Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

'The God Delusion'.. But is it true?


  • Please log in to reply
89 replies to this topic

#46    laver

laver

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,204 posts
  • Joined:02 Jan 2013

Posted 12 May 2013 - 12:02 AM

View Postthird_eye, on 11 May 2013 - 10:59 PM, said:

The design is by an artist whose name escapes me now .... I could get you the link if you're interested ...

Of course, all ways must be looked at if seeking the truth


#47    Perfection

Perfection

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 118 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Oz

Posted 12 May 2013 - 01:16 AM

View Postlaver, on 06 May 2013 - 08:17 PM, said:

The professor's book presents his atheistic beliefs and points to the damage that he believes religion has done and is doing in the world. You might agree but does that mean that there is no place for spirituality in life ?

I think that religion needs to be an immovable rock that is too dumb & too big to get out of the way. Like  a Pyramid or something. Peoples rise up & perish with all their knowledge but religion just stays in place like a rock.

Genesis says we were created like light inside a liquid dimension & that is what the technologically advanced aliens are saying also. Most creation scriptures say that in one way or another.The scientists are the only ones who have yet to grow up & see what reality is. It could take a thousand years for science to figure out that we're inside a liquid dimension. That would put science a thousand years behind religions. Religion is the rock of ages.


#48    libstaK

libstaK

    Nosce Te Ipsum

  • 6,902 posts
  • Joined:06 Feb 2011
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Melbourne, Australia

  • Hello Reality and all that is True
    When Oxymoron was defined it was just for you

Posted 12 May 2013 - 01:27 AM

View PostPerfection, on 12 May 2013 - 01:16 AM, said:

I think that religion needs to be an immovable rock that is too dumb & too big to get out of the way. Like  a Pyramid or something. Peoples rise up & perish with all their knowledge but religion just stays in place like a rock.
Wait, what?  Religion needs to be too dumb and too big?

What exactly is your definition of dumb? And why does the world need something that is defined as being dumb?

Are you suggesting it should be inviolate?

Quote

Genesis says we were created like light inside a liquid dimension & that is what the technologically advanced aliens are saying also. Most creation scriptures say that in one way or another.The scientists are the only ones who have yet to grow up & see what reality is. It could take a thousand years for science to figure out that we're inside a liquid dimension. That would put science a thousand years behind religions. Religion is the rock of ages.
Can you please quote the part in Genesis where it says this?

Edited by libstaK, 12 May 2013 - 01:38 AM.

"I warn you, whoever you are, oh you who wish to probe the arcanes of nature, if you do not find within yourself that which you seek, neither shall you find it outside.
If you ignore the excellencies of your own house, how do you intend to find other excellencies?
In you is hidden the treasure of treasures, Oh man, know thyself and you shall know the Universe and the Gods."

Inscription - Temple of Delphi

#49    third_eye

third_eye

    _ M Ġ ń Ř Ī Ş_

  • Member
  • 7,926 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Malaysia

  • "Legio nomen mihi est, quia multi sumus"

    God has no religion ~ Mahatma Gandhi

Posted 12 May 2013 - 05:27 AM

View Postlaver, on 12 May 2013 - 12:02 AM, said:

Of course, all ways must be looked at if seeking the truth

I'll need some time ... it's an old link and I gotta remember first which back up to dig at ... :lol:

~

third_eye ' s cavern ~ bring own beer

~


#50    docyabut2

docyabut2

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,638 posts
  • Joined:12 Aug 2011

Posted 12 May 2013 - 09:33 AM

View Postlaver, on 11 May 2013 - 12:43 PM, said:

Well lets hope it was not the god of the Old Testament he was talking about, but light, yes, lamps may lead the way...


I think most people even Christians  don`nt know what Jesus was really all about. He was a rebel against the establishment of the Jewish temple and it teachings. There was a veil in the temple separating God from the people, is why he was so angry in knocking over the tables, only those who could paid for a offering and the sick were not allowed.When Jesus died on the cross that veil was torn in two.Jesus tried to teach God was the life within and no one is separated from the love of God.

Mark 15 -37
And Jesus cried out with a loud voice, and breathed His last.
38 Then the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom.


#51    laver

laver

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,204 posts
  • Joined:02 Jan 2013

Posted 12 May 2013 - 11:28 AM

View Postdocyabut2, on 12 May 2013 - 09:33 AM, said:

I think most people even Christians  don`nt know what Jesus was really all about. He was a rebel against the establishment of the Jewish temple and it teachings. There was a veil in the temple separating God from the people, is why he was so angry in knocking over the tables, only those who could paid for a offering and the sick were not allowed.When Jesus died on the cross that veil was torn in two.Jesus tried to teach God was the life within and no one is separated from the love of God.

Mark 15 -37
And Jesus cried out with a loud voice, and breathed His last.
38 Then the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom.

'I think most people even Christians don`nt know what Jesus was really all about.'

Now that would seem to be a very true statement...
Huge doubt about the veracity of the 4 Gospels... Huge doubt about the gospels and accounts left out of the bible...Huge doubts about the motives behind the compilation of the Old and New Testaments... so many unanswered questions as noted by Richard Dawkins in TGD. But he then dismisses all spirituality, spirituality that dates back to thousands of years earlier and that has been explored in recent years in the remains of ancient sacred sites. Were these ancient people deluded in thinking that there had been some 'foreign' intelligence at work in our world in the distant past? The evidence is mounting that they were not...


#52    laver

laver

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,204 posts
  • Joined:02 Jan 2013

Posted 13 May 2013 - 05:20 PM

View PostlibstaK, on 12 May 2013 - 01:27 AM, said:

Wait, what?  Religion needs to be too dumb and too big?

What exactly is your definition of dumb? And why does the world need something that is defined as being dumb?

Are you suggesting it should be inviolate?

Can you please quote the part in Genesis where it says this?

Dumb? In 'The God Delusion' Dawkins shows that the vast majority of informed people i.e. scientists do not have religious convictions. History tells us that many churches opposed teaching the truth to their members and their members children. This is sadly still the case today i.e. evolution is a fact and the 7 days of creation clearly just a story made up by the people who wrote the bible, people with their own agendas....poor Eve.


#53    libstaK

libstaK

    Nosce Te Ipsum

  • 6,902 posts
  • Joined:06 Feb 2011
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Melbourne, Australia

  • Hello Reality and all that is True
    When Oxymoron was defined it was just for you

Posted 13 May 2013 - 09:10 PM

View Postlaver, on 13 May 2013 - 05:20 PM, said:

Dumb? In 'The God Delusion' Dawkins shows that the vast majority of informed people i.e. scientists do not have religious convictions. History tells us that many churches opposed teaching the truth to their members and their members children. This is sadly still the case today i.e. evolution is a fact and the 7 days of creation clearly just a story made up by the people who wrote the bible, people with their own agendas....poor Eve.
I wouldn't call it a story as much as an allegory for creation which is being interpreted literally by those who lack perception.  In that sense you are correct - creationists are myopic and dogmatic in ways that stifle their capacity to learn and comprehend.  I suppose the notion that there is a need for religion to be in this state escapes me.  

Perhaps I have misunderstood your position and your intent in those words? I do not believe the perpetuation of dogma is necessary for humanity in any way, I believe it is the stumbling block which we must all overcome to arrive at any form of truth or real knowledge. I think religion needs to stop being "dumb".

The God delusion shows what Dawkins is able to comprehend of religious and spiritual matters - which is next to nothing.  He is merely showing the exact opposing position of the literalist believers, disbelief based on literalist interpretation void of insight and perception.  But that does not make the knowledge itself the issue.

Edited by libstaK, 13 May 2013 - 09:19 PM.

"I warn you, whoever you are, oh you who wish to probe the arcanes of nature, if you do not find within yourself that which you seek, neither shall you find it outside.
If you ignore the excellencies of your own house, how do you intend to find other excellencies?
In you is hidden the treasure of treasures, Oh man, know thyself and you shall know the Universe and the Gods."

Inscription - Temple of Delphi

#54    ShadowSot

ShadowSot

    Stinky Cheese

  • Member
  • 6,874 posts
  • Joined:27 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida

  • Oops.

Posted 13 May 2013 - 10:28 PM

View Postlaver, on 11 May 2013 - 09:04 PM, said:

Interesting stuff but there are many questions as to whether humans developed without any external influence from a 'foreign' intelligence be it gods or goddesses or not.
All creation myths seem to indicate that we were and the result is a quite exceptional species ruling the world sometimes for better but often for worse.
  you haven't read many creation myths if that's your opinion.

Quote

The important question is whether there is any real evidence of external influence in the distant past and this may soon be answered....
Well, it has been. There isn't any.

It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
-Terry Pratchett

#55    laver

laver

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,204 posts
  • Joined:02 Jan 2013

Posted 13 May 2013 - 10:40 PM

View PostlibstaK, on 13 May 2013 - 09:10 PM, said:

I wouldn't call it a story as much as an allegory for creation which is being interpreted literally by those who lack perception.  In that sense you are correct - creationists are myopic and dogmatic in ways that stifle their capacity to learn and comprehend.  I suppose the notion that there is a need for religion to be in this state escapes me.  

Perhaps I have misunderstood your position and your intent in those words? I do not believe the perpetuation of dogma is necessary for humanity in any way, I believe it is the stumbling block which we must all overcome to arrive at any form of truth or real knowledge. I think religion needs to stop being "dumb".

The God delusion shows what Dawkins is able to comprehend of religious and spiritual matters - which is next to nothing.  He is merely showing the exact opposing position of the literalist believers, disbelief based on literalist interpretation void of insight and perception.  But that does not make the knowledge itself the issue.

OK, religion needs to stop being 'dumb' and dogma is a stumbling block; but dogma is the mainstay of religion... do not think...do not attain knowledge... do what WE tell you to do and you will be rewarded in the afterlife, if WE forgive your sins, sins that WE will define on the basis of OUR view of morality; if you don't you will go to hell...

It would seem that whereas many people can now see that this is the ultimate con of control freaks like the god of the Old Testament and his followers, spirituality was missing. Before this ogre came along were there other spiritual beliefs which Abraham with his new lord were trying to displace. Almost certainly there were.

Did these earlier spiritual beliefs about Gods and Goddesses have a validity that so worried the bible writers that they had to create the stories that we see in the Old Testament about what can only be called an evil god.

Dawkins sees the evil god alright but dismisses in his analysis what went before.


#56    laver

laver

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,204 posts
  • Joined:02 Jan 2013

Posted 13 May 2013 - 10:45 PM

View PostShadowSot, on 13 May 2013 - 10:28 PM, said:

  you haven't read many creation myths if that's your opinion.


Well, it has been. There isn't any.

Your certainty is not well founded


#57    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,696 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 13 May 2013 - 11:57 PM

View PostlibstaK, on 13 May 2013 - 09:10 PM, said:

The God delusion shows what Dawkins is able to comprehend of religious and spiritual matters - which is next to nothing.  He is merely showing the exact opposing position of the literalist believers, disbelief based on literalist interpretation void of insight and perception.  But that does not make the knowledge itself the issue.

I agree insofar as The God Delusion is limited in scope and does go after some low hanging fruit belief-wise that not all believers subscribe to, but that many believers do.  Considering that Dawkins' expertise, biology, has specifically been under attack by people who believe some of this theological low-hanging fruit for what, a century now, I can understand the rationale behind his targets.  I don't think his disbelief is based at all on literalist intepretation, his disbelief is based on a profound lack of evidence for God; to rephrase what you wrote, he thinks the foundation of 'religious and spiritual matters', namely that a god and a spirit-anything actually exists, to indeed be based on 'next to nothing'.

I'm no fan of his, I like his science writing but find a lot of the atheist stuff dry and boring and sometimes annoying, I wouldn't have as much an objection to viewing him as the exact opposite position of the more 'fire-and-brimstone' fundamentalist preachers, as far as him not pulling any punches about what he believes.  But I don't think the reason for his disbelief is at all equivalent or the counterexample to extreme religious beliefs (or in my non-believing view, any religious belief actually), his reasons for not believing in the supernatural are entirely mainstream for atheists and on very solid footing from an empirical standpoint, much more so than 'God exists and hates gays'.

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - C. Hitchens
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman

#58    shrooma

shrooma

    doesn't have one screw fully tightened.....

  • Member
  • 3,570 posts
  • Joined:14 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:leeds, UK.

  • Live.
    Sin.
    Die.

Posted 14 May 2013 - 12:19 AM

View Postlaver, on 13 May 2013 - 10:45 PM, said:



Your certainty is not well founded
.
that depends on your definition of 'real evidence'.

- - - - -disclaimer- - - - -
all posts- without exception- are humourous.
if you fail to grasp the sublety, then don't whine on due to your lack of understanding.

#59    laver

laver

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,204 posts
  • Joined:02 Jan 2013

Posted 14 May 2013 - 09:32 AM

View Postshrooma, on 14 May 2013 - 12:19 AM, said:

.
that depends on your definition of 'real evidence'.

The ground breaking achievements of early civilisations like Sumer and Egypt came about under belief systems that predated the rise of the Abrahamic god by thousands of years with many deities of both sexes. These deities were not seen as native to the Earth but often taught and guided humankind. For example did early hunter gatherers manage the genetic modification of grasses to make them useful crops? or did they have some help? The creation myths of ancient Sumer indicate involvement of Gods and Goddesses in human developement which would seem to be possibly confirmed by genetic research. The advanced skills and organisation of the early builders of monuments in many areas - where did it come from and what was the motivation behind it? Why were ancient sacred sites laid out to geometric designs?
Many questions to which we are gradually getting answers. Dawkins says it is all the result of evolution and natural selection, that there has been no spiritual or 'foreign' imput but he also believes in the probability of 'other life' in our Universe. It is just a question then of whether this 'other life' has visited our planet in the distant past.


#60    libstaK

libstaK

    Nosce Te Ipsum

  • 6,902 posts
  • Joined:06 Feb 2011
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Melbourne, Australia

  • Hello Reality and all that is True
    When Oxymoron was defined it was just for you

Posted 14 May 2013 - 10:48 AM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 13 May 2013 - 11:57 PM, said:

I agree insofar as The God Delusion is limited in scope and does go after some low hanging fruit belief-wise that not all believers subscribe to, but that many believers do.  Considering that Dawkins' expertise, biology, has specifically been under attack by people who believe some of this theological low-hanging fruit for what, a century now, I can understand the rationale behind his targets.  I don't think his disbelief is based at all on literalist intepretation, his disbelief is based on a profound lack of evidence for God; to rephrase what you wrote, he thinks the foundation of 'religious and spiritual matters', namely that a god and a spirit-anything actually exists, to indeed be based on 'next to nothing'.
lol, the low hanging fruit analogy is pretty spot on.  As to his position that religious and spiritual matters are based on "next to nothing" - well you need to walk the walk before you can talk the talk so to speak.  In spiritual matters the evidence is individual - pride and ego prevent it's expression.  It is very difficult to disseminate knowledge externally without attachment and therefore pride claiming that knowledge for themselves, which by definition makes what is said diminished if not outright false - the ultimate conundrum and a poor answer but I am not being passe about this, it is simply and absolutely a personal journey and cannot be sold on the open market in any way shape or form.

Quote

I'm no fan of his, I like his science writing but find a lot of the atheist stuff dry and boring and sometimes annoying, I wouldn't have as much an objection to viewing him as the exact opposite position of the more 'fire-and-brimstone' fundamentalist preachers, as far as him not pulling any punches about what he believes.  But I don't think the reason for his disbelief is at all equivalent or the counterexample to extreme religious beliefs (or in my non-believing view, any religious belief actually), his reasons for not believing in the supernatural are entirely mainstream for atheists and on very solid footing from an empirical standpoint, much more so than 'God exists and hates gays'.
Perhaps the majority of his position is within the mainstream of atheism, fair call there - but:

I make that claim based on his position that belief in God is a delusion - when we claim to someone that their lifes work is a delusion, thems fighting words and a position of superiority v the inferiority of the deluded is the paramount implication - which is extreme, or at least amongst the most extreme positions one could hold.

It is imo just as delusionary to claim that scientific theory has provided actual evidence that negates the possibility of a God.  It has not, nor in it's current evolutionary state can it do so.  No matter the experiment, no matter the math - it is always based on what we know we know and has not taken into account that which we do not know that we do not know (thank you Socrates). It implies we have answered all of the mysteries of the universe, when what we actually have are many viable but by no means conclusive theories, no scientist worth his salt would be adamant that a given theory is the absolute and final word and he couldn't until he has explored and experimented in every dark and tiny corner of said universe or even multiverses - it is a grand adventure and we have barely made a few baby steps, it would be a shame to claim it was all answered at the age of basically a 1 year old in so far as the potential total amount of universally available material knowledge (forgive the layman's estimate I'm sure the difference between what we know and what we have yet to discover we could know is absolutely huge beyond any real guesstimate).

Additionally science of the material cannot create theories that expunge possibilities based upon manifestations that do not have an outcome constituting some form of "mass" such as spiritual experience or even philosophy and psychology (as opposed to psychiatry which is based on a material science via diagnosis of chemical imbalance and measurable neurological disorders etc).

Basically, they can prove that faith can be false in specific material expectation such as healing (I like it when they do that, it's important for obvious reasons) but not that faith cannot provide outcomes in totum as many faith based outcomes are distinctly devoid of material mass and rather comprise spiritual growth and perception.

"I warn you, whoever you are, oh you who wish to probe the arcanes of nature, if you do not find within yourself that which you seek, neither shall you find it outside.
If you ignore the excellencies of your own house, how do you intend to find other excellencies?
In you is hidden the treasure of treasures, Oh man, know thyself and you shall know the Universe and the Gods."

Inscription - Temple of Delphi




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users