Letting Go Of God

On the Dawkins scale, I'm somewhere around a 6.5 to 6.9.

IMHO, both sides need to be open minded where the other side is concerned. That means theists need to understand that talking down to an atheist because they do not believe the same way they do is every bit as offensive as if that atheist were talking down to them. In a word, acceptance by both sides.

I have found along the way that atheists I have known have at some point explored religion, read the Bible etc (self included) but the converse is not true.

Curmudgeon wrote: But the converse is not true.

They call it heresy. It is forbidden.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

Curmudgeon wrote: But the converse is not true.

They call it heresy. It is forbidden.

That's what concerns me. When organized religion (I am not saying theist, because that's two diferent things) is faced with anything which might conflict with its dogma or teachings, it's called heresy and sin to even see what it's all about. That's scary.

N Sperlo wrote:

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: Wendy's girl > Progressive girl.

The way I'd have her (Wendy's Girl) I'll duct tape a sock in her mouth. Then berkeley that.

I find your quote interesting. I may have reworded it slightly. I added no words.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

friedgreencorrado wrote: I know Dawkins isn't the most popular guy around (even with some atheists these days)

Has he offended some more folks by speaking his mind?

I certainly think so, but can't really comment upon it without floundering the thread.

I wrote more, but it was really more appropriate for r/atheism or alt.atheism, so I deleted it.

I'll just say that "The Blind Watchmaker" helped me with my own deconversion. (As I hope I've made clear in previous posts, my deconversion is a thing I actually treasure, rather than lament.)

Curmudgeon wrote: That's what concerns me. When organized religion (I am not saying theist, because that's two diferent things) is faced with anything which might conflict with its dogma or teachings, it's called heresy and sin to even see what it's all about. That's scary.

One of my all time favorite quotes:

Thomas Jefferson said: Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must approve the homage of reason rather than of blind-folded fear.

I like "climbing mount improbable." It has a great discussion on the evolution of eyes. Dawkins should stick to that instead of making the rest of the world think all atheists are intolerant SOBs

Last night's 'South Park' was a rerun of the episode where Dawkins hooks up with Mr(s) Garrison.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

Beer Baron wrote: I wouldn't mind PETA protesting those around here:

That looks like a Rape Trap.

Indeed it does.......was it set by the RRRRRRAAAPPPEEE GHOSTT!!!!!!!!!! ????

Best thing to do is, when you find the animal in the glue trap, and they're still alive, douse them in gasoline and then light them on fire. The glue melts, and then they can run free, but they're on fire now.

Just don't do it in a room full of oily rags and loose cardboard.

volvoclearinghouse wrote: Best thing to do is, when you find the animal in the glue trap, and they're still alive, douse them in gasoline and then light them on fire. The glue melts, and then they can run free, but they're on fire now. Just don't do it in a room full of oily rags and loose cardboard.

^ this

volvoclearinghouse wrote: Best thing to do is, when you find the animal in the glue trap, and they're still alive, douse them in gasoline and then light them on fire. The glue melts, and then they can run free, but they're on fire now. Just don't do it in a room full of oily rags and loose cardboard.

Dude, you should send that to PETA.

Along with a dolphin-skin jacket.

Curmudgeon wrote: IMHO, both sides need to be open minded where the other side is concerned. That means theists need to understand that talking down to an atheist because they do not believe the same way they do is every bit as offensive as if that atheist were talking down to them. In a word, acceptance by both sides.

I think this is the sponsoring thought behind my post... I don't think there can be a 1 or a 7 without having blind faith. I think those who ascribe to those extremes are the ones who tend to lock out the other side as "heresy."

For instance, you are a 6.9, I'm a 2. I celebrate your beliefs. I believe there is a god and you don't. It doesn't matter to me. Someone who is a 1 typically is so blinded by their faith that they hate the person in addition to their beliefs. They might say they love the sinner, but try walking into a worship service with a lit roach and a bottle of Cuervo.

Saw the DVD last night (Letting go of god). Loved it. Can't remember the last time I laughed out loud so many times.

I'll just leave this here, in the perhaps futile hope that just one of you godless heathen will read it.

http://gma.yahoo.com/heaven-real-saw-scientist-says-183522717--abc-news-health.html

In reply to 1988RedT2:

I read it, and watched the video. I have not read his book, obviously, so I will give him the benefit of the doubt that he goes into more detail there.

However, I see nothing there that requires a supernatural explanation, though of course one is always possible. Everything he says here reduces down to pure assertion on his part that things certain things "can't" have happened and other things "must" be true. That all sounds just like the typical reasoning that supposedly "proves" evolution is false.

In reply to 1988RedT2:

The common threads reported by numerous people who have all had near death experiences are very interesting and are one of the things that lead me to suspect there is something more to our existence beyond this life.

It still isn't scientifically provable, and calling it "Heaven" or "God" I think may be a stretch that people make viewing whatever happens to them through the lens of western, primarily Christian, mythology. Also interesting that experiences are fairly similar regardless of what prior faith the person had, and you don't hear stories of people viewing hell or purgatory.

The Dawkins scale above I think is a poor one. It depends what the actual question is. If it is a question about the existence of the personal, ruling, judging God (as per standard Christian mythology), then I am about a 6.99. If it is a question of just a God entity or specific God presence, I'm about a 6. If it is the question of some greater mystical power beyond our understanding, I'm about a 2.

In reply to Duke:

I agree with that, but most fundamentally, dreams don't happen in "real time".

He was in a coma, in a state where his brain wasn't doing much, and according to him as a scientist, couldn't have done this as dreaming.

But he did eventually recover enough to come back. Everything he describes could have happened in his head in a tiny space of time between "little to no brain function" and "awake".

Maybe even more to the point, however strongly he now believes, a scientist should know better than to describe that as proof. Even if he's correct, what he has cannot be accurately described as proof.

ransom wrote: In reply to Duke: I agree with that, but most fundamentally, dreams don't happen in "real time". He was in a coma, in a state where his brain wasn't doing much, and according to him as a scientist, couldn't have done this as dreaming. But he did eventually recover enough to come back. Everything he describes could have happened in his head in a tiny space of time between "little to no brain function" and "awake".

This is almost exactly the thought process I went through.

ransom wrote: Maybe even more to the point, however strongly he now believes, a scientist should know better than to describe that as proof. Even if he's *correct*, what he has cannot be accurately described as proof.

Right. And disproving or explaining away any number of other hypotheses does not prove the one you support. You can't prove a hypothesis, only support it. Strongest thing to do is share your findings with a wider, skeptical scientific community and see whether or not they are able to disprove, weaken, or support your hypothesis.

People who make statements like "can't happen" without offering proof and then go on to state arguments where one thing is false so the other must be true are not scientists offering credible testimony in favor of superstition. They are E36 M3ty scientists.

1988RedT2 wrote: I'll just leave this here, in the perhaps futile hope that just one of you godless heathen will read it. http://gma.yahoo.com/heaven-real-saw-scientist-says-183522717--abc-news-health.html

It's a neat story, but I wouldn't say it proves anything. I've had similar things happen to me. Unfortunately, what I've seen puts me far into the 7 range...

Duke wrote:

ransom wrote: In reply to Duke: I agree with that, but most fundamentally, dreams don't happen in "real time". He was in a coma, in a state where his brain wasn't doing much, and according to him as a scientist, couldn't have done this as dreaming. But he did eventually recover enough to come back. Everything he describes could have happened in his head in a tiny space of time between "little to no brain function" and "awake".

This is almost exactly the thought process I went through.

Same here. There's been many times I looked at the alarm clock, closed my eyes, had a dream then when I opened my eyes again maybe 1-2 minutes had passed.

Curmudgeon wrote: Same here. There's been many times I looked at the alarm clock, closed my eyes, had a dream then when I opened my eyes again maybe 1-2 minutes had passed.

Perhaps you lived an entire narrative in another dimension where making out with a 10 dicked George Washington in pink chiffon panties while fretting your algebra homework was plausible. Or... maybe your brain was just indexing some stuff and triggered a few odd thoughts. We can think pretty fast. It didn't take me no two minutes to come up with this horseshyte :)

10 dicked George Washington in pink chiffon? Were you peeking into my dreams?