Dear Atheist...

[mistermack]

Basically....
Theism is defined as belief in a god like the god of Abrahamic religions. He is a god who actively brings the universe into being and is looking over it.

Deism covers the concept of god as a kind of force of nature. Completely non-personified.

Those who've read it... would that be a fair precis?

Ok, it's just as well we're talking about Theism then, because I seem to be a bit of a deist by that definition. I believe in non-personified forces in nature, indeed phyicists are trying to get to a unifying theory of everything, presumably meaning that one single fundamental entity might be the basis of everything we see.
I have a feeling there must be a bit more woo involved in deism than that.

So disprove an Abrahamic God? Well, I think I can disprove the ever-loving compassionate god that I was force-fed as a child. You only have to look at all the incredible suffering that people and animals are put through every day and ask yourself, "would I have done that if I was an all-powerful Abrahamic god?"
If the answer is no, then the conclusion has to be that such a loving compassionate entity is a complete myth.

I can't disprove the existence of a sadistic or totally non-caring god, or one who is not all-powerful, but I think some progress has been made.
.

[Hermit]

Not fair. I haven't read it. You'll either have to lend me a copy, or give a summary.

You can read the full text online here.

[mistermack]

Not fair. I haven't read it. You'll either have to lend me a copy, or give a summary.

You can read the full text online here.

Fantastic!! Thanks very much for that. I didn't know it was available.
.

[Hermit]

Not fair. I haven't read it. You'll either have to lend me a copy, or give a summary.

You can read the full text online here.

Fantastic!! Thanks very much for that. I didn't know it was available.

No worries. It may interest you to know that seven other books by Dawkins are available on the same site. They are
The Blind Watchmaker. 1987
The God Delusion. 2006
A Devil's Chaplain 2004
Climbing Mount Improbable 1996
The Extended Phenotype 1982
Unweaving the rainbow 1998
River out of Eden 1996
The Selfish Gene. 2nd ed. 1989
The Selfish Gene. 30th anniv. ed. 2006.

Also, it's not at all difficult to find a downloadable pdf version of Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth via bittorrent.

[Pappa]

I should really point out that I started this thread as a parody.

[Robert_S]

Please deposit evidence for the non-existence of god here.

You know you feel it in y our heart, but your hyperrational mind just can't accept it.

[mistermack]

No worries. It may interest you to know that seven other books by Dawkins are available on the same site. They are
The Blind Watchmaker. 1987
The God Delusion. 2006
A Devil's Chaplain 2004
Climbing Mount Improbable 1996
The Extended Phenotype 1982
Unweaving the rainbow 1998
River out of Eden 1996
The Selfish Gene. 2nd ed. 1989
The Selfish Gene. 30th anniv. ed. 2006.

Also, it's not at all difficult to find a downloadable pdf version of Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth via bittorrent.

They are there allright. Not all under Dawkins, you have to search using the title, but a fabulous find.
Funny nobody on the Dawkins site ever pointed it out. ( Before it went to pot ).
I like Dawkins, and gave the site the benefit of the doubt, but it's a very feint shadow of it's former self, not really worth going on.
Maybe that was the idea. Maybe they felt it got too big, and wanted to chop it in a diplomatic way. ( I find it hard to believe that though ).
Thanks again for the info.
.

[mistermack]

I should really point out that I started this thread as a parody.

It doesn't matter. Things can take on a life of their own. Not many people know this, but the universe started out as just one of god's farts, but he accidentally followed through.
.

[Trolldor]

You'd be far better off sticking with Carl Sagan. He does a brilliant job of it without that ever being his main intention.

[Pappa]

Funny nobody on the Dawkins site ever pointed it out. ( Before it went to pot ).

I do remember the links appearing there a few times about 2 years ago. There was even a discussion about it from what I remember.

[hiyymer]

God is present in our experience so he definitely exists there. So I presume you mean by exist to be something in the physical reality defined by science. As people like Dennett have pointed out, god, as an experience, is an agent created by our brain. Agents are self-caused intentional actors that the brain creates habitually to represent various natural fully caused processes. An example of an agent is the self that the brain creates in our experience. If one were to propose self-causation by the self as the scientific explanation of why my body consumed a hot dog, could it ever be verified and accepted as a scientific theory? I am no expert on the epistemology of science, but I would be inclined to say no. I don't think science can conceptually ever validate the self-caused free will aspect of the agent that we experience. Although science can't prove that reality is fully caused, I don't think it can validate the existence of something that is not fully caused. Even the collapsing wave of quantum science is causal and statistically mathematically defined. I think you can say that the self-caused free-willed intentional aspect of the self agent cannot exist in the physical reality defined by science. But the physical biological processes of the body's regulation which are represented in consciousness by the brain as the "I" agent's intention and purpose and choice do exist. So I think we could say the same thing of god. The biological processes that it represents may exist, but the self-caused intentionality and purpose are only representations created by the brain.

But so far we are only talking about god defined as the agent metaphor created in our experience by our brain. Some wish to claim that there is something in physical scientific existence that is that same thing we experience as god in our consciousness. Actually I am not sure whether there are such people. Since our experience is reality to most people, is that what they really mean? Or do they just mean... don't bother me with all that science talk - god exists for me. I think it's more like that. But people like Dawkins have answered that one anyways. No we can't prove that such a god does or doesn't exist. We can only observe that no one has ever found one.

[charlou]

Funny nobody on the Dawkins site ever pointed it out. ( Before it went to pot ).

I do remember the links appearing there a few times about 2 years ago. There was even a discussion about it from what I remember.

I posted it there, and elsewhere, at every opportunity (someone requesting RD's books/text). I use it to find sections more readily, and to copy/paste parts that are relevant to topics - always with the link.

[nellikin]

My proof for the non-existence of god is my knee and hips.

God is a perfect (non?)being. God made us in his image. It follows, that we too should be perfect. I'm 32 and have a fucked knee (that's the technical term) and a buggered hip (also the technical term). It hurts when I do certain things (like sit down with my legs out straight). Now, if god made me in his image, his knee and hips must be bugger-fucked.

Ergo, he is not perfect, ergo he does not exist.

QED

[hiyymer]

My proof for the non-existence of god is my knee and hips.

God is a perfect (non?)being. God made us in his image. It follows, that we too should be perfect. I'm 32 and have a fucked knee (that's the technical term) and a buggered hip (also the technical term). It hurts when I do certain things (like sit down with my legs out straight). Now, if god made me in his image, his knee and hips must be bugger-fucked.

Ergo, he is not perfect, ergo he does not exist.

QED

Agreed. It's too bad. We're never satisfied with the god in our experience, so we have to make it into this all-powerful, PERFECT, cause of everything god that is really out there. Well of course. How else are you going to make the world a better place? We need the power. We'll take a powerful god over a wimpy god every time.

[mistermack]

Funny nobody on the Dawkins site ever pointed it out. ( Before it went to pot ).

I do remember the links appearing there a few times about 2 years ago. There was even a discussion about it from what I remember.

I posted it there, and elsewhere, at every opportunity (someone requesting RD's books/text). I use it to find sections more readily, and to copy/paste parts that are relevant to topics - always with the link.

Well done you, then. I thought when I saw the site that it was an illegal download site, what with the russian writing and everything. If they tolerated it on the Dawkins site, it seems to indicate they don't object to it. Or maybe they didn't notice it.
If it's been going a few years, at least it shows that nobody's that bothered.
My attention span isn't good enough to justify me buying books, but it's great to be able to look up sections.
I like Dawkins' style, it's very clear, pleasant and easy to read, a bit like his dialogue I suppose. I don't agree with every word, but at least he gives his reasoning in a clear manner. That's why he sells a lot of books I guess.
.