101. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78929 by Lauregon on October 15, 2007 at 12:45 pm

Well, Dawkins and Harris have already given many examples of such strange beliefs and why they are dangerous. And I agree that they are dangerous, without having to find out even more about the specific beliefs of each small sect around. - Dianelos

Unless you can PROVE the existence of "God," that is, make undeniable and visible and important to all that which has to now been unseen and untouched, your new improved version of theism is merely one more occult authoritarianism.

What I disagree with is that these harebrained beliefs are the most dangerous thing around, and as I argue in post 414 above, it now seems that Dawkins and Harris are softening their original position too. - Dianelos

I'd say George W Bush and his evangelical pals along with the Left Behind zealots are messing in some radically dangerous adventures.

Finally I think that religious beliefs are apt to become more dangerous where religion is not seriously taught as schools (as in the US) and where entirely nations are exploited or invaded or their autarchic (which must not be confused with undemocratic) regimes are supported, and their religion ridiculed (as in the Middle East). - Dianelos

But not yet dangerous enough, evidently, given your disagreement with Dawkins, Harris, et al. :0

Therefore, it seems to me, "new atheism's" prescriptions for decreasing the dangers of religion at best do not deal with the causal basis of the problem and at worst push for the opposite of what would work. - Dianelos

The causal basis of religious dangers is requiring belief in heavenly beings no one has ever seen or touched.

A philosopher's "God" cooly pondered in the comfort of an ivory tower is considerably different from the "God" in the minds of most believers. - Lauregon

Quite so. Which is clearly one more reason for anybody interested in thinking about ontological truth to consider the God of the philosophers rather than the God in the minds of most believers. Which, Dawkins, despite his protestations of caring mainly about truth, has not really done before writing TGD. -

Those interested in thinking about "ontological truth" would be theists, not atheists, therefore, your field of mission is with them, not with non-theists. There's not a reason in the universe why you should be hounding non-theists to rise to your ontological theism. (Shall I quote Carl Sagan's views on ontology?). If the day ever comes that you managed to drag the world's theists to your philosopher's "God" concept, then will be time enough to start on non-theists.

As I've mentioned before, Dianelos, there's a reason why theism has been sold through fear and promises of reward. Fear and reward work. Take them away and there's no compelling reason for people to believe in unseen Supermen With Plans. What you're enthralled with, as is abundently clear, is the intellectuality of seeking the philosopher's "God," but so far, all you've produced in the way of "God" is a teetering boatload of ifs and maybes tacked together with your say-so and a handful of could-be dust.

102. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78912 by Lauregon on October 15, 2007 at 11:15 am

Well, I understand the sentiment but not the logic of what you write here. Let's take as an example a simple true proposition: "Walls are hard". Knowing this proposition helps us avoid bumping into walls and thus helps us avoid painful bumps in the head. But this doest not imply that our behavior is governed by the fear of walls, or anything like that. - Dianelos

Utterly bogus analogy. God is feared, walls aren't. Gods have been feared for eons. Christianity was built upon fear.

If reality is such that God exists which implies fundamental justice, if our actions in this life have consequences in the next, then for people to avoid doing bad things is as reasonable as for people to avoid bumping into walls. - Dianelos

"Implies fundamental justice?" Says who, with what factual knowledge? Where is the fundamental justice for those who are, for example, maimed and slaughtered in natural disasters, or, for another, born with hideous defects?

It's what Buddhists call the law of karma: all actions have personal consequences even if these are not experienced in this life.

Surely the "God" person itself is not exempt from personal consequences for cataclysms spawned by "God's" personal creation, right? Where is "fundamental justice" for those injured through "God's" indifference to human suffering and how is it meted out---and by whom?

(And I submit that we all somehow deep down know that this is true.) - Dianelos

All things considered, of course you do, but surely that couldn't be a superstition, could it?

103. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #78743 by Lauregon on October 14, 2007 at 5:01 pm

Does Archbishop Rowan still lead his flock in reciting the Apostle's or Nicene creeds on a regular basis? Does he still believe in the creedal statements? If so, what the heck is the dispute with atheists about??? Or, does Archbishop Rowan not believe in the creedal statements of the Anglican church anymore? If not, why is he still leading the people in reciting them---if he is? Please advise, Archbishop Rowan.

104. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78740 by Lauregon on October 14, 2007 at 4:38 pm

:-) Right, it's funny to consider all the many a theistic sects which teach that only they have gotten it right and that everybody else is going to hell. - Dianelos

Therein lies the problem with training people to believe in unverifiable unseen divine beings with super-powers who have unverifiable actions, laws, intentions, and purposes for those same people.

We in the US today are living under a sectarian political regime that believes that reality is whatever the regime claims reality is, aided and abetted by a significant sectarian segment of the population which has been trained to believe in the existence and directorship of an unseen deity, and therefore is willing to believe the regime is guided by "God" and that whatever the regime says is factual. Given that there's no way to "prove" the existence or guidance of this unseen deity except through the most tortured and convoluted claims of authoritarian leaders, it seems to me to be a much wiser course to train people to believe in what is actually visible and verifiable rather than in the unseen and unverifiable activities of unseen beings---regardless of whose sectarian or highly personal version of deity is being promoted---for whatever reason.

105. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78736 by Lauregon on October 14, 2007 at 4:10 pm

Lauregon (post 357, or #78504):

By what means do you believe yourself able to know with certainty that your ideas about "God" are not mythology and superstition?

I never claimed such. - Dianelos

Perhaps, perhaps not. In any case, the fanaticism with which you argue for theism and the certainty you wrap your argumentation in suggests that you deeply believe that your ideas about "God" represent reality rather than mythology and superstition. There's little to no evidence at all in your posts suggesting that you harbor any measurable doubt about your "God" ideas---just as biblical literalists express no doubt about inerrancy.

106. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #78558 by Lauregon on October 13, 2007 at 3:39 pm

Richard gives the pot a familiar stir, as our Lord teaches us: "Blessed are the cheesemakers."

What a friend we have in cheeses.

107. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78556 by Lauregon on October 13, 2007 at 3:26 pm

Well, it certainly looks like a boring exercise :-) Could you explain why you think this would be a salutary exercise? I hate doing boring things, but if this exercise is so salutary I might attempt it. - Dianelos

If you were to learn a lot more about what believers actually believe instead of relying on what you assume they believe, the antitheist warnings of Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, et al, might make much more sense to you. A philosopher's "God" cooly pondered in the comfort of an ivory tower is considerably different from the "God" in the minds of most believers.

108. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78555 by Lauregon on October 13, 2007 at 3:16 pm

Would you say that a naturalist writing a book on naturalism in a way that would move people who agree with that ontology to behave according to the "golden rule" is attempting "social control"? Of course not. - Dianelos

I'd say that the Golden Rule is a method of voluntary social control through pragmatic reciprocity. I'd say also that alluding to ethical behavior as an unequalled advantageous result of theism as you've done, is ultimately about arguing for social control under the absolute authority of an all-powerful deity.

We all wish for people to behave in an ethical manner. My argument is that theistic ontologies have an intrinsic advantage in this respect over naturalistic ontologies. - Dianelos

That intrinsic advantage would be spelled f-e-a-r of the all-powerful, all-knowing, omniscient "God." Take away the fear and/or hope of reward, and the advantage vanishes.

In other words no matter how well a naturalist writes a book on ethics, that book will not make as much sense as a book on ethics written equally well by a theist (or actually by any religious person, even one who is a non-theist such as a Buddhist). - Dianelos

Dianelos takes a position for the legitimacy of argument from authority.

Here is why: All major religions, whether theistic or non-theistic, postulate a transcendental reality where personal life continues after death and where one's behavior in this life is not irrelevant, but rather has implications for one's afterlife. In other words all major religions postulate an ontology which is ultimately just, and therefore describe an objective reality where it never pays to do the wrong thing and where to do the right thing is always a smart choice. The details of how justice is realized vary from religion to religion and from sect to sect[1], but these details are irrelevant in respect to the fact that all these religious ontologies do in general move people towards ethical behavior to a degree that no non-religious ontology can. - Dianelos

Fear of punishment and revenge from an all-powerful "God" is, can be, and indeed has been an incentive towards "ethical behavior," as is also the case with promises of heavenly rewards, stars in one's crown, and the sublimated sexuality involved in imagining the ecstacy of spending eternity with Jesus/God. Unfortunately, all that amounts to is a shopkeeper barter system.

[1]: A central dogma of Christianity in general and indeed of most Christian churches including the mainstream Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant churches is that those who sin and do not repent in this life will be condemned to eternal suffering in hell, and the rest, presumably a small minority, will be rewarded with eternal bliss in heaven. For what's worth I think that this dogma makes no sense at all, does not match the idea of God's perfection, and does not even match with the words and overall message of Jesus of Nazareth as we find them in the gospels. - Dianelos

The Parable of the Talents, for one example, suggests an supremely immoral and vengeful message from Jesus.

But this is a quarrel I have with my fellow Christians, which I suppose is irrelevant for people in this thread. - Dianelos

As often as your lengthy arguments are so heavily dependent upon your own idiosyncratic version of the Bible, Jesus, God, the Bible, doctrine, and reality itself, it appears that you may imagine yourself as some sort of new messiah. Is it possible that you do?

109. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78504 by Lauregon on October 13, 2007 at 10:18 am

Well, if God exists then it's improbable that God has parted seas and burned bushes don't you think? That's just mythology, and it's understandable that ancient tribes would mix their ideas about God with lots of mythology as well as with superstition and nationalist nonsense, don't you agree? - Dianelos

By what means do you believe yourself able to know with certainty that your ideas about "God" are not mythology and superstition?

Well, again, suppose that God exists. Then God could easily arrange the state of affairs in such a way that His/Her existence were easily detectable by science (i.e. by objective observation). But clearly God has not done that (for some reason or other we can discuss later if you like). So, suppose that God does not want to be detectable by science. Do you see any particular logical or practical problem in God creating our experiential environment exactly as we actually have it while at the same time keeping Him/Herself beyond the reach of science? - Dianelos

It may be that herds of elephants routinely fly across the heavens every day, and that "God," for reasons unknown, made it impossible for humans to detect them as they sail overhead. It may also be that "God" equipped humans with multiple heads above their shoulders, only one of which is visible to the human eye. It could be. With such a "God," anything is possible, anything at all. One might, however, wonder what the point of such a relationship between "God" and humans would be, and what the point of moral development in humans would be, given the vast asymetry in the "reality" relationship between such a "God" and human beings.

110. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78424 by Lauregon on October 12, 2007 at 7:35 pm

Dianelos said it, he believes it---and that settles it! ;)

111. Fox News Attacks 'Godless' Free Thought Radio

Comment #78406 by Lauregon on October 12, 2007 at 5:19 pm

FOXSnooze's vacuous spewing is at least as embarrassing to Americans Who Think as is leaving the restroom with your skirt tucked in your scanties and walking down the aisles of a supermarket.

Yapping, mush-witted, frigging cockapoos!

112. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78400 by Lauregon on October 12, 2007 at 4:51 pm

All other things being equivalent a naturalist has one less reason to behave ethically than somebody who believes in some kind of personal afterlife where somehow justice is satisfied - Dianelos

Well, well, well! Creationist-masquerading-as- rational-scientist Dianelos has finally let the cat out of the bag. At last! Dianelos' argumentation isn't about science at all, as he would have us believe, but about social control achieved by means of instilled fear! Now who ever would have guessed that? Dianelos, you are SO outed! But it was inevitable, wasn't it? GUFFAW!

113. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #78293 by Lauregon on October 12, 2007 at 11:24 am

This is a re-post/correction of what was Post # 597. I inadvertantly deleted a portion of it, and I couldn't get the edit function to take:

As John Lennox pointed out in his recent debate with Dawkins, and notwithstanding Dr Benway's dislike of this fact, there are two major alternatives: Either reality is at bottom mechanical or it is at bottom intentional. And if you stopped for a moment believing in naturalist mythology you'd see that there is no "truly compelling" evidence that reality is at bottom mechanical. - Dianelos

I'm sixty seven years old, Dianelos. I spent often tortured decades believing in theism. I no longer do. Evidence that there is a "God" person who cares at all about the daily lives of human beings in the way that human beings care about their own lives, simply isn't discernible. As I see it, trusting what others claim about a supernatural unseen divine realm is a path to all manner of absurd, ignorant, "naive" faith systems and predations. Regardless of whether or not there is evidence that reality is mechanical, relying on what can actually be verified is a far wiser life-path to follow than trusting in authoritarian, ivory tower conjecture, speculation, and assertions about the existence and activities of an unseen supernatural deity whom no one has ever seen, touched, or heard speak.

Your argument is that if only we non-theists would search out the correct theologians, we'd embrace theism. Sorry. That's just another ivory tower priesthood, another argument from authority. That's simply not compelling in this day and age. However, more annoying even than your continual argument from authority is your continuing refusal to answer questions put to you regarding the attributes and functions of this "God" you so ardently wish us to embrace. So far, you've presented NO compelling arguments at all for why we should want or need to return to belief in a supernatural unseen "God." Stonewalling, in my experience, is usually an indication of the presence of something less than honest.


This is a later addition:

I am afraid TGD is fooling you. You don't have to believe me, Lauregon, nor any other theist. But please go study what other naturalists (maybe more knowledgeable in this field and less angry than Dawkins) are thinking. There are many books about ontology written by naturalists that are head and shoulders above TGD; I have mentioned several in previous posts. - Dianelos

My argument doesn't rest with Richard Dawkins---and didn't begin with him either. Until you're willing to present a compelling reason why non-theists should reconsider theism, your efforts are pointless, at least in regard to convincing us of your reality.

114. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #78284 by Lauregon on October 12, 2007 at 11:07 am

Lauregon (post 565, or #78057):

one man's belief in the rapture is another man's belief in the 'blessed sacrament.'

Oh? And where exactly did I claim belief in the 'blessed sacrament' whatever that is? - Dianelos

You didn't. I merely used the blessed sacrament as an example to show that those who believe in supernatural phenomena aren't in a position to disparage the supernatuural beliefs of others.

On the contrary I have repeatedly stated my belief that all physical phenomena can be explained without recourse to a supernatural agency. - Dianelos

Of course. Your beliefs are true, those of others are not.

You should have the mental flexibility of at least imagining that the truth may lie somewhere between naturalism on the one side (the idea that reality is at bottom mechanical) and naive theism on the other side (the idea of a demon-haunted world). - Dianelos

I've urged you before several times to consider embracing deism. Many non-theists have no objection to it. Deism's a happy, flexible middle- ground---right?

115. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #78113 by Lauregon on October 11, 2007 at 10:45 pm

but if, on top of all his other qualities, he is also getting "ethically empowered" then I think we'd better watch out. - Richard Morgan

Exactly. And this...

Even then there is little doubt that to assume a religious model of reality is conducive to a better quality of life than the alternative. So if both a religious and a non-religious model of reality are reasonable only a masochist would prefer the non-religious model of a "hideous" reality - Dianelos

I think Dianelos oversteps and presumes far too much. For example, it's possible for humans to have what could be called a "religious model of reality" that doesn't include a supernatural "God." Sam Harris addresses this when he writes of meditative practices and other centering exercises. Non-theist author Jon Katz writes in his book, "Running To The Mountain," of something he calls reverent secularism (that may not be precisely the term, but it's the gist of it), an attitude toward life that involves living consciously, deliberately, and in a balanced way. Such a life requires no "God," but might well create a qualitatively better life than a life lived unconsciously and rapaciously. On the other hand, a "religious model of reality" might easily result in the behaviors of militant Muslims and activist Christian wackos, with there being no guarantees whatsoever of their lives being qualitatively better than some "alternative."

116. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #78066 by Lauregon on October 11, 2007 at 5:42 pm

#540

Not really; that's a statement Dawkins makes all the time. And it seems to me that he makes that statement as the result of the fallacious logic I described in post 510 above. - Dianelos

Surely you're not suggesting that Dawkins accepts that "God" exists but denies only that "God" produced the species.


#543

But that's exactly my point: it's not that clear that the universe does not have a purpose (and a purposeful universe implies a creator), contrary to what Dawkins tries to convince people in TGD. - Dianelos

As Dr Benway has already mentioned, when the evidence for a "God" person is truly compelling, non-theists will reconsider their unbelief. Until then, there's no reason to---just as there's no reason to believe in fairies or in monsters under the bed.

And, obviously, if one had asked the same group of thoughtful people if they think there are fairies at the bottom of the garden they would all have responded with a monosyllable "no".

Probably so---because they see no reason to believe there are fairies at the bottom of the garden. Now, a "God" person, on the other hand, that's a tough one for many people to give up.

And if there is one thing I dislike more than the bad reasoning in TGD is the general idea it projects that the issues are settled and that further study is not necessary and may even be a ridiculous thing to do. - Dianelos

When and if there ever is compelling proof would be time enough to reconsider unbelief. The thing is, Dianelos, what you see as "evidence" simply isn't compelling to us. You apparently discount the importance of the believer's will to believe in the supernatural. Without a compelling reason to believe in the existence a supernatural "God" person who created and directs the universe, there's no motivation to search for an absent, unseen "God" person who has never been observed to actually exist. It's really that simple.

There's a huge reason why orthodox belief in "God" has for centuries has been rooted in fear and trembling: fear has worked.

117. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #78057 by Lauregon on October 11, 2007 at 5:10 pm

I am not sure what the relevance was, but this video was interesting nonetheless. Actually it was quite amazing. I suppose that's the lunatic religious right in the US. What can I say? This is one more example of the failure of education. - Dianelos

He who believes in supernatural religious phenomena attributed to or associated with an unseen deity, is in no reasonable position to ridicule the supernatural religious phenomena others hold as truths, i.e., one man's belief in the rapture is another man's belief in the 'blessed sacrament.'

118. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #77761 by Lauregon on October 10, 2007 at 12:24 pm

Well, for me it does – there is nothing like the happiness and peace of mind that come with understanding. - Dianelos

It would be inaccurate, Dianelos, to suggest that what you "understand" is something other than the convoluted speculation you've engaged in as the means of supporting your religious beliefs.

The Templeton Foundation ran a double full page in the NYT earlier this week on the Big Questions, an array of (partial) essays (in full at the website) by a range of scientists, philosophers, theologians, etc., on the question of whether or not there is purpose in the universe. There was no consensus among those presenting their ideas. The answers were diverse: Yes, no, maybe, not sure, etc.. Surely, Dianelos, you don't presume to upstage this notable group by suggesting that YOU, more understanding than those surveyed by the Templeton Foundation, have THE answer. ;)

http://templeton.org/purpose

119. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #77737 by Lauregon on October 10, 2007 at 11:13 am

which implies "God has not produced the species". - Dianelos

...a statement which assumes by faith that there's a supernatural "God" person who could be believed to have produced the species.

120. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #77609 by Lauregon on October 9, 2007 at 8:37 pm

Here are some theists for you to educate, Dianelos:

Rapture Ready

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K30_Zz7tHYs%0D

;)

121. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #77518 by Lauregon on October 9, 2007 at 1:29 pm

Teach the best ideas to the greatest number of people possible. - Dianelos

If you really believe that, you'd be far wiser to be working to upgrade the theist beliefs that already exist among millions upon millions of dedicated theists. If you get that house up to what you'd consider the proper standard, then would be plenty time enough to try to convert non-believers. First things first.

122. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #77512 by Lauregon on October 9, 2007 at 1:19 pm

Probably true, but we must distinguish between the truth of religious claims and the effects of religion on society - Dianelos

Claims and theories based on the occult, i.e., "religious claims," can be and have been for eons conjured and put forth to explain the universe and its contents and events. The track record, however, hasn't demonstrably been all that accurate. Lots of utterly unverifiable "truth," though. You're simply carrying on the tradition. Why? Why should we believe in your hypotheses, Dianelos?

123. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #77462 by Lauregon on October 9, 2007 at 11:26 am

I am not claiming that God interacts with nature in ways that are not detectable by science; I am only claiming that if God interacts with nature this may very well happen in a way not detectable by science. - Dianelos

Always the magic stuff. Sigh.

So, Dianelos, yet again, non-theists should rethink their non-theism and embrace your new and improved, yet-still-hypothetical version of "God" for WHAT reason? Truly, truly, you're laboring overtime-plus to sell a product here for which you've failed to establish any kind of need. Until you're willing to address these points, you're simply spinning your wheels in mud of your own making.

124. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #77114 by Lauregon on October 8, 2007 at 1:40 pm

And as I have said before, the difference is not so much between people who hold a naturalistic worldview and people who hold a theistic worldview, but between people who think freely and those who don't. - Dianelos

It took a hell of a lot of free-thinking for me to become non-theist, surrounded on all sides by theists as I've been my entire life. I wonder how much free-thinking you've actually been able to engage in as a dedicated theist.

Naturalists used to be characterized by free and critical thought, but I think that's increasingly not the case anymore, and as far as I am concerned Dawkins's TGD is a push in the wrong direction. - Dianelos

...because you haven't managed to escape from theist thinking, but instead are intent on reinventing and installing it as the province of an elite priesthood with special powers who will inform other people of what's "real" and what isn't. ;)

To ridicule the study of serious books on theology as Dawkins does is really obscurantist and displays the worse kind of dogmatism;

By "serious," you mean books written by theologians you agree with. In my experience, theologians either speak in concrete Biblical and doctrinal terms about "God," or in amorphous obscurant terms about an abstract "God" they can't describe or produce evidence of, but nevertheless darkly advise others to believe in.

in my eyes it's analogous to a religious fundamentalist ridiculing the study serious books on natural evolution. - Dianelos

To me, Dianelos, you're just an updated version of the fundamentlist believer who proof-texts his way to an "inerrant" bible.

I mean the very least a freethinker would advice people is to go study whatever they like and particularly books that disagree with them. - Dianelos

As far as I can tell, your whole effort is an attempt to prove what church fathers concluded in the 4th century. We know what's happened to books and their authors who disagreed with doctrine ever since. Ah, but not MY theology, you say. MY theology is more accurate, you say. Well, then, come back down to earth and describe and provide proof of your "God's" attributes and its practical and discernible functions in regard to 21st century human beings, and convince us that there's an utterly compelling reason we should embrace belief in it---otherwise, we might conclude you're simply enthralled with argumentation for its own sake.

125. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #76930 by Lauregon on October 7, 2007 at 9:13 pm

In short, beyond Dawkins's naive understanding of religion, the question is not: "Is there something supernatural beyond the natural world?", but rather "Is the world natural or supernatural?" Or, as I like to put it: "Is the world fundamentally driven by mechanical laws or by personal intent?". - Dianelos

Humans of an earlier age believed natural disasters and personal and group calamities were the result of the personal intent of "God." Modern people look at those beliefs as superstitions.

126. Christianity's Image Problem

Comment #76295 by Lauregon on October 5, 2007 at 11:25 am

Surely that Texans becoming Muslims video is a Colbert Report production---isn't it? The journalist's voice sounds Colbert-ishly familiar. Please say yes. On the other hand, maybe it's the real-deal, and those converting are Katrina refugees (Sorry, I didn't finish watching the video). In that case, thanks heaps, Ash-For-Brains-Let-Em-Eat-Dirt George W Bush. If that's what's going on in Texas, we're utterly ******.

127. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #76249 by Lauregon on October 5, 2007 at 8:13 am

Any "naturalist" who bumps into God will incorporate God into his map of reality. - Dr Benway

Superly succinct.

128. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #76027 by Lauregon on October 4, 2007 at 12:11 pm

Dianelos, a primary rule of salesmanship is convincing the target of a real need for the product. You haven't done that. First things first---or at least, better to have it very, very late than never.

Until you're willing to tell us what the unambiguously discernible attributes of your personal version of "God" are, and in what discernible, meaningful, practical way your personal version of "God" does and does not function in human lives, and what difference your non-intervening, non-naive, science-y version of "God" would or could meaningfully make to humans living on this planet, your gobbledeegook argumentation is utterly POINTLESS. So far, you're just a foot-wedged-in-the-door salesman peddling a product for which there's no known need. C'mon, Dianelos, forget the blustery sciency arguments which aren't convincing anyone here. Come clean and tell us clearly why you believe we should believe in your personal "God"---otherwise we might get the idea you're just another true-believer creationist blocking the fine print until he makes the sale.

129. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #75817 by Lauregon on October 3, 2007 at 6:42 pm

the focus on one source as the only permissible explanatory ground for everything (the Bible here, science there), the exclusivity of outlook (e.g. either God or else natural evolution – a point where both sides agree), the mental inflexibility to understand opposing ideas and the unwillingness to seriously study them, the demonizing of those of different ontological beliefs, the disdain for those who disagree, the sense of forming some kind of illuminated group of people fighting against some terrible threat for humanity that only they perceive, the quest for political power, the self-congratulatory tribalism, the modern marketing and PR resources, the super-stars and the admiring audiences, and, now, the money. - Dianelos

What you're pushing here, Dianelos (and you ARE pushing), is your subjective idea about a God whose attributes you can't (or won't) describe, and which rests entirely upon your own subjective and very dodgy theology. Seems to me (and to Carl Sagan for another) that a supernatural "God" who deeply wishes to be recognized as a loving, caring "person" who also happens to be almighty, omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal, would make itself known clearly and unambiguously to all people everywhere, inescapably and eternally, instead of allowing itself to become an authoritarian construct that must be delivered from on high by correct theologians and correct scientists, to the ordinary masses of humans the "God" allegedly cares so deeply about molding into perfect eternal creatures (to what end?).

As for your lament, quoted above, it's absurd for a theist to complain about not being given a fair hearing by non-theists. It's non-theists who are routinely demonized and widely considered to be immoral and inescapably lacking conscience and a sense of right and wrong---even satanic---by believers who presently comprise most of the world's population. It's non-theists who aren't listened to, aren't respected, are despised, vilified, and denounced. If you find it frustrating having your theist views rejected by non-believers, you'd be wise to stick to sharing them with theist choirs.

On the other hand, if agreement is what you want, maybe you should compromise and argue instead for deism or pantheism. You might gain some currently non-theist companions. Oops! But if you did that, you'd lose the company of creationists! :O

(P.S. You've given no compelling reason for why your "God" should matter to anyone, other than that believing in "God" makes your life feel better. I've been a theist; it didn't make my life feel better at all. It did, however, make me feel crazy much of the time).

130. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #75692 by Lauregon on October 3, 2007 at 10:50 am

I find this a little disingenuous. Sure there are some people out there who suffer because of their religious beliefs, but this does not imply that most religious people feel like that and that in implication religion hurts people. - Dianelos

One has merely to observe how quickly the conversation of most believers turns to punishment, hell, and/or eternal separation from "God," either overtly or subtly when disbelief in "God" is expressed by a non-believer in order to grasp that fear is what binds most people to theism.

In fact it's rather clear that most religious people find religion very useful in their lives. - Dianelos

Most likely what's most useful about it is that it helps them feel safe from hell and punishment and more virtuous and special than others who believe differently from others---or not at all.

There are even studies that show that all other things being equivalent religious people tend to enjoy a higher quality of life (i.e. experience more personal well-being). -

Given the imperatives of, for example, Corinthians I and II, would believers report otherwise? If you're not happy, you must not be a real Christian---and what believer would admit to that?

Indeed much of "new atheism's" popular books consists in finding out the worse anecdotes/facts/quotes related to religion possible. But using selective evidence is not a tool of reason, but of demagogy. - Dianelos

1. It's foolish to assume that non-theists have derived their opinions about theism merely from reading books by atheists. My opinions about believers, for example, are derived from my six-decades plus of living among them, and from reading widely on a variety of subjects related to religions. Only this year have I begun reading books by atheists.

2. Selective "evidence" is precisely what is used by theologians, clergy, and believers to assure themselves that an invisible supernatural "God" cares deeply about the details and events of their daily lives. Demagogy? Theism is sustained by appeals to the emotions---fear being not the least among them. There's a reason hell and punishment have been and are used as clubs in order to elicit belief in supernaturalism---not to mention sword and fire.

131. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #75680 by Lauregon on October 3, 2007 at 9:58 am

I bet that if people were shown the pictures you picked and asked which groups of 3 strikes them as more complex, more than 90% would judge that Pollock's pictures are more complex.- Dianelos

Depends upon where that group of people was selected. At a university your premise is at least possible. At a county fair, little chance.

132. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #75437 by Lauregon on October 2, 2007 at 4:14 pm

Christianity, defined as rigorously following Christ's teachings, will not result in harming others.

Many fundies in debate with me have used violent teachings attributed to Jesus and found in the gospels to justify any number of hateful things, including Mr Bush's war on Iraq.

133. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #75430 by Lauregon on October 2, 2007 at 4:04 pm

Maybe the state of Alabama will ban carrots and zucchini next.

134. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #75338 by Lauregon on October 2, 2007 at 11:20 am

Sure, but it's also Dawkins's idea of "God", and you were asking about specifically "whose idea of God". Well Dawkins's idea is perfectly acceptable, for I don't think many theists would disagree that God is indeed the supernatural designer of the universe. - Dianelos

Bogus response. What Dawkins describes is a more charitable version of the God Hypothesis than the "most unlovely instantiation." It's not Dawkins' "God." Dawkins makes clear on the next page (32) what he means by the God Hypothesis: a concept of a supernatural deity that's "founded on local traditions of private revelation rather than evidence." There's no evidence for such a "God" apart from the tortured, subjective explanations of the faithful which is why Dawkins calls the God Hypothesis a delusion (and why Daniel Dennet calls for breaking its spell on human minds).

Whatever. The fact remains that many naturalists including Dawkins take theists' evidence seriously enough to write books arguing against it. Which shows two things: that evidence for God certainly exists, and that it's not trivially easy to counter. - Dianelos

Truly fatuous response. What exists is a grip on human minds which causes believers to go to enormous convoluted lengths in order to prove the existence of an unseen supernatural "God." That believers feel the need go to such lengths to persuade the populace of their "truth" stands as proof that their "God" is unbelievable to minds not already shackled to faith in a supernatural deity, and that the only ones being convinced is themselves. Simply observe what you're doing here---on and on and on, with no converts. The "evidence" you're trying to produce here is so convoluted, conjectural, ivory-tower, and undefinable that it has no meaning for ordinary people. It's just as authoritarian and hocus-pocus as what obsessed the church fathers of the fourth century. Leave behind the woo-woo stuff and the rewards and punishment factor which has bound believers for centuries, and you'll have exactly what? Without the "naive" woo-woo and rewards and punishment stuff, religion has no mass appeal---which is exactly why it's been used all this time to keep people shackled to ecclesiastical authority. You're going to absurd lengths, Dianelos, in order to prove merely that belief in a supernatural "God" makes your allegedly not-real human life better.

135. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #75036 by Lauregon on October 1, 2007 at 12:24 pm

Endless theorizing and conjecturing by Dianelos with non-theists because 1. he loves debating the issue, and 2. because he believes lives are made better through belief in a caring, loving "God."

In the NYT this morning, a review of a novel titled, "Foreskin's Lament," written by Shalom Auslander, a no-longer observant Jew who writes, "I am painfully, cripplingly, incurably religious, and I have watched lately, dumbfounded and distraught as around the world more and more people seem to be finding Gods, each more hateful and bloody than the next, as I'm doing my best to lose Him, and I am failing miserably."

Later he's quoted, "There is no sicker comic than God." Later still, "It's ridiculous that I feel as I do...that I have this cartoonish view of God as someone who rewards and punishes. I feel like a fool when I read someone like Richard Dawkins...Intellectually...I understood Mr Dawkins, but "emotionally I'm not there at all."

At the conclusion of the review, Auslander is quoted, "...I ended the book with my child's first birthday. I didn't get free, but maybe he [will]."

Let's hope. A loving "God" who cares about the minutuae of human life just isn't demonstrable, but belief in a monster "God" binds millions in its grip. Dianelos' argumentation for "God" on scientific grounds is pointless when the shackles on believers are emotional and psychological.

136. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #74797 by Lauregon on September 30, 2007 at 1:38 pm

There is lots and lots of evidence for the existence of God. - Dianelos

Evidence for whose idea of "God?" Jerry Falwell's? A Muslim ayatolla's? Einstein's? - Lauregon

Dawkins's. (see page 31 of TGD.) - Dianelos

The "God" described on p 31 of TGD is the the hypothesis of believers. Dawkins doesn't have a "God." Dawkins calls the God of the hypothesis a delusion.

Theists think that they do have evidence for the existence of God, and so naturalists have to show why these are not really evidence for the existence of God and only fallacies. - Dianelos

No, "naturalists" don't. - Lauregon

Well, Dawkins in TGD certainly attempts to do that. As do more knowledgeable naturalists such as Mackie, Martin, Drange, Sinnot-Armstrong, and many others. - Dianelos

Thinking that something unseen exists and acts doesn't make that which is thought factual. Hypothesizing is conjectural, not factual. The burden of proof lies with those making the claim for the existence for the unseen, not with those who don't believe the unseen thing exists. Those who advocate for the unseen have profoundly disengenuous and dodgy ways of making their case for the unseen to unbelievers---ways that with very few exceptions convince only the consenting choir.

It first points out how many people in the US say they believe in the literal truth of the Bible and agree with the virgin birth and so on which shows how dangerous religion is. But then in the chapter on morality TGD argues that the fact that people in the US do not actually go out and stone somebody who did some work (say take the lift) on the Sabbath shows that they don't take their morality from the Bible – which is true but then also shows that they don't really believe in the literal truth of the Bible whatever they may be saying when interviewed about their beliefs. - Dianelos

Which goes to show what an amorphous and slippery smoke-and-mirrors activity religious belief is. Theists, including you, pick and choose what they want to believe, and confidently make "God" the author of their selection. There are, BTW, Christians in the US who today believe stoning should be reinstated for certain crimes. They're adherents of the late Rousas Rushdoony who founded a movement in the 70's called "Christian Reconstructionism" which has had a stealthy but significant influence on fundy and evangelical churches in America. People who can be convinced to believe in what others claim about the unseen are fair game for tyrants and despots.

Fundamentalists are rather ignorant people and I think it's fair to call them deluded (as I also think it's also fair to call many a naturalist deluded) – but certainly they are not crazy, or rather not more crazy than people in general. Let's not demonize people, that's a dangerous thing to do. - Dianelos

Claims and preachments made to ignorant people about the Unseen Almighty are dangerous things---even if what's preached is relatively benign. Training ignorant, incurious followers to trust authoritarian leaders about Mysterious Things Unseen leaves those followers psychologically and emotionally vulnerable to exploitation, manipulation, and predation. True, there may be cookies and milk served, but the poison is on the table as well.

137. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #74557 by Lauregon on September 29, 2007 at 1:55 pm

Nope. He believes Jesus was moved by how bummed his friends were after his death so he materialized to cheer them up. He anticipated the obvious next question, by saying that Jesus had a special relationship with the humans he spent time with on earth. - Dr Benway

Okay, I'll bite. You're...kidding, right? ;)


That's right up there with the theology of the "liberal" Christian who told me he believes in evolution: that it took place for eons, THEN "God" created Adam and Eve and all living things in their present form about six thousand years ago.

138. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #74543 by Lauregon on September 29, 2007 at 12:24 pm

I remember years ago when USA_Limey in his peculiar genius said: Enough with these metaphysical word games. Put up or shut up. What do you believe about God specifically? Dianelos then argued that one must first establish theism as reasonable before getting into details about God...yada yada yada. - Dr Benway

The life-blood of theism is dodginess.

139. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #74540 by Lauregon on September 29, 2007 at 12:14 pm

Dianelos goes to to absurdly lengthy and tangled efforts to argue his theism, which, by his description, is, at root, merely a vehicle for advancing human "virtue" which can't be proved to not occur apart from belief in "God."

If he believes in the resurrection, then it logically follows that he almost certainly must believe in redemption achieved through vicarious atonement by means of the crucifixion (otherwise there's no point to the resurrection), and if he believes in all that, he must also believe in "the Fall" which, according to Christian doctrine necessitated a "savior," and on and on---which locates him smack-dab in the middle of orthodox faith, which, at best, is fundamentalism-lite. Dianelos rejects what he calls "naive" faith, but there's no separating naive belief in miracles and signs and wonders from belief in the resurrection. If Dianelos believes in the resurrection, he's really just another (dodgy) creationist in a fancy lab coat.

140. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #74447 by Lauregon on September 28, 2007 at 11:28 pm

There is lots and lots of evidence for the existence of God. - Dianelos

Evidence for whose idea of "God?" Jerry Falwell's? A Muslim ayatolla's? Einstein's? A personal, loving, caring, prayer-hearing, punishing/
rewarding, intervening all-powerful father "God," or an abstract concept that refers to the workings and contents of the universe itself, or something in-between? And no, they're not at all the same thing under one name. There are very different assumptions about what "God" is, however much theists may be agreeable to muddling the differences in a particular moment in order to support the idea of the existence of "God."

Theists think that they do have evidence for the existence of God, and so naturalists have to show why these are not really evidence for the existence of God and only fallacies. - Dianelos

No, "naturalists" don't. Thinking something subjective and undemonstrable doesn't make it true, no matter how passionately the one thinking it may think it, and most certainly doesn't make it incumbent upon anyone to prove the belief to be untrue. The dental hygienist I used to go to was utterly convinced of the existence and beneficial activity of angels. That she believed it so passionately while I did not did not require me to disprove her belief. She is entirely free to believe what she wishes. A problem for her would have arisen, however, if she were to have decided that I also should believe in angels. The one making the claim for the existence of something unseen is the one upon whom it rests to produce proof, not the other way around.

141. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #74414 by Lauregon on September 28, 2007 at 4:09 pm

Ronnie Harper, post # 263


Keenly observed and well stated.

142. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #74410 by Lauregon on September 28, 2007 at 3:46 pm

Better than a naturalistic ontology of course. In what way? Well, take the ontological view that God exists and is perfect in all respects - Dianelos

A concept supported only by the endless making of excuses and appeals to mystery for why it so compellingly seems so otherwise so often.

and has created us in this experiential environment in order for us to grow in virtue, a process that will continue far beyond our Earthly death and will in the end unite us all with God. Surely you see that such an ontology is ethically empowering, makes all of life appear more beautiful, and helps blunt any misfortune that may befall us. - Dianelos

Positive thinking may have some practical merit, but shouldn't be confused with believer-knowledge of an all-knowing, all-powerful creator "God," or the factualness of eternal life. The difficulty with your ontology is that true believer theists are seldom content to leave it at that, but insist that they alone possess true knowledge of the mind of "God."

... would you call a state of affairs where you and a few others sit at the King's table while most people are tortured in hell for ever (including quite possibly various people you loved), would you call that wishful thinking? - Dianelos

Given the degree of enthusiasm expressed by many believers I've debated with at the prospect of unrepentant "sinners" and unbelievers frying in hell, I'm led to conclude that the idea appeals to multitudes of wishful believers.

Would you wish for such to come to pass? I really think it makes no sense. - Dianelos

I certainly wouldn't wish for it to come to pass, but it makes perfect sense if one believes the us-vs-them New Testament hell-fire teachings as being the word of "God."

And moreover I think very few fundamentalists if any are really certain they won't end up suffering for all eternity in hell themselves. - Dianelos

I can't read their minds, but I do know what fundy and evangelical believers have told me. But, if you're right, it would indicate that they too, however secretly, reject the idea of a loving, caring "God"---as seems entirely reasonable to me, all hideous things considered.

143. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #74214 by Lauregon on September 27, 2007 at 5:50 pm

I neglected to address this in my earlier post today:

You see, I don't think that if you adopt wrong beliefs about reality something terrible or other will happen to you. What matters is the good life, to live like a good person. - Dianelos

Doing so doesn't require belief in "God." And, of course, belief in God makes no guarantees concerning living like a good person. BTW, I don't recall that you've ever listed what you believe are "God's" characteristics---or provided proof that "God" possesses them.

And as we all are built from the same cloth from which God is made, we all deep down know that anyway. - Dianelos

Speaking as a true believer, of course---and talk about begging the question!

144. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #74161 by Lauregon on September 27, 2007 at 1:43 pm

The reason I am posting here is basically because I am enjoying it, and because I find I am learning a lot (and learning is a joyful experience anyway). Why would you think I am trying to sell anything? - Dianelos

You seem intent primarily on "proving" that what other people have written is wrong, and that your understandings are correct. It seems to me that you'd have plenty enough to do explaining your neo-theist views to traditional theists who at least agree with you concerning the idea of the existence of "God." Maybe you find them to be not as intelligent, educated, or articulate as atheists?

So the difference is not so much between those who believe in God and who don't, but between those who live their lives in a way consistent with their intrinsic human nature and those who don't. In other words a person who thinks freely and learns and enjoys life and does some good while not noticing the existence of God, is much better off than somebody who believes in the existence of God but then spends their whole lives in a room fiddling with the pages of the Bible.- Dianelos

Or writing endless expositions on why atheism doesn't have as satisfactory explanations for how the universe came to be as theism does? ;)

Now have you ever considered whether that mantra actually makes any sense? First of all, if an all-good God exists then the correct ontological views would sound like wishful thinking indeed, no? - Dianelos

Positing an all-good God inevitably requires endless explanations, excuses, and rationales involving "mystery" for why "God" so frequently appears to be not all that good.

And if a theistic ontology help people live better, is that bad? - Dianelos

Better than what, and in what way?

After all it's a common feature of most true beliefs that they help people live better. - Dianelos

Religions of belief quite often, while encouraging people to profess and practice piety, also encourage people to blame egocentric, ethnocentric, cultural, and even geographic beliefs on "God." They also allow believers to feel special and chosen, as having privileged access to the King, but feeling special and chosen
can lead to unfortunate consequences for others.

But speaking of "theism being wishful thinking", have you actually considered what many theists actually believe, especially fundamentalists? They believe that most people will go to eternal suffering in hell for no greater reason than because they didn't believe exactly the right things, or even because they didn't belong to exactly the right religion or exactly to the right denomination within the right religion. Does this really look like "wishful thinking" to you? - Dianelos

Indeed it does, since believers most often assume hell is the destination of others, not themselves, by means of their saving belief (in Jesus, in the case of Christians). They feel special and chosen, temporarily separated from their proper place at the King's table, but soon to be reunited.

To me it looks like the worse nightmare possible. I wish naturalists would think a little more critically instead of just repeating naturalism's keywords. - Dianelos

I've thought plenty critically about it, Dianelos. Believers believe because they think they'll be somehow rewarded for their belief, and evil-doers punished---or at least, in the case of liberal Christians, willfully separated for eternity from "God" in the hereafter. Maybe you should spend more time posting among theists. I've had them coming to my door to save me from spending eternity in the lake of fire, and as I've written before, I was astonished to realize that liberal Christians on forums I'd been participating on for years were outraged and sputtering over John Spong's call for a non-supernatural, non-miraculous Christianity. Gotta keep that woo-woo stuff. Doing good deeds just ain't enough. (BTW, I read your Amazon review of Spong's "Why Christianity Must Change or Die." I didn't see one for his latest book, "Jesus For the Non-Religious").

BTW #2, I didn't come to my atheism by way of science, but through experiencing and observing Christian faith as requiring intellectual dishonesty. I left church when I could no longer recite the creeds without cringing. You may respond that I simply never encountered the REAL Christianity---but, of course, that's the mantra of all true believers. I heard it many times during my years of trying to find the REAL Christianity, but, ultimately, for me, the premise of a "God" who cares intensely or even casually about human life as humans experience it, defies reason. All the convoluted excuses made by theists, all the limp retreats into "mystery" and "God's superior wisdom" seem to me to be clear manifestations of a desperate clinging to the wish of being special and chosen, and in on The Secret.

145. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #73872 by Lauregon on September 26, 2007 at 12:38 pm

If in this life I found that understanding does not make me experience its subject matter as more beautiful, or if I didn't experience prayer as ethically empowering, or if I stopped experiencing life as ethically challenging, or, in short, if any of the many predictions that my theistic belief implies for the dynamics of my subjective experience of life here and now were violated (more about that in part 4) all of that would also count as evidence against my theistic belief system. - Dianelos

Dianelos, why, why, why, aren't you content to enjoy your subjective theistic experiences in the privacy of your own life? Why, why, why must you so doggedly try to sell your theism to atheists? Your reasons for believing appear to be entirely subjective, the result of your own personal need/desire to believe in eternal life and receive comfort in this one. What do you hope to gain by obsessing on what can't be proven in this life by persisting in non-stop hard-selling it to those whose subjective experience is different than yours? Why are you so determined to convince non-theists that your subjective perceptions involve an all-powerful, all-knowing, omniscient Creator" God?" What is the practical earthly point to your neo-theism? WHY should rational humans living in this world with these physical bodies try to "be like" a non-visible, non-detectable, non-intervening non-Biblical "God?" You go on and on and on with seemingly endless theorizing, but all you can offer to others as the reason for why we should take your views seriously are entirely personal and suited to your psychological needs. We aren't enraptured or even interested in the prospect of eternal life; you are. Why, why, why, Dianelos, aren't you content to enjoy and involve yourself with your subjective unseen "God" alone and/or in the company of other theists who share your beliefs and needs? That, I think, is the question that truly needs answering.

146. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #73632 by Lauregon on September 25, 2007 at 3:56 pm

One of these days I'm going to write out the Atheist Credo for you. Culled from reading actual texts carefully. It will probably start something like this:

ATHEIST CREDO

I blieve in no god except Richard D and other prophets of enlightenment acknowledged by him.

I believe in the utter nonsensical nature of any argument contrary to our beliefs.

I consider it my duty to give no serious consideration whatever to any such argument except to pour righteous scorn upon it. - Brother John

Unfortunately, Brother John, you'd be wrong right out the gate.

147. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #73584 by Lauregon on September 25, 2007 at 11:12 am

Here is how Sam Harris puts it in "The End of Faith" (page 208): "The idea that brains produce consciousness is little more than an article of faith among scientists at present, and there are many reasons to believe that the methods of science will be insufficient to either prove or disprove it". - Dianelos

Harris ends that particular section on consciousness on p. 210 with this: "Such an enterprise [studying the effects of experiments such as fasting, meditation, etc. on consciousness] becomes irrational only when people begin making claims about the world that cannot be supported by empirical evidence."

148. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #73576 by Lauregon on September 25, 2007 at 10:56 am

And there are many many theists who do not share these naive beliefs, and therefore have no trouble with science whatsoever (e.g. liberal Christians). - Dianelos

Virulent reactions of most theists to John Shelby Spong's non-theist Christianity suggest that
most liberal Christians aren't willing to abandon attachment to miracles, the virgin birth, the resurrection, salvation, eternal life, or Jesus' unique status as THE son of God. Imagine my astonishment to discover that an entire group of reasonably intelligent self-professing liberal Christians I'd been on discussion boards with for years were outraged by Spong's call for a supernatural-free Christianity.

There is even Newton, arguably the greatest scientist of all times, was a theist. - Dianelos

Not to mention that he lived considerably before the rise of modern Biblical criticism.

149. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #73573 by Lauregon on September 25, 2007 at 10:28 am

Lauregon, I am responding to these questions because you've asked them, but I really wouldn't like to divert this thread into my ideas. - Dianelos

Surely I'm not alone in perceiving that discussing your ideas is precisely what you are doing on this thread.

As for this:

To try to become more similar to how God is, and hence to come closer to God. - Dianelos

Assuming "God" does not describe "God," nor how one can relate to "God." In order to "become more similar to how God is" one would first have to know how God is," and IF "God" is. This is what's missing from your lengthy expositions, here and elsewhere. You persist in mistaking your subjective feelings about "God" for actual information about "God." If you agree with tradition that "God" is a matter of faith, you appear to be on a fool's errand here, trying to use science to prove "God's" existence. Of course, it's true that in significant ways you do disagree with tradition, just as you do disagree with Dawkins.

150. 1996 Richard Dimbleby Lecture

Comment #73238 by Lauregon on September 24, 2007 at 2:35 pm

"...and we clapped our hands red."

Let it be known that the cold, heartless, analytical Professor Dawkins today brought a tear to my eye. - Neil S

Well, I didn't shed a tear, but I did a did quick intake of breath and a smile, and mentally applauded. What a perfectly splendid phrase!



I responded similarly to his conclusion: For those fretting about the human "need" for "something more," try discovering the wonder and immensity of what's already here!