The Fall of Theism | 103 comments (103 topical, 0 hidden)
mattish: ''I do like personal religion.'' (5.00 / 2)


I'm sorry if I erroneously assumed that you like personal religion.  As for your feeling of being "attacked", I deny responsibility for that.

Show me a religion with logic as its basis rather than some inflexible demand to accept a set of unsubstantiated beliefs and I'll reconsider my view of that particular ideology.

And if someone has some belief in a "God" of some definition, the definition of that God would seem to be relevant, wouldn't it?

Define "God".  Then we'll talk.  Until you do, I have no idea what you're talking about.

by EveningStarNM on 06/17/2009 02:54:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Deism (none / 0)
Deists believe that god created the world, and then put into place a set of natural laws that can never be broken.  

They think that there had to be a creator, because of their premises: The world had a beginning, and the world is too complicated to be just a coincidence.

Note: The author does not necessarily subscribe to the views, he is only describing them.

by birdboy1 on 06/17/2009 03:10:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Creation (5.00 / 2)
Assume that the universe was uniform and in a steady state.  Then something happened to disturb that state, an event which we call "The Big Bang".

What caused that disturbance?  "God?"  I guess you might as well call it that.  That name fits as well as any other.  "Creator?"  Absolutely.

I don't have a problem with any of that until someone who thinks they know something starts assigning attributes to "God", the "Creator".  I am convinced that it is a impossible for humans to know what caused that disturbance.  I might be wrong, but I think we'd have to know what came "before" there was time.

I like unanswerable questions.  I avoid trying to answer them.

by EveningStarNM on 06/17/2009 03:37:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You're talking about the "First Cause" (none / 0)
The First Cause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wik i/First_cause) is a common argument for the existence of a creator deity.  I don't remember the argument against it (I think it has something to do with saying that having a first cause is not a necessary condition).  There is a great book if this kind of thing interests you called Atheism Explained.  

http://www.amazon.com/Athei sm-Explained-Folly-Philosop hy-Ideas/dp/0812696379/ref= sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books& amp;qid=1245270996&sr=1 -3

We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.

by aidbo on 06/17/2009 04:45:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Creator vs. Deity (none / 0)
You can have a "creator" without having a deity.  My argument is that we have no idea what the creator was and that assigning "deity status" to it is dishonest.

by EveningStarNM on 06/17/2009 05:00:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Argument Against First Cause Hypothesis (none / 0)
Aidbo,

The argument against the first cause "evidence" of a creator, according to Richard Dawkins, is that in order for there to be a "prime mover" -- what people want to call God -- the prime mover had to have existed before this first cause.  Or at the very least, had to be created at the same time as the first cause. But then the question arises, "Who created the creator?"

There is no answer to this, nor, most likely, will there ever be.

by DaeguBill on 06/18/2009 12:24:48 AM EST

[ Parent ]
The questions never end. (none / 0)
Unfortunately, a lot of religionists simply don't recognize them.  They'll say, "No one created the Creator!  God just always was!"  And, given their definition of God, that statement makes perfect sense.

The real challenge is in getting them to recognize that their faith in the truth of that statement is actually dishonesty, since we can never prove whether it's true or false.  Supplying an answer to an unanswerable question is an act of dishonesty.

The real beauty and mystery is in the simple existence of the question "what happened before?"  But it's a question that they will never let stand unanswered.

by EveningStarNM on 06/18/2009 12:44:00 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Beauty (none / 0)
I think Richard Dawkins puts it best when he insists that it is much more interesting to not know something and to have to work hard to try to understand it (and possibly NEVER understand it) than to say, "I just know" and be done with it.

by DaeguBill on 06/18/2009 01:01:44 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I'm definitely going to have to read... (none / 0)
...more Richard Dawkins.  Got any suggestions?

by EveningStarNM on 06/18/2009 02:10:19 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Dawkins suggestions (none / 0)

Generally, anything by Dawkins is good, and highly scientific.  The primary origin of most of my concepts posed here come from, as you might expect, "The God Delusion".  This book is much less focused on science, more focused on history, but equally brilliant.

 For a more biting criticism of religion, check out Christopher Hitchen's "God is not great: how religion poisons everything."  Personally, I preferred this one. It's basically atheism with balls.

by DaeguBill on 06/18/2009 03:24:36 AM EST

[ Parent ]

The Fall of Theism | 103 comments (103 topical, 0 hidden)