High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Aug 2, 2015 - 03:15pm PT
Paul, it is as if chapter 1 of Dawkins' TGD was written just for you - if you'd care enough to read it (or re-read it).
I think in your heart of hearts you know what's going on... you're just afraid or disenchanted or something.
You know the deal... regarding varieties of god concepts for instance. You know full well Dawkins' work by and large refers to an interactive, intervening personal loving God EXACTLY as presented by traditional fundamentalist churches in America (in other words Jehovah, God of Moses and Abraham in a literal, for-real sense); and certainly he is NOT referring to a more abstract hypothetical deistic or (metaphoric, poetic) pantheistic god.
Be honest all the way around and we might be able to move the conversation in a positive direction.
Better: Open The God Delusion, start reading, and we can critique it chapter by chapter if you like.
The world is changing on all fronts. Are you being left behind?
.....
Where is the evidence that God cannot exist...? -Paul
Which God (concept) for chrissakes?
How can you post seemingly so seriously and not answer this question? or else dismiss it?
This is America. The God of Moses prevails. In Cragman's mind / narrative for instance. In Frank Graham's mind for instance. In umpteen millions across America, and not in just a rarefied smattering here and there in tiny points as you suggest (along with another one or two posters of the past).
Last but not least, up and down the Republican Party. Do you watch the news, for chrisakes?!
Is your thinking that narrow-minded or your life experience that historically sheltered (eg, from traditional fundamentalists) that you do not understand (the import, relevance of) this question?
Really, I hate to see you hung up on such a easily graspable point - while so many millions of others are pulling through. Somewhere you're missing some basic pieces or sequences, I'm afraid.
Proofs in either direction seem impossible...
Oh please. Get real. Proof in Aphrodite is impossible? How do you define proof? Can it just be a reasonable proof or does it need to be an absolute 100.000000000000000000% proof before a claim can be made/concluded; or an action taken; or a policy implemented. Proof in a tea cup orbiting Mars is impossible? Really? A "reasonable" proof isn't enough? Really?
I'll give you this: Proof that a deist God (dubbed Diacrates) is impossible. Short of that, study a variety of theist theologies (incl the Flying Spaghetti Monster) and then we talk again. All groundless nonsense (bouffant bs) otherwise.
And, PS, were a non-interactive, non-intervening Diacrates to exist, what difference would it matter anyhow - esp in the practical here and now as young males are blowing themselves and others up over in the ME over the equivalent of Mars (aka Eres) - taken as gospel truth for real by them - in the hope of earning a gift of virgins spelled out in a crazy stupid fairytale narrative of the bronze age?
Regarding extremists, here's a thought as Dawkins and others have pointed out... time and time and time again. And time and time and time again... Moderates and sympathizers of your sort provide cover - THEY PROVIDE COVER - for those religious extremists. It's a valid claim. Wake up and see the truth in it.
Excuse me. Not tea cup. Tea pot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
.....
Wow!
religious fundamentalism [is not] the general representative of religion and myth.
Wow!
Religious fundamentalism... IS... the general representative of religion.
Truth or dare? I DARE you to fly to Islamabad, find its equivalent of Hyde Park, stand on a soap box and declare yourself an atheist.
Stand by and note the response. (Shouldn't be long.)
You are a liar or a fool on this point, which is it?
Either way, it's obscurantism.
You might as well be running around everywhere amongst children in a schoolyard for eg enthusiastically shouting rocklimbing is safe! rockclimbing is safe! rockclimbing is safe! go for it!!!!
:(
......
I am completely familar with the theoretical hypotheses that we are but (mere) simulations in a supermachine.
I also know full well that you know this is not the god type of which Dawkins to Harris to everybody else speaks. Their arguments target the VERY PERSONAL, VERY INTERVENING God Jehovah (God of Moses) and none other. Where is the sincerity?
Let us know!