grunch. whoever the **** is trying to convert splendour to atheism for ****s sake are you ******ed? do u see how ****ing ******ed he makes theists look? think about it first imo

God doesn't need a creator.

Why?

He just doesn't!

Dawkins? The concept of cognitive dissonance has been around for 50 years.

Though it is funny that you dismiss the idea of concept dissonance by displaying cognitive dissonance of your own.

.

I guess the thought of a loving being looking over me and offering me eternal bliss is so scary to me that I need to suppress it and convince myself that the loving being does not exist.

Cue Jibninjas telling me all of the reasons why I might "hate god".

^ lol

Hopey what do you think is the number one reason why people believe in God?

The number one reason is that they were indoctrinated into a religion at a young age.

I feel like you're waiting for a reply from me.. but I was just curious to know what you thought was the number one reason why people believe.

I gave you the answer. People who come to believe in a religion later in life are the exception. Most people who believe in a god do so because they were taught to believe as children.

It's a legitimate question. However, it's not legitimate to consistently ignore, misrepresent, and/or pretend you've never heard the legitimate responses to it.

The simplest response imo is that Diety is not subject to the physical principles we derive from our experience within this physical universe because Diety is not contained within this physical universe. Therefore, questions based on our logical framework surrounding such physical principles do not apply to Diety.

It's fruitless to give this response however, because atheists will ignore, misrepresent, and/or pretend they've never heard it. I've found atheists on this forum to be constitutionally incapable of accurately representing the opposing viewpoints they disagree with. If atheists here could not argue via misrepresentation or ridicule they would have practically nothing left to say. They would have to satisfy themselves with repeated displays of their incapacity to understand splendor.

btw, This response is not that much different than the response physics experts here give to the question, "what was there before the big bang?". The experts respond that Time is a physical measurement dependent on the existence of the physical universe in which it exists. Therefore, there is no "time" to talk about "before" the existence of "time" within the universe in which "time" exists. And so the question does not apply.

PairTheBoard

The physical universe itself is not "contained within" any universe either so you've done nothing to explain why a deity should be treated any differently.

And you know this how?

Oh, you don't know that.

Well, what evidence is there that you can show me that it might be true?

Oh, you don't have any evidence of that claim either.

What you're asking me to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on your say-so.

Forgive me for being bored to tears with this concept.

Not really, but neither is the argument it's usually used to respond to. The statement "The universe must have a designer" is no more valid than the statement "The designer of the universe must have a designer." We don't even know if statements like "There had to be something before XYZ" make any sense whatsoever once we get back to t=0 and beyond, so any attempt to invoke the origin of the universe in an argument for either side is fatally flawed.

Now, if it is posited in response to someone trying to claim something like ID as a valid scientific theory, then yes it's valid.

I created the creator before I was born.

No.

I agree with everything except the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs.

In the 2nd paragraph; if a Diety is not subject to the physical principles we derive from our experience within this physical universe because Diety is not contained within this physical universe... Then neither is anything else that may be responsible for it's creation. So this says exactly nothing.

I won't respond to my disagreement with the 3rd paragraph, since it's nothing more than an ad hominen attack.

Apparently neither you nor Dawkins really know what cognitive dissonance is.

There has to be an uncomfortable feeling by holding 2 contradictory ideas simultaneously.

I never feel uncomfortable. I don't think I can explain everything but usually most things fall into place over time.

So I think Dawkins is really prejudiced making a generalization about theists that doesn't hold water.

I'm patient and my mind naturally integrates. There is no dissonance and Dawkins is making some broad psychological/sociological statements about theists that are stereotypes and not true across the board for all theists.

Some people have great conflicts before believing but some people don't. I naturally progressed without conflict to my beliefs because I always had a natural respect for the idea of a God existing.

This must be something Dawkins experienced so he rejected religion.

If anything atheists experience cognitive dissonance because of their stress on logic. I always rely on rational intuition. No dissonance with intuition. You just feel it or intuit it or you don't but I definitely don't feel "uncomfortable".

I just approach the bible/God questions differently from the typical poster on here. I think logic is immanent in Jesus since he is the Logos.

Its only certain people with highly rational and logical minds that demand everything be explained logically. A lot of the theists posters belong to this category as well. They hate to be seen as irrational (I suspect this is a trait predominantly of men. Men typically are more controlling and apt to have that fixation of "locus of control" than women though there are plenty of women who are control freaks. Control freaks are usually control freaks because they want to make events proceed along a path that ultimately satisfies them and when it doesn't proceed that way they act out usually in anger. Most of the the time they don't even know they are being control freaks.) When someone on here does make a rational argument then the rational ones start to do their semantic game upsetting the apple cart. IOW they attack the terms rather than consider the logical answer.

I do refine my beliefs but I do it experientially meaning as you practice your faith you notice where you fail at it and try to do better. Dialoging with atheists has helped me to find a lot of weak spots so at least I know some of the areas I need to improve. Of course many of the atheists on here aren't as civil as you Lestat. Running into all the chronically anti-social types on 2+2 has done more to confirm for me the biblical idea that man is fallen than any bible reading ever did. Of course some of my less than polite responses have confirmed I"m fallen too. But at least biblical truth is confirmed for me.

An interesting link on the locus of control: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locus_of_control

Ugh, no. The theory states that people change/justify their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviours in order to *avoid* the feelings of anxiety. The whole point is that you don't realize that you are doing this -- it is done subconsciously.

Ignorance is bliss.

lol, wtf? You could at least do a little Wiki search before you go posting stuff like this.

This is not a response though, it's an excuse. Responses have evidence to back them up and excuses don't.

Example

Claim: I don't believe there's a treasure buried in your backyard.
Response: Sure there is. Here's a map to it so you can test for yourself. Dig where the X is and you'll find it.

Claim: I don't believe there's a god interacting with this universe.
Excuse: Sure there is. He's just invisible and completely undetectable to humans. He lives in a different realm outside of this universe that we can't reach while we're alive.

And you content that we ignore, misrepresent, and/or pretend that we've never heard legitimate responses. Well, maybe we haven't!

As I've said before Dawkins is no psychiatrist but he does like to impose his perception of others on the world like they are fact.


In The God Delusion Dawkins provided the world with this very long chain of assumptions he has made. I'm sure there are many weak links in that chain. Starting with his assumptions on the human psyche (generalizations are always contestable because the human mind is so complex) and his venture into sociology with his ideas about memetics based on paralleling them with genetics (people call this philosophy but if you're talking about cultural/social behaviors then that is sociology and sociology requires research. Sociologists conduct population studies before presenting their theories.)

Alastair McGrath in his book Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life says this in the book:

Synopsis
McGrath begins with an overview of evolutionary biology and Darwinist theory. He then presents Dawkins’ view that the current state of scientific knowledge should lead a rational person to conclude that there is no God. McGrath argues that Dawkins fails to declare or defend several crucial assumptions or premises. McGrath also defends other conclusions in the book, including:

the scientific method cannot conclusively prove that God does or does not exist.

the theory of evolution does not necessarily entail any particular atheistic, agnostic, or Christian understanding of the world.

Dawkins’ refutation of William Paley’s watchmaker analogy does not equate to a refutation of God’s existence.

Dawkins’ proposal that memes explain the evolutionary development of human culture is more illogical and unscientific than a clearly articulated defence of Christianity.

Dawkins is ignorant of Christian theology and mischaracterizes religious people generally.

McGrath argues that Dawkins’ rejection of faith is a straw man argument. According to McGrath, Dawkins’ definition that faith “means blind trust, in the absence of evidence” is not a Christian position. In contrast, argues McGrath, accepting Dawkins’ definition would require blind trust since he offers no evidence to support it. Rather, it is based upon what McGrath calls “an unstated and largely unexamined cluster of hidden non-scientific values and beliefs” (p. 92). McGrath then argues that Dawkins frequently violates the very tenets of evidence-based reasoning that Dawkins himself claims to uphold and use to dismiss all religious belief.


synopsis drawn from wiki on McAlistair's book
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawkins...eaning_of_Life

Stop behaving like a dork.

Of course I already wiki'd it:

Cognitive dissonance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. The "ideas" or "cognitions" in question may include attitudes and beliefs, and also the awareness of one's behavior. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, or by justifying or rationalizing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors.[1] Cognitive dissonance theory is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology.

Dissonance normally occurs when a person perceives a logical inconsistency among his or her cognitions. This happens when one idea implies the opposite of another. For example, a belief in animal rights could be interpreted as inconsistent with eating meat or wearing fur. Noticing the contradiction would lead to dissonance, which could be experienced as anxiety, guilt, shame, anger, embarrassment, stress, and other negative emotional states. When people's ideas are consistent with each other, they are in a state of harmony, or consonance. If cognitions are unrelated, they are categorized as irrelevant to each other and do not lead to dissonance.

A powerful cause of dissonance is an idea in conflict with a fundamental element of the self-concept, such as "I am a good person" or "I made the right decision." The anxiety that comes with the possibility of having made a bad decision can lead to rationalization, the tendency to create additional reasons or justifications to support one's choices. A person who just spent too much money on a new car might decide that the new vehicle is much less likely to break down than his or her old car. This belief may or may not be true, but it would likely reduce dissonance and make the person feel better. Dissonance can also lead to confirmation bias, the denial of disconfirming evidence, and other ego defense mechanisms.


I haven't suffered from spotting logical inconsistencies. I'm not very logical.
Hence I'm not cognitively dissonant and Dawkins is posting a lot of big fat generalizations about how people's minds operate which he's not qualified to make.

Are there a lot of "logical" theists. Yes there are we have had tons of examples on this board.

But I'm sick of the primitive Dawkins propaganda campaign. We barely even have the cutting edge tools to understand how the human mind works with spirituality and he wants to abolish certain religious groups and/or parental religious influences. Somebody needs to point out to him he is claiming authority in disciplines in which he is lacking expertise.

Splendour has built quite the Dawkins strawman.