Why? It makes logical sense. If there wasn't always something there, that means at some point there was nothing there. So without anything eternal you have to believe that something came from nothing. Then you have the chain of casuality..in which every link of the chain you have to ask, how did that get there then? Without something eternal you must do this infinitely. An eternal first cause is the only choice that makes logical sense..and going back to the earlier discussion, it also explains why the Universe appears designed even to dawkins..because it is!

>> ^Ryjkyj:
>> ^Ryjkyj:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Something eternal always was, by definition it didn't "get there". It always was there. Something can't come from nothing. Either there was always something, or there couldn't be anything. This points to an Uncasued Cause..ie, an eternal God. Dawkins theory, which is a ridiculous explanation for the Universe appearing designed, just complicates his position expodentially, because then he has to explain infinite Universes instead of just one. Either way, its an infinite chain of causality without a Creator.
>> ^Ryjkyj:
>> ^Ryjkyj:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Even dawkins admitted that the Universe appeared to be designed. His explanation? In the God delusion he explains this by saying that perhaps there are infinite Univeses and we just happen to be in the one that appears designed. Pretty powerful stuff. He also doesn't resolve how infinite Universes got there either.

You didn't resolve how God got there either. You just said he was eternal and you were happy to leave it at that. So why call Dawkins out for doing the same thing? And why should I believe you over him?
(Let's no forget to mention the fact that his idea was a suggestion and yours is what you're basing your whole life around.)

(whistles)


OK, I realize now that you're having ten conversations but this is an important concept to try and grasp: there isn't even a word for how much it complicates things when you bring an eternal god to the table. Exponential doesn't even begin to cover it. For you, I think it appears simple, because you're not going to question the existence of your god. But both explanations appear equally absurd to me. The only difference is that one is grounded in science, and the other in superstition.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

>> ^shinyblurry:
Something eternal always was, by definition it didn't "get there". It always was there. Something can't come from nothing. Either there was always something, or there couldn't be anything. This points to an Uncasued Cause..ie, an eternal God. Dawkins theory, which is a ridiculous explanation for the Universe appearing designed, just complicates his position expodentially, because then he has to explain infinite Universes instead of just one. Either way, its an infinite chain of causality without a Creator.
>> ^Ryjkyj:
>> ^Ryjkyj:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Even dawkins admitted that the Universe appeared to be designed. His explanation? In the God delusion he explains this by saying that perhaps there are infinite Univeses and we just happen to be in the one that appears designed. Pretty powerful stuff. He also doesn't resolve how infinite Universes got there either.

You didn't resolve how God got there either. You just said he was eternal and you were happy to leave it at that. So why call Dawkins out for doing the same thing? And why should I believe you over him?
(Let's no forget to mention the fact that his idea was a suggestion and yours is what you're basing your whole life around.)

(whistles)


OK, I realize now that you're having ten conversations but this is an important concept to try and grasp: there isn't even a word for how much it complicates things when you bring an eternal god to the table. Exponential doesn't even begin to cover it. For you, I think it appears simple, because you're not going to question the existence of your god. But both explanations appear equally absurd to me. The only difference is that one is grounded in science, and the other in superstition.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Something eternal always was, by definition it didn't "get there". It always was there. Something can't come from nothing. Either there was always something, or there couldn't be anything. This points to an Uncasued Cause..ie, an eternal God. Dawkins theory, which is a ridiculous explanation for the Universe appearing designed, just complicates his position expodentially, because then he has to explain infinite Universes instead of just one. Either way, its an infinite chain of causality without a Creator.
>> ^Ryjkyj:
>> ^Ryjkyj:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Even dawkins admitted that the Universe appeared to be designed. His explanation? In the God delusion he explains this by saying that perhaps there are infinite Univeses and we just happen to be in the one that appears designed. Pretty powerful stuff. He also doesn't resolve how infinite Universes got there either.

You didn't resolve how God got there either. You just said he was eternal and you were happy to leave it at that. So why call Dawkins out for doing the same thing? And why should I believe you over him?
(Let's no forget to mention the fact that his idea was a suggestion and yours is what you're basing your whole life around.)

(whistles)



OK, I realize now that you're having ten conversations but this is an important concept to try and grasp: there isn't even a word for how much it complicates things when you bring an eternal god to the table. Exponential doesn't even begin to cover it. For you, I think it appears simple, because you're not going to question the existence of your god. But both explanations appear equally absurd to me. The only difference is that one is grounded in science, and the other in superstition.

Something eternal always was, by definition it didn't "get there". It always was there. Something can't come from nothing. Either there was always something, or there couldn't be anything. This points to an Uncasued Cause..ie, an eternal God. Dawkins theory, which is a ridiculous explanation for the Universe appearing designed, just complicates his position expodentially, because then he has to explain infinite Universes instead of just one. Either way, its an infinite chain of causality without a Creator.

>> ^Ryjkyj:
>> ^Ryjkyj:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Even dawkins admitted that the Universe appeared to be designed. His explanation? In the God delusion he explains this by saying that perhaps there are infinite Univeses and we just happen to be in the one that appears designed. Pretty powerful stuff. He also doesn't resolve how infinite Universes got there either.

You didn't resolve how God got there either. You just said he was eternal and you were happy to leave it at that. So why call Dawkins out for doing the same thing? And why should I believe you over him?
(Let's no forget to mention the fact that his idea was a suggestion and yours is what you're basing your whole life around.)

(whistles)

>> ^Ryjkyj:

>> ^shinyblurry:
Even dawkins admitted that the Universe appeared to be designed. His explanation? In the God delusion he explains this by saying that perhaps there are infinite Univeses and we just happen to be in the one that appears designed. Pretty powerful stuff. He also doesn't resolve how infinite Universes got there either.

You didn't resolve how God got there either. You just said he was eternal and you were happy to leave it at that. So why call Dawkins out for doing the same thing? And why should I believe you over him?
(Let's no forget to mention the fact that his idea was a suggestion and yours is what you're basing your whole life around.)


(whistles)

>> ^shinyblurry:
>> ^packo:
>> ^sme4r:
here's the atheist's Pastor's website:
http://www.howardstorm.com/Howard_Storm.html
There are no atheists in foxholes - meaning that in the face of death most people are all of a sudden spiritual.

Christopher Hitchens is a good example of this...
oh, wait... no he isn't
its good to know I can lead a life full of sin, and will be given the opportunity like everyone else to shout out "Jesus" in fevered dreams and be saved
or wait, maybe not like everyone else, because that would sorta be a cop out
maybe this guy is just special... but i thought everyone was in "His" eyes...
well then maybe he works in mysterious ways, and this guy can't convey to you his experience, like the love Jesus felt for him as he carried him... and thats the proof... see?
no? but he wrote a book
no? but the universe is sooo complex, it needs a designer...
no? but everyone believes when they are in a fox hole

Even dawkins admitted that the Universe appeared to be designed. His explanation? In the God delusion he explains this by saying that perhaps there are infinite Univeses and we just happen to be in the one that appears designed. Pretty powerful stuff. He also doesn't resolve how infinite Universes got there either.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion

just curious, are you just picking the parts of the book that back your arguement, or the whole book?

>> ^shinyblurry:
Even dawkins admitted that the Universe appeared to be designed. His explanation? In the God delusion he explains this by saying that perhaps there are infinite Univeses and we just happen to be in the one that appears designed. Pretty powerful stuff. He also doesn't resolve how infinite Universes got there either.


You didn't resolve how God got there either. You just said he was eternal and you were happy to leave it at that. So why call Dawkins out for doing the same thing? And why should I believe you over him?

(Let's no forget to mention the fact that his idea was a suggestion and yours is what you're basing your whole life around.)

>> ^packo:
>> ^sme4r:
here's the atheist's Pastor's website:
http://www.howardstorm.com/Howard_Storm.html
There are no atheists in foxholes - meaning that in the face of death most people are all of a sudden spiritual.

Christopher Hitchens is a good example of this...
oh, wait... no he isn't
its good to know I can lead a life full of sin, and will be given the opportunity like everyone else to shout out "Jesus" in fevered dreams and be saved
or wait, maybe not like everyone else, because that would sorta be a cop out
maybe this guy is just special... but i thought everyone was in "His" eyes...
well then maybe he works in mysterious ways, and this guy can't convey to you his experience, like the love Jesus felt for him as he carried him... and thats the proof... see?
no? but he wrote a book
no? but the universe is sooo complex, it needs a designer...
no? but everyone believes when they are in a fox hole


Even dawkins admitted that the Universe appeared to be designed. His explanation? In the God delusion he explains this by saying that perhaps there are infinite Univeses and we just happen to be in the one that appears designed. Pretty powerful stuff. He also doesn't resolve how infinite Universes got there either.

Great sift. I read a History of God as a teenager, and realised now that I had forgotten most of it and how interesting the history of the narrative is. I wonder if he is going to read The God Delusion.

Fitting that Yahwhe is the Hebrew god of war. Kind of puts things into place. He must be overjoyed by the permanent misery and death that festers in his kingdom. Oh, and that thing about Jesus being God? Forget that noise - if Yahweh is who he appears to be, he would have crucified that pansy ass himself - and maybe he did?

>> ^SDGundamX:

>> ^mizila:
In fact, I think atheists tend to appreciate life more and just plain be happier.
Actually, David Sloan Wilson in an amazing experiment using the "Experience Sampling Method" pioneered by Csikszentmihalyi (the guy who investigated psychological "flow" experiences) found the following:
"On average, religious believers are more prosocial than non-believers, feel better about themselves, use their time more constructively, and engage in long-term planning rather than gratifying their impulsive desires. On a moment-by-moment basis, they report being more happy, active, sociable, involved and excited. Some of these differences remain even when religious and non-religious believers are matched for their degree of prosociality." (From this article in which Sloan takes issues with some of Dawkins' statements in The God Delusion.)
So technically, your statement just hasn't been borne out by scientific investigation. That's not to say ALL religious people are happier than atheists. We're talking in the aggregate: on average, religious people tend to be happier (along with having other benefits). This should, of course, in no way interfere with your happiness as an atheist. You personally might be happier than everyone else that Wilson studied. But that doesn't mean everybody in the world besides you is better off without religion.
EDIT: What I would say, I guess, is that some people are happier and more productive being religious and others are happier and more productive being atheist. Depends on the individual.


Like Karl Marx said, religion is a drug. But what I would add is that instead of being opium, it's a mild performance enhancing drug. At least that's what religious people think. But it's simply a placebo: religious people think that by believing in god they are protected/doing good/gaining eternal afterlife/etc. and so they feel better. Classic self-fulfilling prophecy type of thing. The problem of course is that this changes their mental balance, and if something comes that challenge their world view they will get angry, like the addict you try to reason with. If something happens to make their religious worldview crumble, they get depressed, i.e. withdrawal syndrome.

On the other hand atheists are always on neutral. If new scientific evidence challenge their worldview, they'll just say "well, my experience of the world is the same, but my understanding of that experience must change". This is exactly to the contrary of the religious, who always thinks that his experience of the world itself is at stake. Religious people think their experience of the world includes a god, when in fact only their understanding of the world - gotten from the Bible or whatever source of authority - includes a god to explain Everything Else. This is why, I think, the theological debate hasn't advanced in two thousand years: religious types try to prove or disprove the experience of a god - which with the way they usually define god is impossible either way - whereas scientific types say with Laplace that a god is a superfluous hypothesis in the understanding of the experience we have of the world.

So atheists are more mentally stable and view the world and our experience of it in a more reasonable, detached manner. These, I think, are two things needed for humankind to not destroy itself with its own technological marvels. With this in min, it is no wonder that fundamentalists think global warming and weapons of mass destruction are "necessary" : they think the world is ok as it is and all is well with their god's plan, whereas they must also protect themselves against the guys that do not believe in their own god (the atheist commies and the islamic terrorists).

>> ^mizila:

In fact, I think atheists tend to appreciate life more and just plain be happier.

Actually, David Sloan Wilson in an amazing experiment using the "Experience Sampling Method" pioneered by Csikszentmihalyi (the guy who investigated psychological "flow" experiences) found the following:

"On average, religious believers are more prosocial than non-believers, feel better about themselves, use their time more constructively, and engage in long-term planning rather than gratifying their impulsive desires. On a moment-by-moment basis, they report being more happy, active, sociable, involved and excited. Some of these differences remain even when religious and non-religious believers are matched for their degree of prosociality." (From this article in which Sloan takes issues with some of Dawkins' statements in The God Delusion.)

So technically, your statement just hasn't been borne out by scientific investigation. That's not to say ALL religious people are happier than atheists. We're talking in the aggregate: on average, religious people tend to be happier (along with having other benefits). This should, of course, in no way interfere with your happiness as an atheist. You personally might be happier than everyone else that Wilson studied. But that doesn't mean everybody in the world besides you is better off without religion.

EDIT: What I would say, I guess, is that some people are happier and more productive being religious and others are happier and more productive being atheist. Depends on the individual.

Wow, 4 years since this video first turned up on the sift. 4 years since I realised that I am a staunch atheist, and this was the video that did it. I had heard of one of Dawkin's previous books, The Blind Watchmaker, but never read it. It was this video that convinced me to get The God Delusion.

Awesome. How about a *promote?

Nope. You nailed it Raver. This laryngeal nerve was an enlightening factoid when I read Dawkins's The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, which I highly recommend. Not a whole ton of arguing as in The God Delusion, but just facts in a dozen different scientific disciplines that all support evolution separately and in concert with each other. It's well worth a read, for ammunition, if you are as smug and pompous of an antitheist as I am.

@gwiz665, I understand you have a problem with "inalienable" or "natural" rights because people tend to think they come from a god, but god didn't always mean exclusively a personal god. Read the God Delusion, Dawkins writes about how god meant what creates you, whether that be something thought to be personal or natural. Einstein talked of a natural god being the creator of the universe, and he certainly wasn't talking about a man with a white beard!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights

I understand that men and manmade constructs like government may want to take natural rights away, but they're a part of you and no man or manmade construct should take them away: your right to life, speech, beliefs, expression, self-preservation, etc.

Just going to point out that correlation does not equal causation. You can't make the claim that more education causes people to be less religious. The studies only show a correlation between higher education and atheism--they don't show that atheism is a direct result of higher education.

EDIT: In fact, the studies don't even show that. I'm assuming you got your information from Dawkin's book The God Delusion(2006, p. 103). Some people who were curious about the study he cited (saying 43 studies showed an inverse correlation between education and religious belief) and wanted to know more tracked down the source of this claim themselves and found out it was, quite frankly, BS. Read for yourself here here.

Basically, all someone did is look at a bunch of articles counted up how many wrote in their conclusions that the study found "education/intelligence inversely correlated with religion" versus how many found "education/intelligence correlated with religion." There are all sorts of problems here since what counts as intelligence and/or education, as well as the methodology used, varied widely between the studies and there really isn't the evidence there to make the claim that "increased education correlates with atheism."

For even more information about the article Dawkins cited and a look at the original 43 studies (they're worth looking at just to see how truly disparate they are) see: the original Beckwith article.

Also, see this article which shows religious attendance actually increases with education.

>> ^spoco2:

Um... You completely backwards read my post. I said that in the uneducated and simple minded is WHERE religion breeds. Not that Religion creates it, but it's where it takes hold because when you don't know better they can make it seem sensible. As soon as you up the education level, religion drops markedly.