301. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #7131 by Fedler on November 17, 2006 at 9:22 am

Mr. Robertson,

Thank you for your rational responses to the more rational, respectful posts. The insults (from both sides) do seem to get in the way, though. I admit surprise that you have continued your postings on this site. I did read your second review (after Josh posted the site here) and thought I detected more "openness" than the first review. I think I still fundamentally disagreed with it, but I appreciated it more than the first review.

Anyway...may I ask one question? You state in your last post that "I believe in God because it is the best rational position proportionate to the evidence offered". May I ask what evidence you refer to?

I hesitated to bring it up, though, because it feels, to me, that there is a basic disagreement on the definition of 'evidence', but I would like to hear what you have to say about your evidence. I'm not trying to be sarcastic or 'back you into a corner', but I honestly would like to know.

I've read Darwin --(I might add it was one of the harder things I've ever read, mainly because of the Victorian style in which it was written, which apparently involves the use of as many run-on sentences as possible) -- as well as Dawkins, and some physics textbooks regarding quantum mechanics, cosmology, the origin of the universe, etc. I've attempted to read some books stating the proof of God (the names and authors escape me at the moment), but I felt the evidence presented in those books was rather vague, or possessed a rather dream-like quality about them that made it hard for me to relate to. Maybe that's a defect in myself (that could be a possibililty, also) or maybe I just read the wrong books. Either way, I'd appreciate hearing what you have to say about the evidence factor (after the weekend, of course).

Kindly...

302. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #7026 by Fedler on November 16, 2006 at 5:48 pm

By the way, the lumpiness of space (i.e. planets, galaxies, etc.) only makes up about 5% of the known universe. Just FYI.

303. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #7022 by Fedler on November 16, 2006 at 5:29 pm

Re: Comment #6991 by Azariah de Rossi

"If your really interested in science try an experimentE explode something and see if the result is more orderly than the start. I think not."

ADR, I have to take issue with this statement. In a book by Brian Greene called "Fabric of the Cosmos" he explains this as the well-defined scientific precept of 'entropy', which states physical systems naturally flow from a system of order to disorder (eggs break but never un-break, windows shatter but never un-shatter, etc.). The immense order of the universe at the Big Bang (particles enormously compacted into a relatively small area) exploded and begun the process of general 'unwinding' (a.k.a. expansion) that appears in the cosmos. The cosmos LOOKS uniform and ordered, but, and this is the main point, given the vast hugeness of the universe, the universe is, on the whole, more disordered than ordered when the totality of ALL the known universe is included. The universe is not ordered, it's disordered, and our little planet just happens to appear ordered because that's how we've evolved to make it.

Admittedly, physics doesn't know the conditions of the universe at time zero (just before the Bang), but physicists are working on the problem and I have no doubt an answer will someday arrive. But, entropy proves the universe is currently more disordered than when it started.

304. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #6656 by Fedler on November 15, 2006 at 9:10 am

Thank you, Mr. Robertson, for ending your participation in a classy way. I look forward to your future reviews and engaging constructively going forward.

305. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #6417 by Fedler on November 14, 2006 at 6:13 am

There appears to be an inherent flaw in this thread, which is that believers and nonbelievers have different definitions of 'proof' or 'evidence'. Whereas believers seem to consider 'evidence' of a more metaphysical nature, nonbelievers define 'evidence' as that gained through the traditional scientific method. Therein lies the critical flaw. Until the terms are defined equally to both sides, the quibbling over details is less legit. I'm at work now so I can't expand this further, but that seems to be vital to have true understanding happening on either side of the issue.

306. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #6406 by Fedler on November 14, 2006 at 4:50 am

Re: Comment #6388 by David Robertson

Mr. Robertson, you state:

Feeler (262) – "It frustrates me that we've wasted a lot of time "debating" (sometimes rather negatively) with Mr. Robertson, who never even read the book. "

I don't know where you got this idea from. I have read the book – at least four times."

First, it's Fedler, not Feeler. However, I was referring to your comment #212 in which you state your initial review of the TGD was a letter review of the introducrtion only. If you thought I meant the Bible, then no, that's not what I meant. I was referring to your inital review, which started this whole thread. If you now have read TGD at least four times, then thank you for your efforts.

307. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #6336 by Fedler on November 13, 2006 at 5:14 pm

Somewhere in TGD I believe Dawkins states something to the effect of "you don't always need to know the details of something to believe/disbelieve its basic beliefs" (I'm largely paraphrasing here. If someone wants me to look it up, I will, but I don't feel inclined to do it now). It doesn't matter what the details are when it's the basic ideas or assumptions that appear to be flawed.

308. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #6306 by Fedler on November 13, 2006 at 2:54 pm

Sorry, I meant to say "If god is the kind of being who kills people in order to have some other people learn something, then that's NOT the kind of god I want on my side."

Damn fat fingers!

309. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #6304 by Fedler on November 13, 2006 at 2:37 pm

Thanks, Alex. I, too, have always had doubts I always brushed aside, as if they were someone else's problem. But with my dad's accident, someone else's problem suddenly became my religious crossroads. For me it wasn't so much "Why has god allowed/caused this to happen?", but of a matter of free choice. Thinking of all the myriad of things that had to happen that night in order to get my dad at that intersection at exactly the wrong time, how could this have been a matter of choice, specifically, of 'god's will'? And to say things happened for a reason, implies a conscious decision by someone/something to teach me something by way of my dad being killed. Reason needs to flow FROM someone/something. If god is the kind of being who kills people in order to have some other people learn something, then that's the kind of god I want on my side. That's what started by year-long (so far) struggle with my religion. I've become quite the bookworm this past year reading various books by Dawkins, Sam Harris and others (including their most staunch objectors, aka Michael Behe). I'm currently reading Darwin's On the Origins of Species to get a feel for where the majority of this came from. It's hard reading, but illuminating.

310. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #6294 by Fedler on November 13, 2006 at 2:05 pm

I, also, think this thread has become too negative, from both sides.

However, Mr. Robertson states in comment #212 that "My article is a letter review of the introduction to The God Delusion." I have to admit I was interested in following this thread, specifically what Mr. Robertson had to say, but once I read that, my heart sank. It frustrates me that we've wasted a lot of time "debating" (sometimes rather negatively) with Mr. Robertson, who never even read the book. I think some good dialogue (not shouting) has been exchanged and much could be learned from what has been written. I haven't felt compelled to enter it myself since I don't feel I can contribute scholarly with some of the specific points being raised (I'm more of a "big brush stroke" kind of person). I've struggled with my religion ever since my dad was killed a year ago by a drunk driver and I've struggled with "finding comfort" through god (finding meaning for my dad's accident, etc.), but I'm beginning to feel if I take 'god' out of the equation, his death becomes easier to accept. I came to this site hoping to read some guidance that may help me toss off the shackles of religion, and I think I have to an extent. However, for me it takes away some of the legitimacy of this particular thread knowing one side has not read the book.

311. The Dawkins Delusion (Different Article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #5458 by Fedler on November 9, 2006 at 3:00 pm

I don't ever recall reading in The God Delusion where Dawkins states that if religion is eliminated than the world would be a shiny-happy utopia. Religion is a problem, but I believe Prof. Dawkins states on several occasions, that religion is not the only problem. Did Prof. McGrath actually read the book that closely? I'm guessing not. It sounds like he got offended early on (maybe not even beyond Chapter 1), closed his mind (along with the book) and felt obliged to offer an opinion.

One would think if Prof. McGrath wanted to be critical, he ought to at least do his homework.

312. Surviving 'Jesus Camp'

Comment #3436 by Fedler on October 28, 2006 at 4:47 pm

Reply on Comment #661 by Anonymous on October 5, 2006 at 5:32 pm

Careful. We're willing to have a discussion, but this site is for expression of free ideas. Mostly we try to interact rationally, but just like believers, we get passionate about our own identity. Atheists have relatively few sites with which they're ideas are accepted rationally. Believers in a god have the rest of the world in which to push their philosophy onto other people, where religion is accepted as "a given". Please recognize your own place in the hierarchy before you attempt to subjugate us into ours.

313. God only knows who's right or wrong

Comment #3186 by Fedler on October 26, 2006 at 7:37 am

"Here’s my final thoughts…….Go to your local church, observe the behavior……maybe ask about what type of missions they are involved in……see if you can volunteer to slop soup in a food line for a day or two…….pay careful attention to the homeless folks, and see how grateful they are for your service………and then remember; they will be the ones who inherit the earth."

Can't I inherit the earth, too? Or do I have to believe in a God to do that? Can't I be a good person without having to invoke a God?

Religion is running out of hiding spaces and appears to have less and less to offer me. My own religion (Roman Catholicism) has not appeared to adapt to changing times and only seems to be giving me the same tired rhetoric day after day. Meanwhile, science and logical reason are offering me explanations backed with evidence, and continuing to strive for further answers. The more answers we find, we find how foolish our questions, or our faith, has been.