Do you believe in A God?

CDfm

20goto10 wrote: »

To be honest I find that site unreadable. And just because its on the web doesn't make it true.

Perhaps you might find it unreadable if you are a fanatical atheist.

I on the other hand find it very readable

JC 2K3

CDfm wrote: »

So he doesnt dismiss the existence of God totally -thats a kind of sitting on a fence position wouldnt you think.

No, it's a rational conclusion.

The two sides of the fence aren't "those who believe in God" and "those who do not believe in God", but rather, "those who believe in God" and "those who look at the world rationally".

CDfm

djpbarry wrote: »

Not really. Stating that the possibility of a god existing and the possibility of no god existing are both equally likely would be sitting on the fence.
As far as I know, he has.
If nobody had heard of Creationism before Richard Dawkins came along, then he would hardly have felt the need to address it, would he?
Still waiting for you to highlight some statement of his with which you disagree. I’m guessing that you can’t, hence the ranting?

UMM Kemo Sabay - me thinks paleface fanatical atheiet speak with forked tongue

CDfm

JC 2K3 wrote: »

No, it's a rational conclusion.

The two sides of the fence aren't "those who believe in God" and "those who do not believe in God", but rather, "those who believe in God" and "those who look at the world rationally".

And the conclusion that he reaches is rationality above all else.

AT a simple level Dawkins fanatical atheism puts scientific knowledge ahead of ethics.

So Im on a desert island with a baby hoping for rescue. I am growing weak.

Rationality dictates that the longer I survive the greater the chances of rescue. THerefore - the rational conclusion is to kill the baby and eat it.

And a belief in God is uncomfortable because it gets in the way of that I imagine.

JC 2K3

I feel insulted that you think atheists are immoral.

Anyway, I'll respond with a quote from that site about Albert Einstein you posted:

Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. (Albert Einstein, 1930)

nij

CDfm wrote: »

And the conclusion that he reaches is rationality above all else.

AT a simple level Dawkins fanatical atheism puts scientific knowledge ahead of ethics.

So Im on a desert island with a baby hoping for rescue. I am growing weak.

Rationality dictates that the longer I survive the greater the chances of rescue. THerefore - the rational conclusion is to kill the baby and eat it.

And a belief in God is uncomfortable because it gets in the way of that I imagine.

So, somehow, not believing in your god means you should logically be eating babies? You've GOT to be trolling here.

Just post ONE irrational thing said by Dawkins. ONE.

CDfm

JC 2K3 wrote: »

I feel insulted that you think atheists are immoral.

Anyway, I'll respond with a quote from that site about Albert Einstein you posted:

I havent said that.

What I did was put a moral dilemma forward based on a simple situation.

I just took the arguments to what i felt would be a natural conclusion- if I applied the rationale to my life

JC 2K3

It's only rational if you considered your own survival to be of greater importance than that of the baby. Religious belief doesn't come into it.

CDfm

nij wrote: »

So, somehow, not believing in your god means you should logically be eating babies? You've GOT to be trolling here.

Just post ONE irrational thing said by Dawkins. ONE.

i am not trolling - i have posted on Dawkins -but this is not simply about him - as one poster helpfully pointed out he is not the only atheist in the world and this is a discussion board about god and atheist and not dawkins.


So I imagine that was a very nice way of saying that not all atheists are fanatical and some are really nice and some even like chocolate

djpbarry

CDfm wrote: »

So Im on a desert island with a baby hoping for rescue. I am growing weak.

Rationality dictates that the longer I survive the greater the chances of rescue. THerefore - the rational conclusion is to kill the baby and eat it.

Well, that would be the rational conclusion if you want to increase your own chances of survival; that would be a selfish position rather than a rational one. Of course, if you want both of you to survive, then eating the baby is probably not going to achieve your goal.

CDfm

nij wrote: »

So, somehow, not believing in your god means you should logically be eating babies? You've GOT to be trolling here.

Just post ONE irrational thing said by Dawkins. ONE.

I will refer you to Zillahs post 446 - he is more up to date on Dawkins then me.

I think we got over that hump dont you.

Silenceisbliss

im an athiest...i eat babies....

Zillah

CDfm wrote: »

So in that sense Dawkins really is the Father of Creationism - having done more to promote it than anyone else. Nobody would have heard of creationism except for him.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Creationists are extremely well funded and have been engaged in a massive publicity campaign.

So excuse me if I dont back away from people who take the Dawkins line because they are well scathing of mainstream beliefs and see nothing wrong with having a go.

So we're back to you feeling like whining about Dawkins because he upsets you, and you don't really care what he stands for or says, you just feel like complaining.

I think everyone should slag of Dawkins at least once a day - its great fun - ordinary mainstream christians shouldnt be afraid of their arguments.It could become an adjective when some is being loud unreasonable and irrational we could say " thats a bit Dawkins" isnt it. A Dawkins joke book would be nice- I would send mine away for his autograph.


A Dawkins Debate must be fun loads of people with their hands over their ears going LaLALA WE are not listening to you. Its very versatile used that way dont you think- that its also true should be embarrassing - but you dont seem to think so.

Oh no no, you were doing so well. You were courteous and receptive to courtesy. You were forming coherent thoughts and asking questions. Now we're back to childish ignorant comments.

Pity.

jimmycrackcorm

If you are a gambler, then the safe bet is a yes.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

I think Dawkins in many respects is leading a move to prevent Creationism gaining any ground in academic circles as opposed to fighting it for the sake of fighting it.

It would be disastrous if it were to gain support under the guise of equality and fairness (as we see in some american schools). We would have a new breed of fundamentalist "academics" whose aims would be to fight for their own belief as opposed to fight for truth.

AtomicHorror

Sean_K wrote: »

It would be disastrous if it were to gain support under the guise of equality and fairness (as we see in some american schools). We would have a new breed of fundamentalist "academics" whose aims would be to fight for their own belief as opposed to fight for truth.

Christian creationism would have to share with any other fringe interpretation. Norse creationism anyone? Scientific proof that the nine worlds of the Ginnungagap are in fact connected by the world tree Yggdrasil? Somehow I think we'll suddenly see Ken Ham and friends attempting to disprove a competing myth. That'll be fun.

aidan24326

CDfm wrote: »

Something that does annoy me is that he puts forward his views on religion and philosophy and these are not fields which- and I am open to correction - that he has done any major academic work in. I have never said he is not intelligient or not qualified - just not in theology or philosophy

I guarantee you Dawkins has more knowledge of the bible than many people who would claim to be christian. In any case, theology is a nothing subject, the study of a big load of nonsense. A thelogian is not qualified in anything.

On the question of creationism - many of his supporters use creationist and its derivatives as defining mainstream christianity

No they don't. You're just setting up a straw man there.

But then again it could be ego or when he was made Professor of Popular Science - he stops at the Popular

He does? Now we know for sure that you haven't read much or maybe even any of his work, and if you did you don't understand it.

No getting back to the other issues - I am still mystified as to why an atheist who is not a Proffessor in Theology and whose primary argumenent is with creationists address arguments to non creationists and not deal with creationists directly.I can understand that he thinks their arguments irrational but you can understand how some might feel its a hollow publicity stunt.

Dawkins has debated and engaged with creationists before, and been consistently misquoted, misrepresented and quoted out of context. He now refuses to debate publicly with them as he feels to do so gives them a credibility they do not deserve.

Myxomatosis wrote: »

Do people not have enough brain power to come to the conclusion all by themselves that there is nothing more than this?

Unfortunately not. And some people already have doubts but aren't sure why exactly, they're the type of people who Dawkins was mainly aiming at with The God Delusion.

Zillah wrote: »

I for one thinks its great that people like Dawkins are making it clear that not only is it ok to not cower before religion, but to stand right up against it and give it the finger.

I think Dawkins is trying to change people's attitudes towards religion in general, to say to people you know what, religion doesn't deserve the respect it gets and it's ok to say that. Too many people tiptoe around religion as though it deserves some special untouchable status.

But when you break it down most of it just a load of nonsense, and nonsense dressed up as religion is still nonsense.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

No I do not believe in God. Although I will give him/her/it a capital letter out of respect for his/her/its followers.

I do believe, however, that mankind needs to put his mind at rest. We as people cannot begin to understand what happens when we die. To prevent stress related illnesses and short lifespans, we will make ourselves believe that there is a greater being, that just somehow exists without any reasonable explanation. He/she/it's always watching us, somehow this being or entity has a special realm for his favourite humans. There they can be immortal and frollick in the beautiful meadows without a care in the world. The human species is unable to think of anything else, I for one surely don't know what happens when we die, but seriously is this the best that we can do?

Anyway, if I am proven wrong, it doesn't matter because he/she/it will still love and forgive me, therefore giving me everlasting life etc etc etc, right?

aidan24326

Kasen Curved Nature wrote: »

The human species is unable to think of anything else, I for one surely don't know what happens when we die, but seriously is this the best that we can do?

It's a pretty naieve idea alright, but bear in mind that the human mind is set up to understand those things that we encounter in our ordinary everyday life, and so on the subject of an afterlife, we're just projecting what we know and are comfortable with.

And yes we do know with 99.999% certainty what happens when we die. Nothing. There's not a single reason to believe anything else. The human body is a machine, albeit a highly complex machine. When the machine stops working, that's it, game over. Decay follows. For an afterlife to be possible, the mind has to be somehow separate from our physical brain. Once neuroscience reaches a complete understanding of mental function in terms of brain physiology and biochemistry, then I don't see anywhere left to hide for the afterlifers from there on.

CDfm

Sean_K wrote: »

I think Dawkins in many respects is leading a move to prevent Creationism gaining any ground in academic circles as opposed to fighting it for the sake of fighting it.

It would be disastrous if it were to gain support under the guise of equality and fairness (as we see in some american schools). We would have a new breed of fundamentalist "academics" whose aims would be to fight for their own belief as opposed to fight for truth.

I think Ive posted that I saw a letter in yesterdays Irish edition of the Sunday Times supporting some of the teachings of "evolutionism "in schools.

So people like me say that Dawkins work is fundamental to creationists gaining a foothold in the system.

I wonder if anyone else feels this.

5uspect

You seem to be coming at this with your mind made up and seem completely unaware of any of the facts surrounding Prof Dawkins' career and creationism.

Dawkins holds the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford.
It is his job to publicise science and to write about attacks on it.

Creationism has a long an undistinguished history and has been all kinds of stupid and dangerous well before Dawkins first took it on in the Blind Watchmaker. The absurdity of creationism has resulted in others to dressing it up as the idea of Intelligent Design to make it seem more palatable. The proponents of ID through propaganda, pseudo-scientific language and down right lies has done far more to popularise the notion than Dawkins.

If anything Dawkins has done more than any other writer to popularise Darwin and Genetics. Infact the Selfish Gene was blamed by some to be the cause of Thatchers market economy! This lead Dawkins to add an additional final chapter called "We are not our Genes".

You really need to grow up.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

aidan24326 wrote: »

It's a pretty naieve idea alright, but bear in mind that the human mind is set up to understand those things that we encounter in our ordinary everyday life, and so on the subject of an afterlife, we're just projecting what we know and are comfortable with.

And yes we do know with 99.999% certainty what happens when we die. Nothing. There's not a single reason to believe anything else. The human body is a machine, albeit a highly complex machine. When the machine stops working, that's it, game over. Decay follows. For an afterlife to be possible, the mind has to be somehow separate from our physical brain. Once neuroscience reaches a complete understanding of mental function in terms of brain physiology and biochemistry, then I don't see anywhere left to hide for the afterlifers from there on.

Well for one, you are talking about speculation my friend. There is no proof to suggest anything will happen or not after we die. What you say can not be proven nor dismissed. It is impossible to say what happens.

starfiend

I don't believe in a god. And when I get told that "I will find out on judgement day" God will give me some sort of punishment for not believeing in him.Well, if he is there and is as all knowing and great (as his followers lead us to believe) then would he not understand my view for questioning the universe and his existence ? The bible says he gave us free will. But we cannot question something we are meant to live our lives by ? I wouldn't even say I'm an Atheist because I believe any outspoken atheists are being religious about it.

And for people who find help in religion, It's great that you found something to help you. But it's easy to see a sign or hear somebody saying "God can help you". Because when we need help we look for help, looking outside ourselves. When more then likely the help we are looking for is inside ourselves. So try not to commit yourself to something so dogmatic as most religions are.

aidan24326

Kasen Curved Nature wrote: »

Well for one, you are talking about speculation my friend. There is no proof to suggest anything will happen or not after we die. What you say can not be proven nor dismissed. It is impossible to say what happens.

It may be impossible to know for sure what happens, however we can draw some reasonable conclusions based on observation and reasoning alone. We have no evidence for an afterlife, none whatsoever. Nobody ever came back to tell us about it. Never. The evidence we do have to hand is that the human body dies, the brain ceases to function, mental function ceases, and our bodies start to decay.

To think that some sort of metaphysical 'soul' then leaves our body and heads off into another dimension is fanciful in the extreme. Possible? Maybe. Likely to be true? Not very.

You'll note that I didn't say I'm 100% sure about all this, just 99.999%. In other words, I'm not saying it's completely impossible (though there are arguments for this which I won't get into right now) just very very unlikely.

Zillah

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

If you are a gambler, then the safe bet is a yes.

Not really. There's an infinite number of potential Gods and an infinite number of things that might save or doom you. Believing in the wrong God might annoy the real God far more than not believing at all.

Calibos

I think we have some pretty good evidence for the lack of an afterlife in the fact that we all already know from experience that we had a distinct lack of a beforelife!!

Or is the religious answer to that, that our soul wasn't eternal and God only created it 30 odd years ago in my case. It must be a full time job for him these days with a population of 6 billion each breeding like rabbits. "Jaysus guys, slow down on the ****ing, I can't keep up making the souls for all these new bodies. Maybe thats why there are so many more soul less a'moral evil ****ers around these days. Wouldn't it be great if Catholic theologians came to that conclusion and recommended that the Church now Mandate the use of condoms to give God a break

Don't religious people see how ridiculous the whole notion of Gods and afterlife are?

On the whole subject of Religionists taking offence at being ridiculed. Number one, for the most part I don't think they are being ridiculed, its just that it take very little to cause them offense and they take offense at the very notion that someone else doesn't believe what they do. I think it is actualy the religious person who draws the inference that if we are right and they are wrong that that means they are the stupid ones. Most atheists don't think they are stupid and are aware of the psychological reasons why some people believe that have no baring on their inteligence (Compartmentalisation)

Its very hard to start a debate with a religious person when they ask you why you don't believe and find offense in every reason you give for not believing.

Why don't you believe?
Well putting aside the issue of zero evidence I think we can infer from all the mythologies from the past that are no longer believed by anyone that there is no reason that christianity is any different than the Norse Pantheon of gods for example

That sounds like a non offensive explanation for ones lack of belief, doesn't it?

How dare you ridicule me and liken my faith to belief in Mythology and fairy stories!!!!

How do we respond to that?????

TBH I think that maybe we actually should start ridiculing religion for real. Sure you will offend some people and make them more entrenched in their beliefs.But Maybe it would get a lot more people to really examine their own beliefs.

Hey they are making fun of my beliefs.....lets see what I believe....Hmmmm....actually it does all sound kinda crazy, now they've brought my attention to it.....

5uspect

Calibos wrote: »

TBH I think that maybe we actually should start ridiculing religion for real. Sure you will offend some people and make them more entrenched in their beliefs. Maybe it would get people to really examine their own beliefs.

Some might say that that's the best way to deal with racism, but I'm not gonna compare religion to racism, not just yet :pac:

CDfm

JC 2K3 wrote: »

It's only rational if you considered your own survival to be of greater importance than that of the baby. Religious belief doesn't come into it.

I hadnt meant it that way and didnt think of it this way at the time of posting but its not a million miles away from the arguments against stem cell research

.Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrr I dont want to there.

Its hard enough being a non-creationist christian on boards

CDfm

Kasen Curved Nature wrote: »

No I do not believe in God. Although I will give him/her/it a capital letter out of respect for his/her/its followers.

I do believe, however, that mankind needs to put his mind at rest. We as people cannot begin to understand what happens when we die. To prevent stress related illnesses and short lifespans, we will make ourselves believe that there is a greater being, that just somehow exists without any reasonable explanation. He/she/it's always watching us, somehow this being or entity has a special realm for his favourite humans. There they can be immortal and frollick in the beautiful meadows without a care in the world. The human species is unable to think of anything else, I for one surely don't know what happens when we die, but seriously is this the best that we can do?

Anyway, if I am proven wrong, it doesn't matter because he/she/it will still love and forgive me, therefore giving me everlasting life etc etc etc, right?

not particularily so.

Most christian religions require a minimum of faith - some faith and good works +repentence

So you might be going no where after all

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

CDfm wrote: »

not particularily so.

Most christian religions require a minimum of faith - some faith and good works +repentence

So you might be going no where after all

I have faith (just not in God) and I lead a good life. Can I get in now?