talkmagic.co.uk

Scientists can't prove that there isn't a tiny teapot, too small to be observed by any telescope, orbiting the sun. Does that mean it's definitely there or does common sense and reason dictate otherwise?

I like the quote at the beginning of the God Delusion from Douglas Adams:
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to belive that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"

I would rather go with Epicurus:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

dont forget lads, im atheist too, just think its an interesting question...

with Bertie's teapot thing though, i could state that it cannot be proven scientifically that there is or isnt a teapot orbiting the earth...but ironically the scientists are asking us to "believe" that there isnt...based on "reason"...

so the ones who belive in god are asking the same "well, all of this didnt happen at random, it was created, and god was the gardener...we were the seeds"...asking the same thing, they can't prove it, but "believe" in it...

and if you look at the odds of the big bang happening, thats just a big a leap of faith than anything else...how come it hasnt happened again?!

or maybe it has, didnt those 4 big parts of the universe group together recently?

The problem with the creation/design theorum as to the origin of the universe still creates a problem of who created the creator.

If the universe is finite in age due to the big bang theory then what happened before?
Well to go from science doesn't know as of yet so it must be God is one hell of a leap in logical thinking in my book.
The theories that physics throws up can be so counter intuitive due to them seemingly being at odds with how we view the world (quantum springing into mind).
The problem we have is that our brains have evolved over millions of years to make sense of the world in a way that benefits our survival. Why cant we see atoms directly for example: what benefit to any species would it be.....certainly not as beneficial as seeing how sharp a pair of teeth are and how fast it is running at us.

atoms have always existed, way before we believed in them or their concept...so did they not exist before we believed they existed? eh eh eh?!

you could say that cos you cant prove what happened before scientifically speaking, so then it didnt exist...ah! and so it continues...

pointless discussion, but they're sometimes the best ones..

i dont think its our brains that have evolved to understand it, i think our reasonings have maybe...

and also, you're kinda putting a physicality on god, god might of always existed - do god have to exist on a physical level at all? so therefore, does god need a parent or creator?

...perhaps thats what scientists struggle with, that concept that there has always been an "always"...no starting point to go from...dunno...

find it interesting though..

I agree abraxus that it is both interesting to ask these question and to think about them too. I find these kinds of arguments very fulfilling but often disappointing as most times someone takes offense and then starts hurling abuse when there is obviously no need.


The idea of whether things exist or not depending on our awareness of it I personally see as a non-argument to be left to A level philosophers and their mental mas*****tions.
Once we come aware of something new or new evidence concerning a subject science takes it on board and changes depending on the validity of the claim.

Also I dont think that physics for example has any problem with the infinite as a singularity within science is space time of an infinite density and infinitesimal volume.

oh do shut up!

you lost me there mate, never read a book on pyshics or any Dawkins books...read lots of religious books, especially the Book of the Law pop-up edition...

all i reckon is, if and only if there is some kind of God, perhaps it doesnt like or even agree with any of these organised religions...and by its very nature of being god, defies of all mankind's definitions...its simply beyond our understandings...

perhaps the reason why god doesnt stop bombings and all that stuff, is because he gave us free will, as more of a punishment, rather than anything else...

oh i dunno..if there is a god, good work on creating the shape of women...good job there...

Grasshopper - I have just started reading "The God Delusion" - I am only 3 chapters in so bear with me! My assertion about Dawkins' unwillingness to read the Bible was based on a pre-emptive apology in the Preface, but perhaps that was for not reading "every holy text ever". However, I'm afraid he still makes very basic mistakes regarding taking the Old Testament "literally", i.e. seeming to think that Christians are called to follow those physical laws such as death "for cheeking the parents."

And Greedoniz - as long as you play fair, so will I I also find these sorts of things very interesting and am equally happy to debate with people who can keep a cool head. That said, both of us will feel passionately, and I'm not going to cry innocence harmed just because you put forward a strong point - say it how you feel it!

So, to address a few people's points:
Yorkshire Pudding (hi there! shame you can't make the next meet up, last one was a hoot!) - with regard to people not wanting to read the book: I understand your frustration but also their discernment. When trying to lose weight (a subject close to my own heart!), some people can go into the cake shop and choose a small, oatish biscuit, and come out happier for it. Others know that to venture onto the same street as the shop will land them maxing out their credit card on vanilla slices. Presuming both of these people genuinely do need to lose weight, they both have to make that decision for themselves - yes, I like to see Christians embracing the opportunity for healthy discourse, but I am equally happy to see people protecting their hearts. For instance, my girlfriend knows she is easily swayed by charismatic books (that is one of the reasons I am reading it), yet she came to her faith through a time of real soul searching and contemplation. I don't think her faith is any less valid than mine, and I think she is wise to know her limitations - wise enough to trust God over a silver-tongued man (not trusting silver-tongued men is a valuable character trait in a girl!).

Who's next?
Ah yes, Epicurus. For this, and so many things, I implore you to think of God with the character traits of a father, for that is how he is widely described in the Bible. With these things, it is so simple to see what you want to see - I'm certain I will be as guilty as you are - but I do *try* to see it from others' point of view, of an angry distant God. But instead of placing your negative thoughts directly onto God and thus "beating him" in your own mind before you've even started to consider the possibilities, consider...

greedoniz wrote:I would rather go with Epicurus:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

How simplistic and, to be honest, trite! Consider yourself as a child, and your own dad watches you struggle with something, perhaps even something that is causing you a small amount of physical or emotional pain. If he does not rush to solve the problem, what do you presume? That it does not bother him to see you struggle or hurt? No. That he is not able to help you? No. Both of the above? Of course not! However you felt at the time, in retrospect it's clear that whilst the struggle or pain was not of his doing, and though it may have troubled him, he wanted you to find out how to deal with it correctly, and to feel victorious when it was over. I myself get annoyed with other Christians who pray for supernatural intervention to the slightest of troubles - it's not that God doesn't care, but maybe he doesn't want to spoon feed you, for your own good!

Finally, another tough cookie: why does God want to be worshipped all the time, what an egotist, right?! My honest answer here is that I think we are thinking of God as a human, i.e. with human imperfections. Put simply - it isn't arrogant for God to do things "for his glory", because he deserves it. A hard nugget to bite for people not familiar with the concept, but there we go. The image that springs to mind is all of those "alien encounter" films where humans bicker, threaten and attempt to fight the aliens, only to be enveloped by some white light and to be speechless at the advancement and beauty they see before them. "Who does God think he is?" is classic "me first" human thinking, which characterises all of Dawkins' work. "God doesn't meet my agenda, doesn't provide proof on my terms, has done nothing for me..." - and a lot of the time, he's right - if you insist that human understanding or existence is the highest form of creation or possibility.

That's why I agree with many theists and atheists who think that "religion" and government are a recipe for disaster - ultimately, society is working for the good of itself, Christians are working for the glory of God - we just happen to think that this is the best way for us to live too. But as a Christian I feel called to show mercy and forgiveness to people, to "prefer others" as the Bible says - in what way is that compatible with the sort of "God bless America" patriotism? You might as well say "God bless me." Me me me... hmm, have we heard this one before?!

So yeah - God requiring worship isn't arrogant, similarly it isn't arrogant for a guy who wins olympic gold to demand he be given the medal to take home, or for a camera man to want his name on the credits at the end of a film. Infact, it would be unjust for those guys not to get those things.
Hope that helps.

Oh yeah, I'd just like to tag on a quick disclaimer here - the issue of creation is a fun one, but it is NOT what convinces me of the existence of God or supports my faith. Evolutionists and Creationists alike should remember that disproving one theory does not prove another, and the reason I feel safe reading Dawkins' books is that if my faith was just another academic hobby (which is how he discusses it) I wouldn't bother with it - it has changed and continues to change my life and the lives of people around me, and Dawkins can take every crack at disproving that but it ain't gonna happen

How simplistic and, to be honest, trite! Consider yourself as a child, and your own dad watches you struggle with something, perhaps even something that is causing you a small amount of physical or emotional pain. If he does not rush to solve the problem, what do you presume? That it does not bother him to see you struggle or hurt? No. That he is not able to help you? No. Both of the above? Of course not! However you felt at the time, in retrospect it's clear that whilst the struggle or pain was not of his doing, and though it may have troubled him, he wanted you to find out how to deal with it correctly, and to feel victorious when it was over.

Surely there is a difference between lets say, a child struggling to complete a width in the swimming baths and a psychopath who will torture, rape and kill a child. What kind of father would not rush to help their child in such a situation, and instead let it continue so they can be 'victorious' in the end? I have known people who has had such 'struggles' and still ten years later they dont feel anything like victorious.

and Dawkins can take every crack at disproving that but it ain't gonna happen

Hey at least you're reading the book with an open-mind
It is nice to chat to someone who doesn't feel their faith is a precious thing exempt from discussion and/or critism.
I don't supose you caught a channel 4 programme called 'The root of all evil'? that and a book called 'The end of faith' by Sam Harris tackle some of religions darker sides. There is a nice quote in there about the maliciousness and benevolence of the Abrahamic god. I think u tube has the episodes.
Not wanting to be one sided myself I have spent a lot of time reading the Bible, depending on if you take the Bible as a whole, literaly or cherry pick bits that suit you you can't get away from the fact that its not a very nice book, filled with incest, rape, adultery, exhibitionism, debuchery, abortion, prositution, drugs, bestiality, castration, scatology - all the nasty stuff. This is given to children as an aid to their faith? Unless of course you only pick out the good bits and explain away other bits as symbolic. Then there is the age old get out of 'God works in mysterious ways, you must have faith'

Hey at least you're reading the book with an open-mind
It is nice to chat to someone who doesn't feel their faith is a precious thing exempt from discussion and/or critism.

I had a long Pm discussion with farls a while back on a similar subject, and I have to agree. Although I don't agree with what he says, he's very challenging to argue with as he has confronted all these issues himself, which is a credit to him. And he really know his stuff. I thought I know my bible (I used to religious before I went over to the dark side), and I do compared to most...but not farls.

I would be intrigued to find out your thoughts on alternative medicine though.

Ha! Well, I'm honoured - and also bored (all my housemates are away in places like Thailand), so it's great to talk to you guys too. I have to say most of you seem to be able to keep a cooler head than Dawkins... which ain't saying much!

Grasshopper - I didn't catch those programmes, and haven't read that book... in the same way that I excuse Dawky for not reading every religious text, I think it's excusable that I have not sifted through every resource that trashes my beliefs, to do so would be somewhat depressing

I think your posts (Andy and Grasshopper) actually pick up on the same thing really, but from different angles. Andy has observed the world to be full of atrocious acts (incidently I'm so sorry to hear that you have had direct contact with something so awful Andy ), and I don't disagree with you for a second. Of course, I don't believe God is smiling smugly down on that sort of thing, thinking "well, it'll make you a better person" - on the contrary (assuming he exists), as perfect creator, he is in the position to be most heart broken. Every person this happens to is also a child of his, or so I believe.
I think God is pretty upset about the state of the world, but unless he is going to correct it all in one fell swoop, which would blow the whole "have faith" thing out of the water, he has to let us make our own choices - and that is all it is. I expect you'd all be pretty indignant if I suggested that what lies in your heart is capable of twisting the world into this state, but I honestly believe that - and I believe it of myself. I would never do those awful things to a child - but - could I be selfish at someone elses cost? Could I lie to cover my wrong-doing? Am I capable of acting in a way that puts my life above that of someone else?

Yes I love to quote that bit from High Fidelity, "Yes, I am an a**hole. But think of the top five worst, most shameful things you've done in your life... got 'em? Now who's the a**hole?"

I may not be that bad compared to those beloved points of comparison Hitler or Myra Hindley, but I take a piece of the responsibility for mankind's cruelty to mankind just like everyone else. Why is there evil in the world? Simple answer = it's our fault. We've made our bed, and we have to lie in it... in this mortal life Greedoniz, if you're a Christian, you believe God *has* done something amazing to defeat evil, I don't think I have to tell you what (where's that crucifix smiley when you need it?!).
Also, Andy - I don't mean to demean or put down the suffering you describe, but even then... I've heard the Christian parents of murdered children openly forgive their murderers. It's not easy, but it's possible... in my experience, forgiving someone for something big is one of the most liberating things you can do, and until you do you don't realise how much hate and vengeance can eat away at you.


We can all accept the world is a pretty nasty place - so it actually encourages me to see the Bible deals with all of these issues (not sure where the scatology is from though?!). If the Bible just dealt in naff pleasantries and general "be nice"-ities, it would be irrelevant. The fact is, those things happened then, and every single one of them still happens now. Most of what you describe is either decreed as wrong or is simply part of a story, so I'm not quite sure what your beef is with it To my knowledge the Bible never says "and he slept with an animal, and God saw it was good"!
There are a couple of tricky ones that have to really be read thoroughly to understand - for instance, God does tell one of the prophets to take up a prostitute as a wife and keep taking her back... but this is done as an open metaphor for the way in which God is merciful and keeps taking the Jewish people back despite their wrongdoing (and I'm not "wildly translating" this, the text makes it very clear). But I absolutely do not want to "explain away" the horrible bits, some of them are absolutely vital to our understanding.

Obviously for children we focus on the loving aspects of the Bible - this isn't cherry-picking, this is common sense - when you first tell your kids about sex, how much gory, sweaty detail do you go into?! Just like any other complex and potentially disturbing subject, they are brought in at the shallow end. But as I said, if it was all dull platitudes, what'd be the point? The Bible is a collection of books about real life and real life is nasty. But "gospel" doesn't translate as "good news" for no reason; we get an explanation as to why the world is nasty, what God has done about it in the past, how God dealt with it totally and how this all applies to us.

Right - they're about to chuck me out of the library. I'll be back to put my hat in the ring for a kicking on saturday!

I wonder what the skeptical community would do with themselves if all those that were of a religious or spiritual nature held their hands in the air and said "You know what - you're right! We don't believe anymore."

There are some skeptical websites out there that must be all-consuming for their owners. Running, hosting, editing etc their website must take up such a large percentage of their life that in many ways being a skeptic and being very much involved in that community must define who they are as a person. What would they do if they woke up one morning to find they'd "won"? They'd be lost.

While the skeptical community needs the religious/psychic/whatever community to exist, the religious/psychic/whatever community would do just fine without the skeptics.

No real point. Just a late night thought.

themagicwand wrote:I wonder what the skeptical community would do with themselves if all those that were of a religious or spiritual nature held their hands in the air and said "You know what - you're right! We don't believe anymore."

There are some skeptical websites out there that must be all-consuming for their owners. Running, hosting, editing etc their website must take up such a large percentage of their life that in many ways being a skeptic and being very much involved in that community must define who they are as a person. What would they do if they woke up one morning to find they'd "won"? They'd be lost.

While the skeptical community needs the religious/psychic/whatever community to exist, the religious/psychic/whatever community would do just fine without the skeptics.

No real point. Just a late night thought.

Could the same be said for evangelistic christians?? very probably

To be honest though as someone who would describe themselves as a fundamental athiest I would skip happily down the street when the last superstitious person saw common sense and decided to live their lives using their reason.
All that being a skeptic means is that I require substantial documented evidence before I take an idea or a concept onboard and I truley cannot see what the problem with that is.
However I do see a big problem with people beleiving charlatons in both the new age, alternative therapies and religious bodies using the human beings capacity to believe all sorts of nonsense in order to manipulate and make money from.
The limits to which a human being can reject the rational world for flights of fantasy completely dumbfound me sometimes. The cargo cults in the south Sea islands are a perfect example of this and for me there is absolutely no difference between these and the 3000 other made up Gods out there.
As a once church going Christian from a family of Christians (my stepmother is a minister) I know how this circulartory belief system can cause warped thinking that is very comforting to the believer and supplies a community around you that both supports and reinforces the belief.
If, for example God were to reveal him/her/itself to us then we all would be believers and the world would be a better place but apprantly it cannot be done this way as 'faith' is a required entrance fee.
This can only be explained through this argument, free will. A load of rubbish if God is Omnipotent. Omnipotence would mean that God knows everything through the span of time. This would include all your thoughts and actions before you were even concieved? So there's free will right out of the window unless of course he doesn't know and therefore is not omnipotent.
Finally as a human being I can invision a creation that far excedes the one that God has created. If as a mere mortal I could, if given, infinite power could create a far more perfect universe then it doesn't say much for god.
For example I wouldn't have created the devil, I would have ruled out the concept of violence from the human mind, it would be impossible to pollute the planet (fossil fuels would be non polluting), death would always be a calm painless process etc. I could go on.

as Woody Allen said "If God truly does exist the best we can say is that he is an underachiever"

not sure where the scatology is from though?!).

Malachi 2:1-3 God threatens to smear faeces over the faces of disobedient Israelites. Bit different from God loves the world so much he sent his only son?
Lets have a look at some of the Biblical role models shall we;
Lot, the righteous man warned by God to leave Sodom behind, but his wife looked back and was thus turned into a pillar of salt (harsh?) So Lot went up out of Zo'ar and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him (Gen 19:30) these daughters thought they would never see a man again and decided to get their father drunk and have sex with him, twice, becoming pregnant. Now I know they were hiding in a cave because Lot was fearful of the people in nearby Zoar and I know his daughters thought they were the only people left on earth (Gen 19:31-33) So why did they they have to get Lot drunk? Wouldn't he have understood the wisdom of their plan to repopulate a devastated world?
Apologists insist that even tales of sexual impropriety in the Good Book serve as a moral lesson. I must confess that I have searched long and hard for one in this narrative and the only moral imperative I can detect is that if two daughters want to commit incest with their own father, the older one gets to go first! Mind you, his daughters might still have been mad at Lot for offering them, as virgins, to satisfy a mob of men intent on raping his male guests (Gen 19:6-8 ). Luckily his guests were angels who smote the mob and turned them blind, but didn't take Lot aside and say "you know you really shouldn't of offered up you daughters, not a good moral lesson for others you know"

While still on the subject of biblical incest lets start right at the beginning with the all time classic Genisis 4:16-17 and Cain's magically appearing wife. By starting at the beggining I'm assuming you don't buy into the whole world in seven literal days thing, thats just another one of those Bible things thats not to be taken literally right? I mean it happened and was true, but no one now thinks it happened in seven days right? Just like it says in II Timothy 3:16-17 'All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be compleate, equipped for every good work'
As long as he can work out whats to be taken literally, whats just a story, whats a vision or overly symbollic revelation. Wow, if I was a caring God that wanted to give an instruction manual to my creation, maybe I'd make it a little easier to understand so there would be less arguments between all these different Christian religions that have sprung up on 'their' interpretation, Even the 'inspired' translators can't agree such as the magical missing 'a' in John 1:1. I digress a little, lets talk about Noah;


Genesis 6:6-7 'And God felt regrets that he had made men in the earth' What's this, an all powerfull all knowing creator feeling regret, he must of known this was on the cards as he knows all things right? 'So God said (who to?) ' I am going to wipe men whom I have created off the surface of the ground, from man to domestic animal, to moving animal and to flying creatures of the heavens because I do regret that I made them' Now wait a minute, what had the animals done to deserve this? and if he regets making them why put the animals 'two by two' to be saved on a massive boat while a flood wipes out everything else? Why a flood, why not all the bad guys suddenly drop down dead, or are blinked out of existence Star Trek style? Wait, is this another one of those stories that didn't really happen but is designed to show one mans faith in times of adversity? That and Obay God or he does the Etchoskech end of the world and you all die. A massive ark for 'every living creature of every sort of flesh' come on, it would take the penguins ages to get there, unless they hitched a life on the back of a unicorn, the unicorns stayed behind though Eddie Izzard performs a great sketch about Noah and the whole flood thing where the ducks won't get on the boat, when Noah says "but there's going to be a flood" the ducks reply "SO? instead of floating down here, we'll be floating up there"
But back to Noah, Noah found favour in the eyes of God and was a righteous man (Gen 6:8-9) Yet Noah gets blinding drunk, lays naked in his tent, then curses his son and his descendants into servitute for seeing him so, now thats a role model(Gen 9 18-29) I could go on about how there is more to this story than meets the eye, the embarassment of Noah lying naked in his own tent, revealing a people who were prudish in the extreme about nudity and, as seen through the nomadic eye, Noah's intoxication and peculiar behavior demonstrated his loss of self-control and modesty, something no good shepard would ever think of doing, yes I know, he who is without sin and all that, but do you not think that God made a poor choice in singling out Noah to survive the Deluge and to become a paragon of moral rectitude for all future humankind, for although he lived to the ripe old age of 950 , he was given to indulgence in strong drink and to immodesty, the winning choice for repopulating the entire world, I know, his sons helped too.

I think thats enough for now, I'll leave King David's adultery, murder and flashing till next time, that and the discrepancies in the biblical account of Jesus's heritage and how when King Herald or Phar'aoh commit infantacide it's bad, but when God tells Moses to do it, it's good.

I won't go into Leviticus 20:27 which gives the death penalty for 'wizards'

I'll finish with one of the Bible texts which reflect a sane, healthy and refrshingly hedonistic veiw on the subject of our brief span on this earth;
Ecclesiastes 4:11 'Again if two lie together, then they have heat: but how can one be warm alone?