smack of compromise. He is an out-and-out atheist and this is his testimony.

With his usual rational skills he sets about dissecting the arguments for the existence of a God.

He takes on all comers: Aquinas's five "proofs", Pascal's wager (meant as a joke, surely), even Stephen Unwin's probability of God, whose use of Bayes' theorem to demonstrate the probability of God Dawkins scathingly dismisses as "quite agreeably funny".

He puts in its place the believers' misunderstanding of Darwinism.

No, it does not mean that we are all here by chance, but by a scientifically demonstrable process of natural selection. His scorn for believers is evident throughout.

He speaks of "a mind hijacked by religion" and finds "sucking up to God" a strange rationale for doing good.

He is, not surprisingly, appalled by the jealous rage of the God of the Old Testament (lovingly putting Abraham to the test of killing his only son) and has sharp things to say about the ubiquitous weirdness of the Bible, "a chaotically cobbled together anthology of disjointed documents".

When sophisticated believers claim disarmingly that "we don't take Genesis literally any more," he rails "That is my whole point!"

It's as much a pick-and-mix philosophy as believers accuse atheists of. What's more, plenty of people still do take the Bible literally.

According to Gallup approximately 50% of the US electorate believe the story of Noah.

Dawkins has a lot of easy fun on the wilder shores of religion, but he has serious things to say about why morality doesn't need faith.

His argument gathers strength as he enumerates the many ways in which religion is excessively privileged in our supposedly secular society.

Christian groups on US campuses are even now campaigning against anti-discrimination laws that protect homosexuals. They have widespread support for their "freedom of religion".

Dawkins cites Britain's own educational scandal which is gifting a series of city academies to a rich car salesman who believes in creationism and has £2m to buy his way in.

A letter of protest from eight bishops and nine scientists got a perfunctory reply from Tony Blair. Plans for more faith schools go forward. Many of us who might want to stay outside theological debate can't afford to when it is influencing social policy.

Dawkins reserves particular venom for those religious apologists who claim distinguished scientists as their own.

He sneers at "the Faustian road to the Templeton prize", the world's largest single financial prize - £800,000 in 2006 - for "progress concerning spiritual values".

No atheists sit on the jury and winners are increasingly likely to be scientists who use the "God" word. When Einstein declared that "God does not play dice" he was rounded up by believers as proof that the finest minds shared their superstitions.

Similarly, when Stephen Hawking ended his book A Brief History of Time with the phrase "then we shall know the mind of God", its sales were set to roar away.

Weren't the planet's greatest scientists endorsing the views of the faithful? The answer is "no", and Dawkins unpicks the dangers attendant on any scientist using the word.

If they use the word God to mean the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then he admits he himself would, in that sense, be religious.

Certainly his books pay lyrical tribute to the awe and beauty of what exists in the physical world. But to use "God in that sense is misleading". As Carl Sagan put it, "it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity".

Dawkins's most original contribution is the examination of why religion has persisted so long after the scientific revolution, and indeed is staging a global comeback of terrifying proportions.

He cites his own concept, the meme, the social equivalent of the gene, as the way ideas are spread and handed down. As a Darwinian he is keen to understand what is so beneficial about religion that makes it eligible for survival.

He has an interesting theory - exemplified by the moth being attracted to the flame and thus to its death - that an arcane survival mechanism is operating in grossly distorted circumstances.

Believers wrongly accuse Dawkins of being himself a fundamentalist, a fundamentalist atheist. He argues the difference: that given proof he was wrong he would at once change his opinions, whereas the true fundamentalist clings to his faith whatever the challenge.

What he doesn't satisfactorily answer is the sense that people of faith have of the divine, a true experience for them that encompasses love and joy and celebration - all the things Dawkins finds in the physical world.

He doesn't comprehend that for many people reasoned argument is not the final arbiter of how they choose to live their lives. They are swayed by feelings, moved by loyalties, willing to set logic aside for the sake of psychic comfort.

Tell them that all this is the product of chemical and electrical activity in the brain and they will at best assert that God made it thus.

For decades now we have been willing to let such diversity of unverifiable beliefs exist among a democratic tolerance of ideas. But this, the assumption of the secular outlook, can no longer be taken for granted. The clouds are darkening around tolerance.

These are now political matters. Around the world communities are increasingly defined as Muslim, Christian, Jewish, and living peaceably together is ever harder to sustain. Champions of each faith maintain its superiority to the rest.

Recent remarks by Pope Benedict XVI show the man in his true colors: an absolutist pointing up with intellectual precision the incompatibility of Islam and Christianity.

He did this long before he was Pope, writing the declaration of John Paul II that all religions other than the Catholic faith were defective. Since his election he has demoted efforts at rapprochement with Islam and, on a visit to Auschwitz, failed to address the papacy's collusion with Nazism.

The Pope is, of course, held to be infallible by the Catholic church. Islam's response to all this - "if you dare to say we're a violent religion, then we'll kill you!" - compounds not only the idiocy of rival dogmas but also the dangers.

Islam's sharia law invests the law of the land with its own religious and often brutal priorities. Apostasy is punishable by death, as is homosexuality. Christian observance is put under increasing pressure.

Dawkins is right to be not only angry but alarmed. Religions have the secular world running scared. This book is a clarion call to cower no longer. Primed by anger, redeemed by humour, it will, I trust, offend many.

----------- Joan Bakewell, at Guardian Books

Holy crap.

Does this mean there's no Santa Claus either?
:mad:

Holy crap.

Does this mean there's no Santa Claus either?
:mad:There is a Santa Claus; we see him every December. Sure, he might not be someone who flies around on a sled delivering toys on Christmas Eve. However, seeing that he's all over television, on Christmas cards, and in every mall, one can't say that he doesn't exist.

Perhaps it's the same with God.

Interesting article and pretty spot-on regarding theism. Dawkins may be unnecessarily alienating some potential allies by his criticism of deism, pantheism, and, by extension, panentheism. I mean, I have to worry about an atheist who wouldn't go for atheism which has been 'sexed-up' ;)

Believers wrongly accuse Dawkins of being himself a fundamentalist, a fundamentalist atheist. He argues the difference: that given proof he was wrong he would at once change his opinions, whereas the true fundamentalist clings to his faith whatever the challenge.
Bah!! Theistic fundamentalists proffer the same argument.

fairy tales

FT, I can appreciate the fact that you went to a lot of trouble to type the post, but I do not believe it will alter anyones belief as to the whether or not god is a reality. It may even help concrete many preconceived beliefs.

I hate to disillusion you by saying: mans' religions may come and go, but the belief in god is here to stay.

Funny thing is, I have questioned all most every aspect of the belief system I was indoctrinated with. I have found many things lacking. I have lost beliefs and found new ones. The one thing I have never seriously felt the need to believe is that a creator being or pure force of energy does not exist.

The biggest thing I lost on the journey was the need for another soul to believe things in exactly the way that I do. Live and let live. Whatever extends one's universe to make for a postive, fullfilling way of life is a success. Anything leading in the opposite direction is a failure for the individual and thus for the universe. (Even if that is the belief system that happens to hold the truth).

Funny thing is, I have questioned all most every aspect of the belief system I was indoctrinated with. I have found many things lacking. I have lost beliefs and found new ones. The one thing I have never seriously felt the need to believe is that a creator being or pure force of energy does not exist.

The biggest thing I lost on the journey was the need for another soul to believe things in exactly the way that I do. Live and let live. Whatever extends one's universe to make for a postive, fullfilling way of life is a success. Anything leading in the opposite direction is a failure for the individual and thus for the universe. (Even if that is the belief system that happens to hold the truth).
Great post, Sal. My thoughts exactly. :thumbs:

Dawkins seems more angry at the zealotous Christian fundies than he does at anyone else. I don't like them either, but theres no need to throw the baby out with the bath water. Not all thiest are out to convert the "un-saved".

I have lost beliefs and found new ones. The one thing I have never seriously felt the need to believe is that a creator being or pure force of energy does not exist.

An oddly constructed sentence, buuuuut.....assuming that you meant that as it is written;

I ALSO have never **felt the need** to believe that a creator being or pure force of energy does not exist.

I believe what my senses and my ability to think and reason tells me is so.

If I see some "creator" or some "god" or some omnipotent entity (or one iota of evidence for the existence of same) in the next five minutes, I will instantly accept said supernatural being's existence.

Having never been presented any proof whatsoever of such a fantastic claim (i.e., that a supernatural omnipotent being exists) I am forced to continue to strongly doubt the existence of said entity.

Well that's it then. Everyone cancel your 700 Club memberships, finally the Jehova's Witnesses can stop waking us up, the catholics save your knees and money tell the Pope to go home, muslims and jews hey guess what all that killing not really necessary. It's all been solved, thanks to Freethinker and Richard Dawkins.

Wow now that I know the truth, I think I'll go out and have some fun. Thank myself I don't have to worry about all of that religious crap. Thanks FT what a relief. :rolleyes:

For the record I'm not religious. My brain refuses to let me be, I always end up asking too many questions and end up pissing church people off.

Also for the record, I'm not an atheist, again my brain along with my heart won't let me. I always end up asking too many questions and end up pissing off the non-believers.

What I do believe in, hard to say. A force of some kind that does care but I don't really buy that we are all he/she/it cares about. My proof in our ability to create. Art, Music, Science, Literature, or whatever. I believe each of us are born with inate gifts that are exactly that a gift. That the ability we have to create music, art, or whatever; that this cannot be explained by science alone. This is where I see a divine plan. Again though this is how I see it, and I don't go around trying to bash people over the head with my beliefs.

An yes Freethinker when you Title your post: It's Time the West Gave Up the Infantile Belief in an Invisible Sky-God your trying to bash people over the head. Just because you don't believe in God is no reason to call someone else's beliefs infantile.

Well that's it then. Everyone cancel your 700 Club memberships, finally the Jehova's Witnesses can stop waking us up, the catholics save your knees and money tell the Pope to go home........

Excellent suggestion.

It's all been solved, thanks to Freethinker and Richard Dawkins.

I give the bulk of the credit to Professor Dawkins.

Along with the few other critically thinking people remaining in this insane asylum of a country.

An yes Freethinker when you Title your post: It's Time the West Gave Up the Infantile Belief in an Invisible Sky-God your trying to bash people over the head.

An (sic) yes, Pendragon, that's true. But then, I don't remember claiming anything to the contrary.

Just because you don't believe in God is no reason to call someone else's beliefs infantile.

I will continue to apply the label *infantile* to anyone who believes that water can be magically transformed into wine.

I will continue to apply the label *infantile* to anyone who believes that donkeys can speak with a human voice.

I will continue to apply the label *infantile* to anyone who believes that it is possible to magically "walk on water".

I will continue to apply the label *infantile* to anyone who believes that the planet earth is but 6000 years old.

I will continue to apply the label *infantile* to anyone who believes that dead people can rise from their graves and walk around.

Having never been presented any proof whatsoever of such a fantastic claim (i.e., that a supernatural omnipotent being exists) I am forced to continue to strongly doubt the existence of said entity.Have you ever seen any proof of the non-existence of God? If not, what makes you so confident of it?

An oddly constructed sentence, buuuuut.....assuming that you meant that as it is written;

I ALSO have never **felt the need** to believe that a creator being or pure force of energy does not exist.
awkward wasn't it...

I believe what my senses and my ability to think and reason tells me is so.

If I see some "creator" or some "god" or some omnipotent entity (or one iota of evidence for the existence of same) in the next five minutes, I will instantly accept said supernatural being's existence.

Having never been presented any proof whatsoever of such a fantastic claim (i.e., that a supernatural omnipotent being exists) I am forced to continue to strongly doubt the existence of said entity.
I don't have a problem with that. In fact I highly respect it. A few of my friends would most certainly agree with you.

I personally really like how my "sky-fairy" belief system affects my life, and impacts my world. It doesn't change how I treat people at all although for many that is a bonus since fear is a powerful motivator. For me it creates a sense of wonder and awe about the mysteries of life because I believe that almost anything is possible. Not perhaps probable, but possible.

Yup it makes me happy, content and all shiny and warm with the world...:thumbs:

Great post, Sal. My thoughts exactly. :thumbs:
Thanks :)

I will continue to apply the label *infantile* to anyone who believes that water can be magically transformed into wine.

I will continue to apply the label *infantile* to anyone who believes that donkeys can speak with a human voice.

I will continue to apply the label *infantile* to anyone who believes that it is possible to magically "walk on water".

I will continue to apply the label *infantile* to anyone who believes that the planet earth is but 6000 years old.

I will continue to apply the label *infantile* to anyone who believes that dead people can rise from their graves and walk around.
And I agree with you. This only confirms my belief that most athiest are agianst the Bible and Christian literalist. More to the point, you are agianst people trying to force their beliefs on you.
Are you aware that many theist feel the same way? I also dislike the Bible and Biblical Literalism. I also dislike evangelism.
Are you really opposed to all theism or have I hit the nail on the head?

FT, I think you're a liar. If you were presented with proof of a god's existance I think you would do the exact same thing as a fundamentalist presented with proof of god's nonexistance. You would fumble and attempt to pass off that proof as inadequate, wrong, or foolish. What leads me to believe this is your downright DENIAL of the existance of a god. What possesses you to actively try and sway people to your point of view? It is completely incompatable to the very idea of open mindedness, and the sense that if presented with proof, you would relinquish your nonbelief. You neither have any proof whatsoever that a god doesn't exist, and as such there is absolutely NO reason for you to open your mouth first. It makes you look like a complete dumbass at first, and then an ignorant hipocrite when you attempt to explain yourself. Normally I'd just find it funny, like I do when your average evangelist opens his mouth, but as an atheist, you're insulting. Stop giving us a bad name as ignorant dumbass hipocrites and landing us on the same level as fundamentalist wackjobs.

FT, I think you're a liar. If you were presented with proof of a god's existance I think you would do the exact same thing as a fundamentalist presented with proof of god's nonexistance.

Since there is no such thing as "proof" of the non existence of something, I am not too worried about what you "think".

If I were to observe a gigantic man in the sky creating planets with a wave of his hand, I would immediately accept the existence of "god". If I saw ---per Biblical claims-- a hundred dead people clawing their way out of their graves and walking around, I would accept the existence of the supernatural....which, is really all i'd need in order to accept the existence of this "god" thingy that so many superstitionists natter on about endlessly.

I don't know how to cause you to accept that as true.

What leads me to believe this is your downright DENIAL of the existance of a god.

2 or 3 posts ago I stated that I **strongly doubted* the existence of "god".

What possesses you to actively try and sway people to your point of view?

?!?!?

I am not attempting to **sway** people to not believe in gawd, if that's what you're speaking of. I do urge people to think critically about their supernatural beliefs......if they begin to do that, they may well find their own way to a sane view of the world, as opposed to the insanity of belief in invisible gods and devils.

It is completely incompatable to the very idea of open mindedness, and the sense that if presented with proof, you would relinquish your nonbelief.

You seem to be asserting here that if I were to be presented proof of this "god" and then relinquished my non-belief, it would be **completely incompatable with the idea of open mindedness**. The opposite seems to be the case to me.

You neither have any proof whatsoever that a god doesn't exist, and as such there is absolutely NO reason for you to open your mouth first.

a) There is no such thing as "proof" of the non existence of something.

b) I will open my mouth whenever I please.

It makes you look like a complete dumbass at first.....

The clearest demonstration of being an atheist who is a "dumb ass" is to twice in the same post suggest that there can be *proof* of the non-existence of something.


(note; do all atheists around the world a favor and remove the -- ""But here steps in Satan, the eternal rebel, the first free-thinker and emancipator of worlds. He makes man ashamed of his bestial ignorance and obedience; he emancipates him, stamps upon his brow the seal of liberty and humanity, in urging him to disobey and eat of the fruit of knowledge."" -- quote from your sig line, kid. Your post here marks you as having no clue what Bakunin was talking about)

You can use common sense. Has there ever been something to suggest, in terms of science, that there could be a God? No. Has something like God ever occurred in nature? No. This suggests that until something can actually prove there is a God, there isn’t one.

It is like the kid who was told to believe in Santa Clause. They did so until they used science, math and common sense to realize that Santa Clause couldn't go to everyone's house (who believed in him) in one night. And what did they do when they realized this? They didn't believe in Santa Clause anymore because it is unrealistic and could never be factually proven in a scientific way. The same, in many ways, can be applied to the belief in God.

Not to mention, who today believes anything without a reliable source? No one. Everyone claims a bias or questions the source. However the Bible is most likely the worst source in terms of being able to verify the sources and original content.

May you receive nothing but lumps of coal in your stocking for perpetuity. Shame on you for dissing Santa Claus.

You can use common sense. Has there ever been something to suggest, in terms of science, that there could be a God? No. Has something like God ever occurred in nature? No. This suggests that until something can actually prove there is a God, there isn’t one.
================================================

So, you are saying that nothing existed before science discovered it?
Even if there was no evidence to suggest it existed?

While I do belive in the existence of an Almighty, I put zero faith into the bible. Yeah, it may be the oldest book written, but for me, at best, it's a fairly well written story book of somebody's version of history. As such, I don't buy the possibility of an anti-christ for I tend to believe the existence of such was created by someone else when they directed the tome to be re-written to their way of thinking. Organized religion is complete bullshit, as described by one of my favorite philosophers, G. Carlin. WhileI was sent to parochial schools during my formatve years, I shed those teachings long ago.

So, you are saying that nothing existed before science discovered it?
I included the word "nature" in the equation. Nature has existed forever.

I included the word "nature" in the equation. Nature has existed forever.
================================================== ===

It is possible that we have not discovered all there is to know of nature.
Yet, it still would have existed before the discovery.

To say that "something like god" has not occured in nature is to not take into account that it may not have been recognized as such.

You know by now that I am no advertisement for mans religions, yet I try to be open minded enough see both sides of the discussion.

I frequently find myself talking to a talking burning bush

I frequently find myself talking to a talking burning bush
=================================================

Yeh, I had some of that same stuff back in the 60's.

Not to mention, who today believes anything without a reliable source? No one. Everyone claims a bias or questions the source. However the Bible is most likely the worst source in terms of being able to verify the sources and original content.
You clearly haven't met the hardcore fundies that I deal with. Out of curiousity, are you just agianst the Christian notion of God or all theism?
While I do belive in the existence of an Almighty, I put zero faith into the bible.
Good.

I frequently find myself talking to a talking burning bush
WHat? Someone set your president on fire...;)

Not to mention, who today believes anything without a reliable source? No one. Everyone claims a bias or questions the source. However the Bible is most likely the worst source in terms of being able to verify the sources and original content.
Check out the reading level of the average individual in your population. Print the two words "critical thinking" on a page and likely 40% of the population couldn't pronounce it let alone define it.

It's Time the West Gave Up the Infantile Belief in an Invisible Sky-God

In September 1997 Richard Dawkins allowed an Australian film crew into his Oxford home, only to realise in the course of a particularly inept interview that they were creationists trying to trap him.

Tumbling to this, he paused some moments while deciding whether to throw them out or attempt a long and thoughtful explanation that they didn't want to hear.

In their resulting film, his hesitation is dishonestly edited to look like intellectual doubt on his part. Creationists and believers in God are right to see him as their arch-enemy.
Freethinker, this is all bogus intellectual crap that would appeal to an academic who wants to be entertained and feel superior and you know it. I know the kind...they breed in universities. They are insulated from the "great unwashed masses" yet they lean heavily toward the left from the safety of their $100,000.00 a year jobs where they teach the elite (for six months of the year) who can afford to go there. Notice some of the words and phrases in the article... rational skill, dissecting arguments, scathing etc. He wants to convert... yeah okay...with what end in mind? It's an intellectual exercise.

I would love to see the result of removing hope from people. Removing their common bonds and freeing them from their belief system. He's as far removed from the average man as one can be. He's just too cocky and arrogant and so impressed with his own powers of reason that he fails to look at the positive things that faith, and the belief in spirit and the power of the unseen world can bring into people's lives. Quantum physics will one day make him look narrow minded and foolish.

WHat? Someone set your president on fire...;)


lol that genious said "God" told him to go to war.


lmfao

we are all doomed

i myself worship the naked female form.

[QUOTE=~Sal~]

I would love to see the result of removing hope from people. Removing their common bonds and freeing them from their belief system.
===============================

A good thoughtful post, Sal.

i myself worship the naked female form.
:@@: Mmmm....nekkid.....

It is possible that we have not discovered all there is to know of nature.Yet, it still would have existed before the discovery.
To base my entire beliefs on the idea that it "could be possible" is laughable. There is nothing that has ever suggested that there could be a God. So until then I refuse to believe in something that has just as much substance as Santa Clause.

To say that "something like god" has not occured in nature is to not take into account that it may not have been recognized as such.
What would be even close to a "God-like" thing in nature and or evolution?

You know by now that I am no advertisement for mans religions, yet I try to be open minded enough see both sides of the discussion.
To assume I don't have an "open-mind" is laughable. I am willing to hear evidence that suggests there is a god. However, as of right now, the most people can give me is "faith" and to be honest, in today's world, that just does not cut it IMO.

Originally Posted by Freethinker
It's Time the West Gave Up the Infantile Belief in an Invisible Sky-God

In September 1997 Richard Dawkins allowed an Australian film crew into his Oxford home, only to realise in the course of a particularly inept interview that they were creationists trying to trap him.

Tumbling to this, he paused some moments while deciding whether to throw them out or attempt a long and thoughtful explanation that they didn't want to hear.

In their resulting film, his hesitation is dishonestly edited to look like intellectual doubt on his part. Creationists and believers in God are right to see him as their arch-enemy.

Freethinker, this is all bogus intellectual crap that would appeal to an academic who wants to be entertained and feel superior and you know it.

I DO know that it would **appeal to an academic**.

That is another way of saying that people who can think and reason clearly would find it appeaoing.

Also, it is impossible for any thinking individual to NOT feel intellectually superior to mentally deranged people that are convinced that (per Biblical claims) dead people can rise from their graves and walk the earth.

I know the kind...they breed in universities.

True.

People capable of rational thought often find accredited universities (although the absolute opposite of places like Bob Jones University) a place where other poeple who think rationally can share their knowledge with one another.



They are insulated from the "great unwashed masses" yet they lean heavily toward the left from the safety of their $100,000.00 a year jobs where they teach the elite (for six months of the year) who can afford to go there.

The fact that they are *insulated from the great unwashed masses* is of zero negative connotation to me.

Notice some of the words and phrases in the article... rational skill, dissecting arguments, scathing etc.

Yes, I noticed them.

They are words that many superstitionists (IOW, religionists) probably have trouble recognizing.

He wants to convert... yeah okay...with what end in mind?

Convert...??

I have been accused of the same thing.

But i disagree that Dawkin's intent is to "*convert** people.

As it is when I talk about superstitious beliefs, the intent is less to "convert" and more aimed at causing the superstitionist to recognize the utter implausibility and irrationality of the views they're promulgating.


It's an intellectual exercise.

Ok.

But *intellectual excersises* are very positive and wondrous things. They can cause people to examine their absurdist views.


I would love to see the result of removing hope from people.

I would love (to put it mildly) to see the result of removing superstitious beliefs from the billions of homo sapiens afflicted with it.


He (Dawkins) is as far removed from the average man as one can be.

I could not agree more. He IS far removed from the viewpoint of the *average man*.

But then, the *average man* is a mind-numbed fool who believes in "god" and "angels".

He's just too cocky and arrogant and so impressed with his own powers of reason .......

Dawkin's powers of reason are several orders of magnitude greater than that of the average Joe Sixpack cretin who is 100% convinced of the farcical claims of the Xtian's holy book.


....... that he fails to look at the positive things that faith, and the belief in spirit and the power of the unseen world can bring into people's lives.

I think Dawkins is well aware of the so-called *positive* aspects of various mental delusions (such as belief in an invisible sky father who watches over us).

But the fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one

Quantum physics will one day make him look narrow minded and foolish.

ROTFL.

Only IF quantum physics were to somehow demonstrate the existence of this *god* thingy that so many superstitionists have built ther lives around.

I think I see where this is all going, and I have to say right now that I don't like it!

Thus far in this thread you have debunked the existence of both God and Santa Claus.

If you guys think you are going to take away the Easter Bunny next, you've got another thing coming!!
:mad:

(grumbles to self) Can't have a damn thing!
:mad: :eek: :(

It has always been my belief that the purpose of all faith, or religion, is to bring a measure of peace and contentment to people.

It is NOT to criticize others, kill others, tell them not to eat meat on Friday, or how to wear their hair or who to vote for, or shove Bibles in their face.

If a person is happy and at peace with themselves with their various ways of worship, and it brings no harm to others, I fail to see how this can possibly be a bad thing. It is a good thing to have, in this cruel, cold, and many times confusing world.

Addendum:

Speaking of the intellectuals, and many of these people's athiestic viewpoints, which is their right to have, I should add, but would also like to add this:
Yes, they are educated. But in truth, many of them's education ended a long time ago. Since they already know the "truth", there is no need for them to learn more.

Some of the greatest thinkers of history have been men of faith, men who kept looking , men who didn't have all the answers--Plato, Thomas Aquinas, Einstein, Newton. It's a laugh to read how ignorant, unwashed, and infantile Newton was...towards the end of his life, he made one of the most profound statements I have ever come across. He said, about his work,

"I was like a child at the seashore, diverting myself with a pretty shell, while the great Ocean of Truth lay all around me."

Thus far in this thread you have debunked the existence of both God and Santa Claus.(
Care to say how there is more evidence to support the existence of God?

Not today, catnip.

After the way the press (and half this kibitzers on this website) have ravaged Representative Mark Foley for improper internet communications with under-aged boys, I'm am staying very far away from you.

I have political aspirations someday, and I don't want any untoward debate with a tender young fellow like you to screw things up for me.
So don't even ask me if I am wearing boxers, or if I want to get more comfortable.

You will not be the death of my political career, young man.
I'll pass.

FT ... "I believe what my senses and my ability to think and reason tells me is so."
It is generally assumed that the universe began as a small point and rapidly expanded outwards. (Sometimes referred to as "The Big Bang")
What do your senses and ability to think and reason say about this theory?
Similarly, what do you think surrounds the expanding universe?

Like you Sal. I find that most religions are unable to answer my many questions. This does not surprise me, since how does anyone explain the wonders of the unknown to someone without the necessary intelligence to understand the explanation?
Just trying to explain eternity and infinity to us, is more difficult than explaining television to a newly tribe in Africa.
I find it harder to believe that all the wonders of the universe occurred by chance, than it is to believe in a Creator.

Not today, catnip.

After the way the press (and half this kibitzers on this website) have ravaged Representative Mark Foley for improper internet communications with under-aged boys, I'm am staying very far away from you.

I have political aspirations someday, and I don't want any untoward debate with a tender young fellow like you to screw things up for me.
So don't even ask me if I am wearing boxers, or if I want to get more comfortable.

You will not be the death of my political career, young man.
I'll pass.
:lolhit: Nice excuses. Anyway, I find it odd how you refer to me and obviously mention my views yet you refuse to debate them with me. Why don't you stop being a child and just not refer to me if you aren't going to engage in a debate with me.

But *intellectual excersises* are very positive and wondrous things. They can cause people to examine their absurdist views.

Excellent viewpoint, FT.

Here's an invitation, sir. Come down to Northern Alabama and engage in some intellectual exercises with me, brother. I'm going to be off work for a week or so anyway, so what the heck?

On Saturday we can visit the Von Braun Research Hall, and pay tribute to the father of the manned space program. Hang around with my friends at the George C. Marshall Space Flight Center and the NASA operations center for the International Space Station. Take in a show at the downtown Renaissance Theatre. Have a cocktail or two at The Jazz Factory, and listen to some live music.

Sunday we can venture out into the County, and attend the ten o'clock service at the Madison Baptist Church, and the noon Mass at St. John's.
I find such excursions to be culturally and spiritually enlightening, even though I am not a church-goer, and am not a member of any one congregation. (I would suggest a visit to the Family History Center, but those doggone Mormons will bother the heck out of you to join their flock, and who needs that stress in the middle of a relaxing Sunday sabbatical?)

I may take Communion, though you don't have to if you don't want to. In fact if you'd prefer, you can wear a spacesuit and oxygen tank so that you don't get any religious mania germs on you. While I am taking in the ambience, you can just observe the primitive rituals through your helmet glass like a space-explorer studying a lesser alien species.

After lunch at Thomas's Pit Barbeque, we can head out to the country in the truck to the and buy some boiled peanuts. Sit on the tailgate down by the river, have a few beers, and maybe listen to some NFL on the AM radio. The 4-1 Eagles are at the 4-1 Saints, that ought to be a good game. If we get bored, I always keep a few handguns in the truck. We can set up our empty beer cans and enjoy some target practice. It's a little loud, but I have some extra earplugs in my glove-box.

To complete our spiritual journey, we can travel past The Shoals to Tishomingo County, and find a Revival. After sharing a mason jar of moonshine in the parking lot, we can join the throng and get lost in the spirit of things. Sing some songs, shout, 'Praise Jesus' at the top of our lungs, and maybe even handle a few snakes. You'll just have to follow my lead on the 'speaking in tongues' thing. (Just thrash around all sweaty-like, roll your eyes in the back of your head, conjugate a few verbs in Latin through clenched teeth, and you'll fit right in.) It helps to urinate in your pants.

I tell you what, Brother Freethinker; After a weekend like that, you'll travel back to Ohio thoroughly refreshed, clear-eyed, and re-charged.
You'll be a new man for it, I can almost guarantee!!
:thumbs:

What I do believe in, hard to say. A force of some kind that does care but I don't really buy that we are all he/she/it cares about. My proof is in our ability to create. Art, Music, Science, Literature, or whatever. I believe each of us are born with inate gifts that are exactly that a gift. That the ability we have to create music, art, or whatever; that this cannot be explained by science alone. This is where I see a divine plan. Again though this is how I see it, and I don't go around trying to bash people over the head with my beliefs.

And yes, Freethinker when you Title your post: It's Time the West Gave Up the Infantile Belief in an Invisible Sky-God you're trying to bash people over the head. Just because you don't believe in God is no reason to call someone else's beliefs infantile.
VERY succinctly put, Pendragon. I feel the exact same way.

Addressed to FT -
I may take Communion, though you don't have to if you don't want to. In fact if you'd prefer, you can wear a spacesuit and oxygen tank so that you don't get any religious mania germs on you. While I am taking in the ambience, you can just observe the primitive rituals through your helmet glass like a space-explorer studying a lesser alien species.
:lolhit:

That was great!

I find it harder to believe that all the wonders of the universe occurred by chance, than it is to believe in a Creator.
That's where my doubt ends every time. I don't think a day goes by that something does not fill me with wonder, or amazement... There is something bigger than me out there I just don't know how it works or what it is.

Excellent viewpoint, FT.

Here's an invitation, sir. Come down to Northern Alabama and engage in some intellectual exercises with me, brother. I'm going to be off work for a week or so anyway, so what the heck?
Me, me, me, I want to come too. Oldtimer can swing past my place and pick me up. I want to be part of the fireworks...yup! :cool:

(in a Mr. Burn's voice)

Excellent!!

Originally Posted by Sparky2
I may take Communion, though you don't have to if you don't want to. In fact if you'd prefer, you can wear a spacesuit and oxygen tank so that you don't get any religious mania germs on you. While I am taking in the ambience, you can just observe the primitive rituals through your helmet glass like a space-explorer studying a lesser alien species.

Addressed to FT -

:lolhit:

That was great!

True.

But only because **like a space-explorer studying a lesser alien species** happens to be the way I feel when i DO observe them.

True.

But only because **like a space-explorer studying a lesser alien species** happens to be the way I feel when i DO observe them.
Athiest are funny. :D

Religion is a concept that the world created and is 180 degrees from the
Truth. True Christianity is not a religion but a relationship with God, in Spirit
and Truth through Jesus, the Jewish Messiah. If a person dosen't believe
that there is a god that person is blind and hasn't been called to be saved.
In fact there no better off then someone who is filled with religion and still
dosen't know the Truth. Their hearts are filled with foolishness and the lie
that religion saves.

Religion is a concept that the world created and is 180 degrees from the
Truth. True Christianity is not a religion but a relationship with God, in Spirit
and Truth through Jesus, the Jewish Messiah. If a person dosen't believe
that there is a god that person is blind and hasn't been called to be saved.
In fact there no better off then someone who is filled with religion and still
dosen't know the Truth. Their hearts are filled with foolishness and the lie
that religion saves.
Christians are funny, too! :D

Have you ever seen any proof of the non-existence of God? If not, what makes you so confident of it?


have you seen any proof that God exsists? I was brought of Pentacostal and my family is thick with religion..... extreme bible thumpers.

But over and over I've asked questions about the bible but no one can answer my questions.

As I get older my doubts increase as the scientific part of me emerges. My dad would probably have a heart attack if he heard my doubts but I cant help it. I have more belief in the paranormal than I do in the bible at this point in my life.

If God exists.......... I'm going to burn in hell for this post! *sigh*

If God exists.......... I'm going to burn in hell for this post! *sigh*
Nah, if God exists he wants us to question, and learn and grow, not to just blindly accept everything.

Nah, if God exists he wants us to question, and learn and grow, not to just blindly accept everything.
Precisely. God would rather be intelligently disproven than worshiped by idiots.