Dawkins trying to arrest Pope Benedict Xvi

[growse]

Please forgive me for answering a question with a question, but let me put it this way.

Strictly speaking, following your logic, it would be unreasonable to anything more than agnostic (either way) on anything that one could conjure up in one's mind. For instance, if one of my friends told me about a giant polka dot balloon, made out of steel and that eats lions and that it's floating in a galaxy a few million light years away, would I be basing an assumption that it doesn't exist on anything more than faith? Obviously, I would concede that I can't know it doesn't exist, but I would put a very low probability on it's existence.

I'll reiterate my original question, are you an agnostic regarding Santa Claus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster and fairies?

Reasonable-ness != Rationality.

It would be irrational to make a statement about the existence of the example balloon, given that you've no evidence for or against. If you were to fly to example galaxy and observe its absense, then you'd have evidence with which to make a rational statement.

However, that says nothing about what a 'reasonable' statement is. Whether something's reasonable or not is entirely subjective - I could say that it's reasonable for me to assert that you're 13 feet tall with pink hair, which is why subjective terminology is not particularly useful when discussion the rationality of assertions about the universe.

As for Santa, per my definition of Santa (fat man in red suit who visits every Christmas Tree on Earth on Dec 24th), I've conducted an experiment and gained evidence that Santa doesn't exist. You're free to conduct that experiment as well to draw your own conclusions about the existence of Santa, as defined above. As for the FSM and fairies, I've no idea whether they exist or not, and I've never attempted to define these entities well enough to bother testing whether or not they exist, so I guess I am agnostic towards these.

 

[RDM]

Talking of faith, would you care to share with me how you've come privy to such knowledge?

Because from all of the evidence presented on god or gods they have always been said to exist outside of our normal experience. Taking the Christian God as an example he is said to have completely created our normal experience. The same goes for most religions, their God or gods are outside of the physical world though sometimes said to be able to affect the physical world. So applying a little logic to that would suggest that the existence of a diety is outside of normal parameters. So it falls outside of science at this moment in time. If you think otherwise, then please, present me with a scientific test that can measure any of the attributes of God.

I'll pose the same question again. How can you seriously accuse me of having a faith belief and then say something as ridiculous as that... Come on.

Which bit is ridiculous? The fact that Santa Claus has many attributes that are said to exist in the physical world? Or that the invention of Santa Claus is a modern thing? I can accuse you of haivng a faith based position because you seem to believe in scientific realism, which is a faith based position. But it is OK, I don't share your same irrational hatred of faith based positions and have been known to indulge in them myself on occassion.

 

[growse]

Well, going by that ridiculously hypocritical logic, I could easily follow the religious depictions of God and define his properties from them. Thus, putting him on a similar playing field with Santa.

I'd also love to know how you actually know that's what Santa does, when he does it, and what he looks like. I'd love to know what evidence you've based this conclusion on, other than the pictures and bottles of Coke that circulate with a depiction of him on.

If you think you can design a test that will give some evidence for or against the existence of what many people define to be 'God', I'm all ears.

Re: Santa - the point is that it depends on what you mean by 'Santa'. I have a definition, you may have a completely different definition. I'm not going to try and make statements about the existence of what you define to be 'Santa', until you actually announce what that definition is. When you do that, I can try and design and execute a test which should be able to tell us something about the existence of the entity you're defining as 'Santa'.

 

[Naffa]

As for Santa, per my definition of Santa (fat man in red suit who visits every Christmas Tree on Earth on Dec 24th), I've conducted an experiment and gained evidence that Santa doesn't exist. You're free to conduct that experiment as well to draw your own conclusions about the existence of Santa, as defined above. As for the FSM and fairies, I've no idea whether they exist or not, and I've never attempted to define these entities well enough to bother testing whether or not they exist, so I guess I am agnostic towards these.

I'll reiterate my question as to how you know that the attributes you've assigned to Santa, are true? Just to illustrate my point, our classic depiction of Santa didn't even exist until the middle of the last century, before which he wore a green one, and even then, he hasn't always been known as Santa.

I also find it very hard to believe that you're agnostic regarding the existence of fairies if you do have a rational mind.

 

[Gilly]

An agnostic position is often one that a rational mind would take on a subject that mind has no knowledge of. Without evidence and/or experience, you cannot choose one way or another, and therefore are unable to make a decision, or at least an informed one.

No-one has assigned any attributes to Santa (only mentioned their definition), and in fact you have been asked for your definition.

 

[growse]

I'll reiterate my question as to how you know that the attributes you've assigned to Santa, are true? Just to illustrate my point, our classic depiction of Santa didn't even exist until the middle of the last century, before which he wore a green one, and even then, he hasn't always been known as Santa.

I also find it very hard to believe that you're agnostic regarding the existence of fairies if you do have a rational mind.

I've defined Santa to have the properties I say he has, so 'truth' is moot.

Re: fairies: Define 'fairies'?

You're making a lot of assumptions that everyone knows exactly what you mean when you say 'Santa' or 'FSM' or 'Fairies'. Until you actually define what it is you're talking about, no-one can make any rational statements about them at all.

Compare with 'mavity'. I can reasonably define what I mean by mavity, and the rest of the world can go off and do experiments to see if the phenomenon I described actually exists, and what it looks like. This is how we can make rational statments about it, because it's well defined and easily measurable. Santa, fairies and god are not.

 

[Hxc]

Despite being on his side of the spectrum, I really cannot stand Richard Dawkins, just the mention of his name irks me.

 

[Naffa]

Because from all of the evidence presented on god or gods they have always been said to exist outside of our normal experience. Taking the Christian God as an example he is said to have completely created our normal experience. The same goes for most religions, their God or gods are outside of the physical world though sometimes said to be able to affect the physical world. So applying a little logic to that would suggest that the existence of a diety is outside of normal parameters. So it falls outside of science at this moment in time. If you think otherwise, then please, present me with a scientific test that can measure any of the attributes of God.

I define the question of whether God exists to be a question totally separate of religion. I can't believe you're talking to me about my beliefs being based on faith when you've just said that, and I can't bring myself to accept that you genuinely believe that. I grew out of believing something because it's been uttered by the religious a long time ago, just because it's been said, quite obviously doesn't make it true.

Which bit is ridiculous? The fact that Santa Claus has many attributes that are said to exist in the physical world? Or that the invention of Santa Claus is a modern thing? I can accuse you of haivng a faith based position because you seem to believe in scientific realism, which is a faith based position. But it is OK, I don't share your same irrational hatred of faith based positions and have been known to indulge in them myself on occassion.

I don't have an irrational hatred of faith based positions, I just have no desire to hold one. I can't continue to debate on this, as you appear to have a serious double standard regarding what faith is, and when it's ok to employ it.

 

[Berserker]

It's perfectly reasonable to be atheistic towards Santa and the FSM, since the first (at least as we know it today) is an invention of multiple entities (including the Coca Cola Company, for example), and the second is an invention of Bobby Henderson. I have faith that they don't exist and there is evidence to back this up.

The probability of winning the lottery is one in 14 million (ish). This can be proven mathematically - no faith is required. Unless you have evidence one way or the other, then any probability you may state regarding the existance of God is based solely upon your experience and belief. This requires faith.

 

[RDM]

I define the question of whether God exists to be a question totally separate of religion. I can't believe you're talking to me about my beliefs being based on faith when you've just said that, and I can't bring myself to accept that you genuinely believe that. I grew out of believing something because it's been uttered by the religious a long time ago, just because it's been said, quite obviously doesn't make it true.

It is pretty obvious to me that for a being to be capable of creating the known universe it is going to have to be outside of the rules of said universe. You yourself seem to be completely unable to devise any sort of scientific test for any of God's attributes so I assume you are fine with the fact that science has nothing to say on the existence (or in fact non-existence) of God.

I don't believe in God, never really have in any meaningful way. I lean towards the fact that god does not exist, especially the Christian god as described by the bible (too many inconsitencies and contradictions). However I could not state that no sort of God exists because I just cannot prove it either way. Without the proof either way it would be a faith based decision to make a choice. The answer doesn't bother me enough for me to have to make that decision.

I don't have an irrational hatred of faith based positions, I just have no desire to hold one. I can't continue to debate on this, as you appear to have a serious double standard regarding what faith is, and when it's ok to employ it.

Where exactly is my double standard? I can have a decent stab at defining attributes of Santa and then coming up with tests that can prove or disprove them. I cannot do the same with God (if I could, I would, it would make me a fortune). I also cannot do the same with love, yet take it on faith that my wife loves me.

 

[PermaBanned]

You do know there is still a flat earth society, don't you. Yes indeed, some people still believe the Earth is flat.

The same would likely happen with at least some atheists. Even if God personally turned up on their doorstep, they would find some way to claim it wasn't God.

I'm not suggesting Dawkins is one of those, but nonetheless that possibility does exist.

And this is the problem with your argument. Most Atheists are followers of Science, and require definitive proof of anything that could be brought about by reasoning and years of testing. If God turned up on my doorstep then it's more than likely that it's not actually a God, since i can say with pretty absolute certainty that he doesn't exist.

Of course, what i think you're saying is 'if there were proof of God then some Atheists wouldn't believe still'. This is completely wrong, you're assuming that they act the same way as those completely blinded by religion. If there was absolute proof of God then nobody would refute it. What's actually happening is that people blinded by religion have been presented with almost irrefutable proof of Evolution, and countless other things that contradict directly with most holy books or scriptures or beliefs and continue to say that they are right. Which is highly unlikely, considering one of Dawkins's main arguments is that you're only religion you are because you were born into this country, or that household. If you were born in India you would doubtless be saying the same of Krishna. If you were born in Ancient Greece then you would doubtless be saying the same of Zeus. And so on.

 

[RDM]

And this is the problem with your argument. Most Atheists are followers of Science, and require definitive proof of anything that could be brought about by reasoning and years of testing. If God turned up on my doorstep then it's more than likely that it's not actually a God, since i can say with pretty absolute certainty that he doesn't exist.

Really? How? What is the scientifc proof that disproves God?

 

[Albo]

What is the scientifc proof that disproves God?

That disproves the Christian god of the bible? - lots and lots
That disproves a 'creator'? - none

Anyway, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim, not on others to disprove.

 

[Chronictank]

that old gem, we put faith in science? Well along with experiments in controlled situation, conduct the experiment on several occasions, evaluation of evidence, peer review and when we further understand things we change what we put in the science books to reflect such findings.

Sorry but that is plain wrong,
Scientists often put "faith" (as used in this thread, something that cannot be proven/dis proven) all the time.
Just look at Physics regarding the makeup of the universe, there are significant parts of theory which rely entirely on made up, unproven elements which happen to fit the equation at the moment

Faith is simply a theory which you believe

- removed to stop the fanatics going mad and this going completely off the rails-

 

[RDM]

Anyway, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim, not on others to disprove.

I am agnostic, my claim is "I don't know". So anyone claiming god does not exist needs to back that up with proof just as much as anyone claiming there is one.

 

[PermaBanned]

Really? How? What is the scientifc proof that disproves God?

I assume you're talking about the Christian God? In which case you only need look at what there actually is that points to the existence of this God. The Bible. Now, a book isn't much on itself. Not just that but it's a story book. If Darwin had published 'On the Origin of Species' in the same format as the Bible do you think it would have got much credit? No, i find it far more likely that the Bible was never intended to be a factual account of what happened, more a popular book for escapism much like Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings nowadays. You don't even have the original copy, meaning no self respecting Historian or Scientist would accept it as any sort of credible source. So when you take into account its credibility and look at what it actually says it's easy to pick apart every last one of the points in it. The world was made in 7 days? Do i even have to try with this one? Parting of the sea? There is evidence that points to there being a large Tsunami around this time, which could have caused the water to rush out suddenly. I could go on, but the point is that if you're judging your beliefs on such an unreliable source then why should you take everything in it at face value? No, if there was a case for the existence of this God it would have been made in a proper format and backed up by most of the Scientific community by now. Since it hasn't been there's really no reason at all for believing in it other than that's what you were brought up to as a child, when you believe everything anybody says.

 

[Albo]

I am agnostic, my claim is "I don't know". So anyone claiming god does not exist needs to back that up with proof just as much as anyone claiming there is one.

I suppose all Atheists should be Agnostics as nobody knows there isn't, in the same way nobody knows there isn't a flying spaghetti monster, but until you provide proof there is one I will believe one doesn't exist as it's absurd.

You must also be Agnostic about the flying spaghetti monster?

 

[RDM]

I assume you're talking about the Christian God?

Nope.

In which case you only need look at what there actually is that points to the existence of this God. The Bible. Now, a book isn't much on itself. Not just that but it's a story book. If Darwin had published 'On the Origin of Species' in the same format as the Bible do you think it would have got much credit? No, i find it far more likely that the Bible was never intended to be a factual account of what happened, more a popular book for escapism much like Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings nowadays. You don't even have the original copy, meaning no self respecting Historian or Scientist would accept it as any sort of credible source. So when you take into account its credibility and look at what it actually says it's easy to pick apart every last one of the points in it. The world was made in 7 days? Do i even have to try with this one? Parting of the sea? There is evidence that points to there being a large Tsunami around this time, which could have caused the water to rush out suddenly. I could go on, but the point is that if you're judging your beliefs on such an unreliable source then why should you take everything in it at face value? No, if there was a case for the existence of this God it would have been made in a proper format and backed up by most of the Scientific community by now. Since it hasn't been there's really no reason at all for believing in it other than that's what you were brought up to as a child, when you believe everything anybody says.

At most you have cast doubt on the veracity of the Bible (not hard at all). You certainly haven't provided "absolute proof" that god does not exist. In fact you haven't provided any scientific proof at all about anything. You have even contradicted yourself by trying to give a possible scientific reason for something you are trying to suggest isn't true anyway.

 

[RDM]

I suppose all Atheists should be Agnostics as nobody knows there isn't, in the same way nobody knows there isn't a flying spaghetti monster, but until you provide proof there is one I will believe one doesn't exist as it's absurd.

You must also be Agnostic about the flying spaghetti monster?

See post #169 for why the FSM can be approached differently. We know for sure it is an intellectual exercise because the person who invented the intellectual exercise told us it was.

 

[PermaBanned]

At most you have cast doubt on the veracity of the Bible (not hard at all). You certainly haven't provided "absolute proof" that god does not exist. In fact you haven't provided any scientific proof at all about anything. You have even contradicted yourself by trying to give a possible scientific reason for something you are trying to suggest isn't true anyway.

Which is why i said 'pretty absolute certainty'. To the same extent that Richard Dawkins is a 'level 6 Atheist' as somebody said earlier. But part of following Science is that you have to use logic. There's no more reason that God should exist than there is for a teapot to be in orbit around Mars. Are you saying we should be agnostic about that? There bloody well isn't, i can tell you now. How about that the Matrix is real?