Research on Belief in God

[The Hitch]

Well I respectfully disagree. I find Dawkins to be the best of them all. His arguments might be repetitive, but that is because their opponents' arguments are repetitive too. And Hitchens is also repetitive himself.

Hitchens is witty and funny, he is an actor and a master of the crowds. If he can't be erect, then at least he can be upright. But I have seen him fare astonishingly poorly in some debates, notably the first one with Craig.

McGrath challenging Dawkins's book? Please... McGrath is a bad farce. In every single Dawkins debate I've seen, he ends up not only winning, but flat-out destroying his opponents. It is really something to see.

Harris is very articulate and is versed on neurological matters, and it shows. I fully recommend his latest book, The Moral Landscape.

Hitchens has debated Craig many many times. They did a debating tour together. Either way, whichever one you saw, i am sure he still won.

And yes Hitchens does repeat himself, all the time. Bits from 2 or 3 of his debates can be identical. But what I meant is that Dawkins will repeat himself several times in 1 debate.

Dawkins arguments are the ones everyone knows and everyone uses. The Betrand Russel Spagheti Monster argument. He opens his book with the - if you were born in Alabama chances are you are a Chrstian and if you are born in Afghanistan, chances are you are a Muslim argument.

Not that you need to go past those arguments to be convinced

I agree that Dawkins wins his debates (not that he does many) but thats because he is right, not because he knows how to debate which he doesnt.

Its not just that he comes from a different profesiion but also that he has lived most of his life in Oxford devoting his life to becoming one of the best of all time in his very important and very difficult profession. He hasnt read as much, he hasnt lived in foreign countries, he has less experience.

As a result on simple religion vs atheism debates he is not that great, though he is still worth watching.

Perhaps most importantly, Dawkins tends to debate far easier opposition. He tends to argue with evangelical christians, creationists, extremist jews extremist muslims. A lot of the people he debates with do not believe in evolution. Hitchens of course debates a lot of evangelicals too. Desposes with them better too I would propose http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZB0lLIcXIA

But he does also debate aginst more advanced believers. People who know what they are talking about.

Dont get me wrong, Dawkins is a hero but its when people try to challenge him on science that it gets gold.

Dawkins is known as Darwins poodle. When someone tells him they dont believe in God because of morality or because of Pascals wager, Dawkins says the party line, just adds "science" and "scientists" a few times in every sentence

His heart isnt in it and he doesnt have the total expertise on the subject needed to answer it differently every time it comes up, nor to add comedy, nor to smack down his opponents.

But when someone tries to challenge him on science, say suggests that evolution is just a theory, or that dinos are 6000 years old, or that miracles are more effective than medicine, THAT is where Dawkin's inner Hitch comes out

Then he delivers the Smack down.

But on the other stuff, Dawkins is like Cav trying to climb. Better than 99% of the world, but not what he specialises in

It's extremely invigorating to watch debates from these four, with Dennett bringing in the philosophical perspective. They are so different, come from such different backgrounds, and yet have so much in common

They are all rich white toffs as would be called in this country. And the thing they have in common - atheism, is something they share with a lot of people.

If you want someone who comes from a totaly different background and ends up in the same place, Hitchens and Harris have said that the 5th member of this "4 horsemen" is Ayyan Hirsi Ali.

 

[El Pistolero]

question#1: Good question, but I have never heard or read a verse that says that. Here's my reference (John 8:3-9, NIV), which I will let speak for itself:



If you have a reference or version that says differently, I'd like to see it.


question#2: Same God.

I'll tell you why the God of the Old Testament is the same as the one from the new

In the Antiquity people believed the old days were ALWAYS better. If something was old it was automatically better than something that was not as old. The early Christians thus decided to hang on to the Old Testament to show everyone else how old their religion was.

 

[lancaster]

I voted for Hoogerland. not because I mock the question, but because it's the closest to the truth.

i believe in so many things, the fallibility of humans, Profit & Loss, courage, loyalty, failure, success, trial and error, trial by jury, free choice, reading, knowledge and it's quest, literature and film, forgiveness, moral hazard, smoking is really bad for you (and that it still might be worth doing), discretion, honesty, generosity, tough love, photography, excellence, improvement, that people should be measured by what they can endure rather than what they can inflict, that "the abyss gazes also", that prisons are awful, that execution is wrong, that democracy thrives despite politicians not because of them, people do good things and it doesn't make them good people, people should be punished for what they did rather than the result of their actions, i believe in data and peer review, i believe that religion is of huge cultural significance, that religion and its disciples help millions of people, i believe in quiet reflection, i believe that the bible contains many ideas that are improving, that you shouldn't believe everything you read, that people should be encouraged to think for themselves, that I'm better than Gaddaffi, Bin Laden and Hussein BECAUSE i don't think their deaths make the world a better place, that Vengeance is human.

to me church is culturally significant, i do go (irregularly) and occasionally pray (although more conscious contemplation). religion is too often an excuse for trouble that would be there anyway.


(to place me culturally, i'm white Irish, protestant, born and raised in England.) i over use commas and let sentences overun, but you knew that already.)

 

[Cobblestones]

My god is the Flying Spaghetti Monster. May you be touched by his noodly appendage. RAmen.

fixed it for you.

 

[Descender]

Hitchens has debated Craig many many times. They did a debating tour together. Either way, whichever one you saw, i am sure he still won.

I saw the very first one they did, said by the moderator.

And yes Hitchens does repeat himself, all the time. Bits from 2 or 3 of his debates can be identical. But what I meant is that Dawkins will repeat himself several times in 1 debate.

Hitchens does that too. It is irrelevant anyway, they repeat themselves when it is necessary.

I agree that Dawkins wins his debates (not that he does many) but thats because he is right, not because he knows how to debate which he doesnt.

I disagree. But that is also irrelevant.

Its not just that he comes from a different profesiion but also that he has lived most of his life in Oxford devoting his life to becoming one of the best of all time in his very important and very difficult profession. He hasnt read as much, he hasnt lived in foreign countries, he has less experience.

I'm sure he has read a lot, and I'd say he has lots of experience.

And he most certainly lived in America as a young man.

Perhaps most importantly, Dawkins tends to debate far easier opposition. He tends to argue with evangelical christians, creationists, extremist jews extremist muslims. A lot of the people he debates with do not believe in evolution.

I find it surprising you're not aware of the fact that Dawkins has fervently opposed to debate creationists since at least 2005.

In fact, he has refused to debate Craig several times because of this.

But on the other stuff, Dawkins is like Cav trying to climb. Better than 99% of the world, but not what he specialises in

One of the best similes I've ever seen, I tell you!

 

[Hugh Januss]

Not ignorance, but perhaps I could have elaborated further but I chose to avoid being overly inflammatory.

Fwiw I have read the entire bible, the book of Mormon and am working my way through the Koran.

Obviously my thoughts were not meant to be taken as sweeping statements, that would be me acting like many so called christians act. There are a large proportion of religious people who beleive in peace, love and understanding, but there are also a large percentage who believe that for instance, man should not lie with man and if you do so you will be judged by god and cast into eternal damnation, just as they beleive that HIV was a plague sent by god to punish the sinners.

Yes, not all wars are started by religion, in some occasions religion is merely used as an excuse and if it did not exist man would find other reasons to go to war, but much intollerance in mankinds history, from the crusades, to the burning of witches, to the hanging and beheaded of many thousands of people in the 1600's was in the name of religion.

FWIW i beleive that probably the most tolerant and peaceful religion is Hinduism closely followed by Islam. But of course, many christians beleive that Muslims are all heathen extremist terrorists..

I give this thread two pages before its closed.

I have highlighted the part of your post that I do not agree with.

 

[The Hitch]

I saw the very first one they did, said by the moderator.



Hitchens does that too. It is irrelevant anyway, they repeat themselves when it is necessary.



I disagree. But that is also irrelevant.



I'm sure he has read a lot, and I'd say he has lots of experience.

And he most certainly lived in America as a young man.



I find it surprising you're not aware of the fact that Dawkins has fervently opposed to debate creationists since at least 2005.

In fact, he has refused to debate Craig several times because of this.




One of the best similes I've ever seen, I tell you!

Well Dawkins does debate a lot of extremists in his documentaries. In fact everyone he debates in the first 2 besides maybe the tourists in Lourdes are creationists. Its easier to make the point that way.

According to Dawkins half of America is creationist. The people he debates dont need to be Pat Robertson. But they still dont understand evolution. He has twice appeared on the Bill O reily show in the last 3 years. O reilly doesnt believe that a meteor crashed into the earth, rather God created life.

He also debated Ray Comfort.

And he doesnt do many.

I did attend Dawkins IQ debate in 2009 and regret not having heard about the Dawkins Hitchens vs idiots debate in 2007, which I have watched many times, so I know he can debate higher opposition but both these were 2 vs 2 so not direct 1 on 1 and far less confrotning and challenging.

Oh and I just realise Ive been confusing Craig with someone else. Bearded fellow. Either way Craig is a total nut, any atheist could beat him, and I dont care what the moderator said Hitchens would not lose that one. Besides, if he underperformed it was probably to lower himself to the debate standards.

Finaly, why is the other stuff irrelevant. Weve gone on a enjoyable little tangent. We agree on 99% of stuff anyway, so its not like we are going to start throwing rocks at each-other.

 

[The Hitch]

I have highlighted the part of your post that I do not agree with.

You agree that Islam is the second most tolerant religion?

 

[oldborn]

I'll tell you why the God of the Old Testament is the same as the one from the new

In the Antiquity people believed the old days were ALWAYS better. If something was old it was automatically better than something that was not as old. The early Christians thus decided to hang on to the Old Testament to show everyone else how old their religion was.

Well maybe and maybe not
First (and not all early Christians) Christians were Jews and nothing but the Jews, so I do not see anything strange about Old Testament worship. Only difference was as they saw Jesus as Messiah.

Problems with circumcision and food laws brought the Early Church into conflict with some Jewish religious authorities. This maybe led to their expulsion from the synagogues.

Ethiopian Christians still claims obedience to the Laws which are found in the first five books of Tora.

I beleive and preach Rastafarian religion, Ganja rules

 

[Anonymous]

I have highlighted the part of your post that I do not agree with.

yes, amazingly it has remained civil and intelligent. I should give the forum posters more credit.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

I believe in God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.Trinity.

 

[daveinzambia]

I do not believe in God but in some ways i think that is biological. My Brain does not cope well with abstract thought. I lack imagination and in the same way i cannot enjoy lord of the rings or star wars i cannot believe in creationism. That is not intended to belittle religion but rather trying to genuinely make a point about why i think i do not believe. My brain is too literal and logical in function.

when i was younger (and more arrogant) i become vehemently anti religion. I would seek out discussions like this so i could mock believers, spout science at them, list the wrongs that religion has done and generally behave like a fundamentalist.

as i have gotten older i have mellowed. I have better understanding of why people believe. At the lowest points in my life i have definitely sat in the dark and desperately wished for a an overseeing creator that could stop what was happening or save the person i loved. but there was not one, nothing changed and if it had i do not think i would have believed it was a miracle just luck. it is not a coincidence that religion is still so prevalent in areas of the world that are most in need of help.

while i have more understanding now, i still struggle with the status religious beliefs are given. Another poster said contact me when you have proof god exists. for me i do not think that would matter. if someone showed God existed i would still struggle to understand the acts that had been committed in his name.

other posters have said that they are religious and are tolerant and understanding. Thats fine, but that is because they are good people rather than necessarily that they believe in God. in some cases they needed some guidance to realise that fact but fundamentally good people are good people.

what is wrong is the ability of others to use religion to justify their agenda. Is religion responsible for all Homophobia. of course not. but so long as the church remains anti gay it provides a framework in society where it becomes more acceptable. People have mentioned throwing stones. This does not have to be literal. For young gay people to be continually told that what they feel at their very core, what makes them what they are, is wrong, is evil, is disgusting and is not deserving of the same rights as others is the reason why suicide amongst young gay men so so much higher than that of straight men.

like i say in my opinion the reason this is always such a hard debate is religion seems to hit both ends of the spectrum. It is responsible for a lot of good (but i still argue much of that good would occur without the religious framework) it has helped a lot of people in times of need and helped provide a framework for guiding troubled people down a new path (again does this need to be the church) but alongside that is used for so much that is wrong in the world.

more than anything else however i strongly disagree with the connection of religion and state. but that is combining religion and politics and frankly that is a conversation that will take so much time i will get fired

 

[Zam_Olyas]

There are extreme nutters in ever religion..if we go back in time Parabalani were extreme.

 

[Master50]

Some of my favourite contradictions of the followers of Jesus.
The story about the woman who was accused of Adultery was added to the early bibles around 350 ad. Likely by monks who thought it was a good story.
the 4 main books about Jesus were written between 30 and 70 years after jesus died and they all tell similar stories but it is hard to believe the authors were always at the same event. The earliest telling of the crucifixion portrays a very quiet and suffering Jesus who's only words are why have thou forsaken me. The version written some 30 to 40 years later has Jesus forgiving his punishers and speaking lucidly to the others on the cross with him. Instead of amalgamating the 4 books read them side by side and see what a different story they tell. From a quite suffering victim to a forgiving and powerful man in control of his destiny. At least they read like that to me.

For the most part the earliest followers of Jesus were Jews and for a very long time Gentiles were not welcome to every sect of jewish "christians". I don't think Christianity was exclusively non Jewish until Constantine. He used Christianity as a unifying religion for Rome and started to demonize the Jews with the non Jewish Jesus.

Jesus was not born in bethlehem and there was no census to force his parents to go there. That was created to support prophesy of a saviour.

Jesus spoke aramaic and maybe Hebrew yet some of the text translations from Greek don't mean the same thing if they were originally said in Aramaic or hebrew.

Even how he was portrayed changed over time. He preached the apocalypse was about to come and to read some of the stories like he expected to be alive for it. Since the end didn't actually come while he was alive the stories became more allegorical and started to portray him a god or part of god.

Read some Bart Erhman (sp). He is a biblical historian that has written a lot of books on the new testament and stories of Jesus. He teaches at Chapel hill NC.
Now the thread is do you believe in god? Can't say I do but at the moment no one is shooting at me right now either. I am definitely an atheist as it applies to any of man's organized religions.

 

[Anonymous]

Of course then theres the question of Jesus's race.

But the landover church have decided that he was in fact caucasian
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0302/blackjesus.html

 

[ChrisE]

fixed it for you.

Thank you, my brother.

In the afterlife I may see you in FSM heaven with strippers and beer fountains.

 

[Parrulo]

i am an atheist even tho i was raised as a catholic( my mother forced me to attend chuch when i was a kid and stuff like that) never believed anything being told there nor could i ever stand the hypocrisy of the catholic church. . . i don't believe in any god/gods nor in any supa dupa powafuuuuuu thingy

just in jest i am past discussing religion as usually it leads nowhere

 

[Cobblestones]

Of course then theres the question of Jesus's race.

But the landover church have decided that he was in fact caucasian
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0302/blackjesus.html

You do realize that Landover is very elaborate satire?

 

[ElChingon]

You do realize that Landover is very elaborate satire?

You do realize its not the only satire?

 

[richwagmn]

Because people are entitled to have their own opinion and beliefs, I don't like it when Jehova's Witnesses are at the door trying to (with all respect) shove their opinion down my throat. I imagine its the same for Catholics being harassed by atheists cause they believe in God.

I've NEVER had an atheist come to my door and try to convert me.

Mostly we just keep to ourselves...

Regarding the poll...

I started out life as a church going lutheran (my father wanted to be a pastor). Sometime in my teens I started doubting a lot of what I was taught.

For a long time I was agnostic but over the past few years I've come to the conclusion that there's no supernatural being running the show. I'm perfectly fine with that conclusion. For me, it makes each day more important since I know there's nothing after I die.

 

[Altitude]

I worship Zeus. Anyone who doesn't will fry.

 

[Hugh Januss]

You agree that Islam is the second most tolerant religion?

OK should have highlighted one more line. Tolerant and religion really don't go together in my mind so I might have missed that bit.

 

[rhubroma]

Some of my favourite contradictions of the followers of Jesus.
The story about the woman who was accused of Adultery was added to the early bibles around 350 ad. Likely by monks who thought it was a good story.
the 4 main books about Jesus were written between 30 and 70 years after jesus died and they all tell similar stories but it is hard to believe the authors were always at the same event. The earliest telling of the crucifixion portrays a very quiet and suffering Jesus who's only words are why have thou forsaken me. The version written some 30 to 40 years later has Jesus forgiving his punishers and speaking lucidly to the others on the cross with him. Instead of amalgamating the 4 books read them side by side and see what a different story they tell. From a quite suffering victim to a forgiving and powerful man in control of his destiny. At least they read like that to me.

For the most part the earliest followers of Jesus were Jews and for a very long time Gentiles were not welcome to every sect of jewish "christians". I don't think Christianity was exclusively non Jewish until Constantine. He used Christianity as a unifying religion for Rome and started to demonize the Jews with the non Jewish Jesus.

Jesus was not born in bethlehem and there was no census to force his parents to go there. That was created to support prophesy of a saviour.

Jesus spoke aramaic and maybe Hebrew yet some of the text translations from Greek don't mean the same thing if they were originally said in Aramaic or hebrew.

Even how he was portrayed changed over time. He preached the apocalypse was about to come and to read some of the stories like he expected to be alive for it. Since the end didn't actually come while he was alive the stories became more allegorical and started to portray him a god or part of god.

Read some Bart Erhman (sp). He is a biblical historian that has written a lot of books on the new testament and stories of Jesus. He teaches at Chapel hill NC.
Now the thread is do you believe in god? Can't say I do but at the moment no one is shooting at me right now either. I am definitely an atheist as it applies to any of man's organized religions.

The interesting thing about the highlighted bit is that there were serious discussions among Jews as to whether or not Jesus teachings were at all meant for the pagans. Peter didn't think so.

Saul, later St. Paul, began the missionary work among the gentile peoples. At a certain point they, the pagans, transformed the historical figure of the Jew, Jesus, into the divine Chritos (Greek, a gentile language, for Savior) or Christ. They provided Christ with a hellenized and classical imagery and they invented Christianity, as such, as a distinct religion from Judaism. Not having themselves been Jews, they weren't interesting in becoming jewish, but something else, while St. Paul realized that making the gentile converts abide by the strict dietary rules of the Jews was not doable and so pointless.

In other words Christianity emerged as such and got its autonomous identity by the pagans in the late antique world, which is the one the orthodox Christians of the Latin/Roman Catholic and Greek churches (the oldest surviving forms of the religion, of which there were many variants in antiquity - Arian, Donatist, Monophysite, Gnostic, etc.) still know it as today. They, the pagans, were the ones who also fixed its religious calendar: with dates like Dec. 25 being a recycled sun god birthday, now for the Christos, etc. Constantine himself, the Roman emporer who first legalized the sect, was initially devoted more to Sol Invictus (another pagan sun god whose birthday was Dec. 25) and his Persian counterpart Mithras, than the Christ, even after his “vision.” And he seems to have considered the worship of Christ in terms of Babalonian/oriental sun god worship, to the extent that some scholars believe that had Constantine wholeheartedly embraced say Mithraism, we'd all be worshiping Mithras today instead Christ in a manner of speaking.

The process, at least in the arts and culture, began before Constantine though: let us say about a century before in the Ancient Roman World.

 

[hfer07]

I'm a former catholic-no longer affiliated to it due to the disgust & repulse of the atrocities committed by many priests on the sexual scandals-not only here in the Boston area, but all around the world-and adding to it- the impunity of their acts & how the Vatican has handled this affair in such disgraceful way..... apart from that-I'm tired of a religion "pointing" the fingers at their followers & asking them to "sacrifice & surrender" while the heads of the church get richer & care less about the world around them-Even in times of hardship-like the horrible tsunami in Japan-they "ask to pray" but they can't give away their wealth to help people-were they present when Katrina's victims were in need? ..... I didn't think so .....
I'm also sick of the notion of the constant "punishment" that all traditional religions impose on their followers-nurturing this notion of sinners by nature looking to be "purified" by their creed-it's basically their justification to brainwash all rational thinking and make people "fanatic" & obsessed with this ideal of constant "pardon from god" -the one who is looking upon us ready to strike us down if we failed to worship him.....

Religion nowadays is just another business looking to favor the best bidder

faith & spirituality are another matters & the ones we truly ought to cultivate

 

[jordan5000]

I`m a catholic, I believe in evolution but that humans evolved from God`s original creation, the bible says that humans were made in God`s image, but his image is never clearly defined. You can say I`m trying to sneak God in the backdoor, fair enough, but it`s what I believe.