Richard Dawkins

All,

Read the "God Delusion", if you haven't already. I previously disliked Dawkins books (constant repetition) but this is an exceptional account of the ridiculous reasons that people still hold on to for a belief in a Deity, and how inactivity on the part of Atheists (in a bid to conform), can damage society and science.

If you want ammo to dispute logically the reasons for "belief in GOD" then read it now. However, just remember that fundamental believers cannot be turned from their course, whereas, show an atheist undeniable proof of a deity and he will be the first to convert.

What constitutes "undeniable"? thee was an old woman in the South african tribunals who confronted the man who had killed her only son. He admitted the killing but was immune from criminal proceedings. she was asked had she anything to say. She stood up and hobbled across the floor and looked the man in the face. Then she told the judge that this man had taken her only child. She said she forgave him for that but now she had no son. So she asked the judge is she could legally adopt the man who had killed him and bring him up as her own son. All of the room was awestruck and scilent. then someone began singing and they all joined in.

Amazing Grace how sweet the sound
That saved a wretch like me
I once was lost but now Im found
Was blind but now I see.

Even if this is undeniable, some people will still say this is not "evidence".

But what is the scientific reason for this woman's actions? On what logical theory was it based?

I think Dawkings is a good writer and thinker but is visciously opposed to religion.

...But I disagree that Science and Religion are as separate as you point out. E.g. reincarnation implies a belief in a soul, a part of our existence, in our universe that moves on. Physics and neuroscience has something to say about that ...

What about having Two souls? Or more? Please don't mention Scientology in your reply.

...
But returning to Dawkins home turf of evolution, science vs religion (or more correctly, critical thought vs. faith) is currently slugging it out over creationism vs evolution. The existence of the theory of evolution, and more broadly physics, is ...
The "New Athiesm" is not trying to 'evangelize' a secular life: secularism was happening, creationism is the fight-back of the religious (in the US) and Dawkins is leading the fight against creationism.

This is the kernel of the issues to me. Religion isnot irrational. Remember the recent spat about the Pope insulting Muslims with the speech he gave in his old university. I read the speech. To me he was poijting to Rationality in Christianity. and it is more directed at the fringe elements of Protestantism and Liberation Theology WITHIN christianity than the Islamic beliefs outside. In fact i think the Bishop he quoted was Orthodox and not Roman. the anglican Roman Orthodox coptic Christians ARE grounded in THE SAME rationality that modern science is!

Second of all is the assumption that science deals with facts and religion with belief. In fact many basic concepts in science are faith based. What are atoms, photons, quarks, dark energy, hyperspace? All are concepts with varying degrees of actual evidence. Academia also had a divide based on the "positivist"/ empiricist philosophers of science and the instrumentalilst /realist bunch so it isn't "rational" people against the rest who are all faith based! There are regions of commonality and difference across the spectrum.

P.S I don't personally believe that everything is a concept created in the mind but again like Berkeley one can't disprove that either! But the falsification criterion like positivism can be exposed to itself and found wanting can't it?

But what is the scientific reason for this woman's actions? On what logical theory was it based?

I think Dawkings is a good writer and thinker but is visciously opposed to religion.

What has the above got to do with religion?
An atheist would probably be more likely to do what that woman did than than a religious person. People don't need religion to tell them whats right or wrong. What she did was the right thing (or maybe she wanted to adopt him so that she could dispose of him more easily - joke). A religious fanatic would spout eye for eye and tooth for tooth (few ever seem to turn the other cheek as this woman did). If religion is so correct then why are there so many contradictory edicts - as above (eye for eye versus cheek turning).

Your not wrong that Dawkins is very anti-religious. He is only fighting back against attacks on him by religion. He feels it is not enough just to be an atheist, he must actively fight religion. This is no more incorrect than a religious person trying to convert people to their faith - so don't be surprised at his "visciousness" (your word not mine - would you use the same word to define religious attacks on Dawkins? I don't see why not). If you want atheists to be quiet and hide away then you should expect the same from the worlds religions - that would be double standards though - not unusual in itself for religions.

If you want to believe in santa claus, the tooth fairy, or god, then I'll defend your right to be superstitious, I will not however condone your forcing it down my throat as fact. It is time for you to think for yourself - ask questions of your faith - does it stand up to scrutiny? or do you have to keep resorting to that cure-all, FAITH, everytime you come across something ludicrous, contradictory or just downright wrong in your bible or koran or whatever. Can you stand over the correctness of your religious intitution and their methods and history? Are you happy with that? If so then carry on; but to me, religion, theism, deism or any other ism that requires me to suspend belief and not ask questions just goes against my nature entirely.

What are atoms, photons, quarks, dark energy, hyperspace? All are concepts with varying degrees of actual evidence.

NONE of science is faith based. Models are made based on known facts and data. If the model doesn't work it gets thrown out or refined to suit newly discovered facts. No faith is asked for or received.
Quantum theory is probably the most tested theory ever, it deals with all the above and has never failed. The standard model in particle physics (while it is not complete) demonstrates almost everything else we need to know, and has predicted previously unknown particles that have since been discovered. I would like to see your definition of Fact, if you think this is faith based. However you would argue that belief in God is based on fact??
I'm sorry but your not making sense.
Anyway your welcome to your beliefs, I'll not spend any more time arguing over the merits of a non-entity, enjoy your superstitions and juju. (with all due respect etc. no offence intended).

What constitutes "undeniable"? thee was an old woman in the South african tribunals who confronted the man who had killed her only son. He admitted the killing but was immune from criminal proceedings. she was asked had she anything to say. She stood up and hobbled across the floor and looked the man in the face. Then she told the judge that this man had taken her only child. She said she forgave him for that but now she had no son. So she asked the judge is she could legally adopt the man who had killed him and bring him up as her own son. All of the room was awestruck and scilent. then someone began singing and they all joined in.

Amazing Grace how sweet the sound
That saved a wretch like me
I once was lost but now Im found
Was blind but now I see.

Even if this is undeniable, some people will still say this is not "evidence".

That is supposed to be proof of God? Looks a lot like proof of the great potentail of human beings to me. I don't see any reason to evoke a mythical being in the sky to explain an act of kindness, I have more faith in humanity than that.

Second of all is the assumption that science deals with facts and religion with belief. In fact many basic concepts in science are faith based.

I'm sorry but you are just plain wrong. The whole point is that everything has to be based on experiment and observation and MUST be questioned. Nothing it to be taken on the basis of faith. Faith is the polar opposite to science.

What are atoms, photons, quarks, dark energy, hyperspace? All are concepts with varying degrees of actual evidence.

Science has no idea what they are, but it can list the properties they posses based on observation and experimentation. It can describe their properties and interactions mathematically based on observation and experimentation and can place bounds on some of their physical characteristics based on measurements. But that is all science can say about atoms and electrons.

You could argue that gravitons which have not been observed are a matter of faith except that science looks at them as nothing more than a hypothesis until someone finds the proof. Science REFUSES to believe they are real until there is evidence.

To me that is the polar opposite of faith.

Question everything and judge based only on evidence. That's science. Apply that to religion and there is very little of it left, if anything at all.

Bart.