Arvestaked

My arrogance? I wouldn't come off as arrogant if people didn't make mistakes. The following exchange shows you did not understand anything correctly: Me: I would stress that by being truly logical and scientific one would be convinced there is no reason to believe in a god and believing in one is an illogical choice. You: This is actually a lack of understanding of scientific process. Scientistific language is ''not enough evidence found'' or more accuratly ''failed to support''... A scientist will not bother finding reasons for the non-existance of something but rather will require evidence for its existance. I never falsely assumed anything. What is it about "I would stress that by being truly logical and scientific one would be convinced there is no reason to believe in a god and believing in one is an illogical choice" that qualifies as a false assumption? For one thing, I never called myself an atheist; I said that I consider myself one who places his confidence in logic reason and the scientific method. And I have always argued that there is no reason to have supernatural beliefs. Furthermore, back when I called myself an agnostic I had many arguments with atheists and I can tell you that the lines between atheism as it is accepted now and agnosticism as it is taken to it's logical end are obscured. What Richard Dawkins calls atheism is what I believe is agnosticism and on that point I disagree with him. And though it is a very unimportant point it is why I no longer refer to myself as being either one.

I do not have a lack of understanding of the scientific process. My understanding surpasses yours for sure. Where are your reading comprehension skills? Accepting that there are no reasons is not the same as seeking reasons for the non-existence.

I would stress that by being truly logical and scientific one would be convinced there is no reason to believe in a god and believing in one is a illogical choice.

Yes, you did have a reason to like it to be so. You may say you are neither this nor that but you seem to have a respect for religious thought which is reason enough. There is nothing ideological about what he talks about. It is absolutely a promotion of scientific thought. I can't even begin to understand how you miss that. Dawkins talks extensively about the beauty of the universe. I don't think you have read more that a title of his books. But, regardless, it is not even necessary to mention the beauty of the universe to promote scientific thought: it can be done simply through logic. Re: "everything must come from somewhere." Again, this tells me you have not read any Dawkins. First it doesn't matter what thought-related predispositions humans have, it is unrelated to what is or is not actually true. Second, evolution has not provided humans with the perspective to intuitively understand things like incredible lengths of time and space because it would have been unrelated to fitness for survival. And logically the impossibility of having that perspective for infinity would follow. Re: delusion. Your comment on this tells me you either have not read TGD or have a poor memory of it. If I'm not mistake, he addresses his choice of words in the introduction. And it is not only a psychiatric term. That is just wrong. All discussions with people who cannot accept that there is no truth to superstition and religion become circular. It all stems from the inability to understand the non-theists arguments or the flaws in their own arguments.

This is all rhetoric. You can doubt whatever you want but you aren't doubting it for any reason other than you would like it to be so. Saying "science is not about converting people but enlightment" is just meaningless. Anybody has a right to promote science and reason. Writing a book about atheism is not a hypothesis or an experiment; it is simply writing a book promoting science. First you say that you have only read The God Delusion then you say "Dawkins never has covered adequatly..." To that I say how do you know? You have read a book with the purpose of presenting a general understanding to the issue from all sides. And what do you consider accurate? He does mention it throughout his books and talks about the various possibilities. There really is not much more one can do for the layman. Believing in a cause for which there is no evidence is delusional. You make not like it but it is unavoidable. Dawkins deals with all aspects of superstitious thoughts. You must not have been paying close attention. And it is not about proving non-existence. It is about showing that there is no reason to believe. There is a difference.

I personally have mentioned The Blind Watchmaker, The God Delusion, and Unweaving the Rainbow. The most recently mentioned book, The God Delusion, is also his most recently published one -- 2006, I believe. And so there actually isn't much response to it except for a handful of creationist reactions. Non-theists believe that everything we observe about life in general is a product of evolution and therefore part of nature. Therefore religious and superstitious thoughts are a natural development. But these are the beliefs. Just because the belief in a god is a natural occurance through evolution in society does not make the object of the belief natural in itself. And so it follows that the beliefs may have occured naturally but that does not make them right. Saying belief in a god is natural therefore god is natural is flawed logic. You are making up "facts" about his "methodology." It has not been "shown" anywhere. Many have been converted by Dawkins. That is a fact. Probably very few of them were extremely devout evangelicals but there is a population that does get affected by his books. And it is not just about converting: people who are in the closet, so to speak, can be encouraged to accept who they are and others like me can gain by feeling less alone -- it is quite a lonely position -- and by also being armed by the proper articulation of our ideas.

I don't care what your belief is in your heart of hearts. I only care about what you are defending and how you are defending it. I don't have big ideas. I don't know what that means. Not necessarily. That's a baseless assertion.

What single book by Dawkins are you talking about? He has many books. And I have to say that I am part of the skeptic community and follow it to a reasonable degree and Dawkins is considered a champion of the movement. People need to accept nature as being natural before they can find beauty in it. The universe does become more beautiful when the supernatural is removed from the equation but people who do not want to understand how nature truly works will not be open to seeing it. And there is nothing wrong with a scientist promoting scientific principles.

It is a circular argument because as you state it the bible's authority is dependent on a god's existence and the god's existence is dependent on the bible's authority.

Just a simple response to this... There is a fallacious argument here as well. Someone being critical of another's "extremism" (whatever the context of that critique maybe) in itself does not prove that he is a philosopher without merit. Making blanket statements about his alleged ineptitude is cowardly and useless. I've read a lot of Dawkins and he is just fine, especially since he cites other people with more authority on a subject or cites studies and puts them in the proper context in the argument.

This is a circular argument. Circular arguments are fallacious arguments. That makes it completely meaningless.

I haven't run out of anything. You're not even asking for arguments; you're stalling by asking for definitions hoping that I would fail to articulate something so you can continue worshiping gaps. As a matter of fact you're asking for definitions of things mentioned in a tangential conversation that has nothing to do with my argument with you. You thing you are being clever and philosophical but real it is just pathetic and lazy. And annoying for that matter.

Only those capable of understanding it.

You obviously do not get Dawkins and how he writes.

This is typical of someone who does not understand what a scientific theory is.

You may not realize this but you're responding to a comment I made to something that is tangential and was initiated by someone other than you and you're reacting as though I were arguing with you about god.

This is why I said it wasn't a scientific issue. All logical proofs ultimately belong to an individual. Everything else is just a stimulus that can influence one's conclusions.

Great another one... Define "1. define logic" Define "2. define self awareness" Define "3. define scientific issue" Give me a break.

The scientific method is derived from logic. Self awareness is not really a scientific issue. A logical proof is a logical proof. Period.

Read The Blind Watchmaker. There is some nice talk on cosmic probability. In essence, it depends on how you look at it but that either way it wouldn't matter and cannot be used to infer the existence of a god. He goes into it a bit in The God Delusion as well. Isn't everyone...

Yes, you can prove it through logical statements. Existence in an axiom and you work from their. Cogito ergo sum, my friend. My that does not feel satisfying to you but it is enough. Another thing to keep in mind is that when it comes to knowledge, science never considers anything truly 100%. It is about whether there is reason to believe something, or there is not. Occam's Razor.

Ashot, I'm sorry to break this to you sir but it seems you are just not intelligent enough are completely unwilling to understand basic concepts in logic. I don't need to prove anything. You do. All I need to do is point out that what you say is in fact no proof at all. Unfortunately, when I do that, you just don't get it.

Postmodernism is stupid. And there is no such thing as proving something beyond belief. There are just reasonable and unreasonable beliefs.

"The Universe did not create itself nor it happened by an accident." This is your assumption; not a fact and not a proof. That statement is something you say to help a god be plausible. But it is meaningless and unfounded and cannot logically be used as a premise. "In another words not everything is possible to see or touch, and can be explained only by belief and sensible understanding. " This "belief and sensible understanding" (aka faith) of which you speak is cannot serve to explain anything at all. As a matter of fact it is a contadiction in terms: faith implies that explanation is not needed. Explanation presumes knowledge and knowledge can only be acquired through logic, reason and the scientific method. If it cannot be seen, touched or described indirectly, it cannot be believed.

What are you talking about? I wasn't suggesting that religion requires one to believe in everything that is supernatural simultaneously.