The God Delusion

[Edwardo Piet]

A spiritual guide.

Define spirtual then. How perhaps clarify how it can be a guide? And what kind of guide?

Yeh I never got that reasoning, it just went way over my head.

God doesn't exist because God is improbable, God doesn't exist because God is complex (says Dawkins), therefore belief in a non-existing God is a delusion.

Dawkins doesn't claim that God definitely doesn't exists. So he doesn't claim "God doesn't exist" in that sense. He claims God almost certainly doesn't exist because God is highly complex and improbable and lacks any evidence and it's therefore delusional to believe in him...for exactly the same reason(s) as it's delusional to believe that The Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist, despite the fact that there's no evidence of the FSM and the FSM is highly complex and improbable.

And yet, yes - Dawkins doesn't even claim that the FSM definitely doesn't exist because that would be a logical fallacy because you can't prove a negative. God being extremely improbable is enough for him to be a delusion - God doesn't have to 'definitely not exist' to be a delusion. Nor does the FSM - almost certainly does not exist exist, is enough.

Who says God is "super" natural, why not wholly natural.

Well he's supernatural in the sense that he can perform miracles and he himself is at least as miraculous as a miracle, becasue he is so complex and improbable - when he's defined as the creator of the universe without any explanation for his existence whatsoever.

And if God does not need an explanation for his existence as the role of the creator of the universe...then why on earth does the universe need him as an explanation for it? If God can be eternal why not the universe? And if there indeed...is a first cause - then why does it have to be a complex creator such as "God"? Why can it not simply be something more simple such as a "Big Bang" singularity, or whatever predated that, then?

I really don't get it. God is improbable, and since "belief" in the improbable is a delusion, belief in God is a delusion?

Yes. And the more improbable such a belief without evidence...I think arguably the more delusional.

That's piss poor reasoning. It's a weak arguement. That's why I feel the book is poor.

Well the Flying Spaghetti Monster is entirely without evidence, is highly complex and improbable. And personal absurdity is irrelevant for an objective matter such as it. So would you not consider belief in the FSM to be a delusion by that critera? (no evidence, higly complex and improbable).

Could religion solve a lot of problems too, or do we not look at both sides of the arguement anymore?

If people who would otherwise not give a shit, are motivitated by religion through fear or hope of reward, then I guess it can be a positive motivator in that sense, yes. But I don't think it's worth it considering the sheer ignorance of "Faith" (by definition I say, 'Faith' being "Belief without evidence", nothing more and nothing less - how do you define it?) and the evil it can cause because of such ignorance, and the ignorant and strong belief in such ignorant and; at times at least - backward opinions.

It would. It could be communism, it could be nationalism, it could be Freedom & Democracy inc., but people will buy into an ideology, wholly believe in it's tenents and start some "problems".

Yes. But I think the worst ideologies of all tend to be "Dogmas" and "Religion" tends to be one of the biggest and most widespread dogmas of all. And overall I think it's the biggest problem of any one "Dogma". Without religious "Faith" I don't see that there would be much of an equivalent that is that bad that would just 'pop up' or just 'be there instead' or whatever.

Could you elaborate on what this interpretation that caused 9/11 is?

A literal interpretation and having absolute faith in it meaning you get to go to a martyr's heaven and get 72 versions, that you are rightous in doing it, such faith and belief in your own righteousness being so strong as to drive you to carry out an act.

There's some info on the matter in TGD and Sam Harris has also spoke of this too.

I am yet to read "The End of Faith" and "Letter to a Chrisian Nation by Harris, but certainly am planning to.

Religion is all encompassing in society, so obviously it's going to have an involvement in events. That's what I was trying to say, religion is too important to be brushed off in such a weak book as the GD.

Religion contains no evidence of God, the Afterlife, Miracles or anything supernatural whatsoever...what Dawkins disputes in TGD is the existence of God...so how I see it is that :The existence of God is too lacking in evidence, too complex and improbable...to not be brushed off by such a brilliant book as TGD.

That's my opinion yes...but you express your opinion I express mine

Why is there no reason to believe in the absence of evidence?

It's irrational to believe in God in the absence of evidence (On "Faith") just as it is to believe in the FSM in the absence of evidence ("On Faith")...or anything else. And the more improbable the thing lacking in evidence, arguably the more delusional I think.
what your trying to say, "believe anyway completely irrationally"....doesn't make sense.

What is a false belief?

A belief in something that there's no evidence of.

Why does the improbability of this being existing make it less likely to reflect reality if you belief in the being?

Because it's less likely to reflect reality; because the improbability of the being existing means that it's less likely to exist. Same things, different words right? That's a tautology.

EvF