What's Wrong With Richard Dawkins?

[CFLarsen]

Then answer this, if a god really meets the Deist definition, how would anyone have any awareness of such a god? By creating awareness, you no longer have Deism, you have a god interacting after creating the Universe.

Not if God created the universe so people would have awareness.

A skeptic would know that a Deist god definition is not a logical construct.

Which religious god definitions are logical constructs?

Are you saying that Deism isn't even a valid religion?

What is a non-evidential security blanket?

A Deist god who listens to you. An imaginary friend who listens to you. Something you can't show evidence of, that you don't claim evidence of, but which helps you through life.

Don't you have any of that?

And are you claiming that science started after the 1600s or Deism is older than the Wiki source notes that it is?

No, I am pointing out that Deism came before our modern understanding of the universe.

Do you think that someone claiming their imaginary friend created the universe is insane? Yes or no.

Don't give me lengthy, vague explanations. Just a yes or a no.

Do you think that a child having imaginary friends is insane? Yes or no.

Don't give me lengthy, vague explanations. Just a yes or a no.

Do you think that an adult deist who is not indoctrinated is insane? Yes or no.

Do you have a problem with countering false claims with evidence?

How do you test scientifically for a god that created the universe and then stepped down?

Have you noticed that not all believers are of the fundamentalist Discovery Institute ilk?

I answer your questions. Please answer mine.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I did boil down the questions to a minimum. Answer them, please.

I answered the question. How hard is it to understand? If the person actually believes the 'imaginary person' exists, and the person is an adult, they would likely meet the definition of psychotic.

If the person merely talks to himself and daydreams he is talking to an imaginary being but knows the being does not really exist, that is not consistent with a diagnosis of insanity. If the person believes there is some god they have never seen but believe it because they have been told about the existence of the god, then believing what someone told you is not consistent with a diagnosis of insanity. And, therefore, your analogy has absolutely no relevance to this discussion whatsoever.

Now if you don't like that answer, tough tiddlywinks.

 

[CFLarsen]

I answered the question. How hard is it to understand? If the person actually believes the 'imaginary person' exists, and the person is an adult, they would likely meet the definition of psychotic.
If the person merely talks to himself and daydreams he is talking to an imaginary being but knows the being does not really exist, that is not consistent with a diagnosis of insanity. If the person believes there is some god they have never seen but believe it because they have been told about the existence of the god, then believing what someone told you is not consistent with a diagnosis of insanity. And, therefore, your analogy has absolutely no relevance to this discussion whatsoever.

Now if you don't like that answer, tough tiddlywinks.

Being psychotic isn't being insane.

Do you think Deists are psychotic and not insane?

And the rest:

• Which religious god definitions are logical constructs?
  
  
• Are you saying that Deism isn't even a valid religion?
  
  
• Don't you have something that helps you through life, even though you don't have evidence or claim evidence of it?
  
  
• Do you think that someone claiming their imaginary friend created the universe is insane? Yes or no.
  
  
• Do you think that a child having imaginary friends is insane? Yes or no.
  
  
• Do you think that an adult deist who is not indoctrinated is insane? Yes or no.
  
  
• Do you have a problem with countering false claims with evidence?
  
  
• How do you test scientifically for a god that created the universe and then stepped down?
  
  
• Have you noticed that not all believers are of the fundamentalist Discovery Institute ilk?

I answer your questions. Please answer mine.

 

[cj.23]

I don't think CF Larsen and I agree on much, but we agree entirely here. As far as I can see he is suggesting a Fideist position is entirely compatible with scepticism, and is thinking like a Huxleyian agnostic. Huxley himself appears to me to have been a deist. Anyway not much controversial here - I think Martin Gardner would be an excellent example.

cj x

 

[CFLarsen]

I don't think CF Larsen and I agree on much, but we agree entirely here. As far as I can see he is suggesting a Fideist position is entirely compatible with scepticism, and is thinking like a Huxleyian agnostic. Huxley himself appears to me to have been a deist. Anyway not much controversial here - I think Martin Gardner would be an excellent example.

cj x

Fideism and Deism isn't exactly the same. Where Deism basically is "God set up the universe and stepped back (so there's no evidence)", Fideism basically is "Credo Consolans" - "I believe (without claiming evidence) because it makes me feel good".

But both are entirely compatible with skepticism: There's no evidence, and no evidence is claimed.

 

[qayak]

How do you test what happened before the Universe began?

Your statement is false. Not before the universe began, only before it came into it's present state.

You can't use the laws of nature, because you don't know if they existed then.

You're not keeping up on your reading: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19557042/

Let me remind you that the concept of a deist god of non-intervention came way before the discovery of Big Bang and all that.

And that matters how? First theories are almost always wrong because they rely on limited evidence. The god theory was a very erly idea on the origin of the universe and it hasn't stood the test of time as new evidence comes in.

The more the god theory is examined, the fuzzier it becomes. That is the exact opposite of what happens when a correct theory is examined. correct theories becomes clearer and clearer.

Religionists spend all their time looking for places for their god to hide undetected from science, they are afraid of what will happen. Unfortunately for them, sciencists don't care. If you claim to have a theory of the origin of the universe, science is going to examine it regardless of your fears.

How do you know what happened before Big Bang? You'd have to, in order to call it "absurd".

No, I just need to look at the evidence and decide. Claiming there is a god before or after the Big Bang is absurd because there is ZERO evidence.

Religionists, as in "all who believe in a God"? That's demonstrably false: Deists don't claim evidence - they can't, because if they did, they would believe in an interventionist god.

No evidence, no theory, just an opinion. Opinions are like butt holes, everyones got one and most of them stink.

Be careful not to lump all religious people together with those who claim evidence of their god beliefs.

Anyone who says "God done it!" should be lumped together, whether they claim to be able to support their opinions with evidence or not. No evidence is the same as no evidence and there is no evidence to support the god theory or the god opinion.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Claus, if a Deist God created the universe so people would have awareness, then there should be evidence of that. The evidence does not support that conclusion. And awareness of the god would by definition be an interaction with the Universe.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't think CF Larsen and I agree on much, but we agree entirely here. As far as I can see he is suggesting a Fideist position is entirely compatible with scepticism, and is thinking like a Huxleyian agnostic. Huxley himself appears to me to have been a deist. Anyway not much controversial here - I think Martin Gardner would be an excellent example.

cj x

As long as you want to define a god as not interacting with the Universe and as long as you recognize that there is an equal amount of evidence for gods as there is evidence for invisible pink unicorns then you could have a skeptic making a semantic argument about the possibility of something for which we as yet have absolutely no evidence. No one to my knowledge is arguing against that principle of not proving a negative.

But then you have a completely irrelevant god concept, you have no evidence to believe such a god exists and you are ignoring the evidence supporting the conclusion god beliefs originated as human generated myths. That is not compatible with skepticism.

 

[Skeptic Guy]

Your argument easily applies to a muslim terrorist, I mean, they also think there are other ways to reach their objective. They don't have to be nice and easy going, or even talk, they just need bombs.

It only "easily applies" if you shave off all the corners with a power sander and forcibly jam it into the round hole, but don't let that stop you.