The God Delusion

[CynicalSaintee]

Anyone else watching this?

Preaching to the converted in my case, as I'm already a most vociferous atheist, but what are WAPs thoughts on this?

Keep a steady head, folks, let's not slide into any sectarianism, but a good religious debate is always interesting.

[Wish i was Joe McGurn]

complete athiest. No opinion other than its all a story that some believe.

[1884]

I am an agnostic.

If there is ever proof that 'God' exists solicitors and lawyers everywhere will be coining it in on a no win, no fee basis.

'God' will finally have his/her day in court. The paparazzi will be everywhere...

Edited August 25, 2010 by 1884

[The Reverend]

Also agnostic, the scientist in me says that if there was concrete proof, I would believe.

[Jings]

Religion makes good people do bad things..................."Well Said" that man.

Religion is without a doubt "divisive", and the Governments support of Faith Schools is scandalous. People are quite capable of living good lives, without the need for a God.

The Bible is a story book FFS, and not a very good one at that.

[bluewhite4]

Also agnostic, the scientist in me says that if there was concrete proof, I would believe.

I take it that you therefore are also agnostic about Unicorns and pixies?

If there was proof that they existed then I would be forced to change my belief that that these are myths but as there is no evidence whatsoever, then I do not believe in them - I do not take an agnostic position and say "I cannot say, one way or the other".

[Jimmy Wallace]

I'm an atheist. Haven't always been and now I'm so annoyed with myself for ever being so utterly stupid and wasting years of my life believing such a crock of shit. Agnosticism is a cop out in my view. It's like hedging your bets. You don't really believe but just in case there is a bloke with a beard waiting for you when you die you better not totally discount it.

[SaintDougie]

Watched some of this last night as I pretty much agree with the guy 100% but I went and fell asleep on the couch!

I did like the point he made about the Lecturer that had devoted 15 years of his life to a certain theory only to have it proven wrong by a fellow scientist.

So what did he do? he walked up to the man shook his hand and said thank you friend, you have made my life that bit more complete!

Now if you try and do that with a religious person of any faith you'll get a simple, No you're wrong and this wee book is correct, end of.

[saint jason]

The problem with Richard Dawkins is that he is ultimately a Fundamentalist Atheist. He is also a horrendous human being who believes (sic) that his opinion is the only one that matters.

Equally as bad as a Fundamentalist anything else in my opinion.

Frankly, I have no idea what/who created this terra firma we call home. No one else does either. All speculation and rhetoric.

However i think Douglas Adams put it quite well:

"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"

[The Reverend]

I do not take an agnostic position and say "I cannot say, one way or the other".

Fair enough, I do. Before you jump on me I am aware how rediculous that sounds. Its not as black and white as you make out. Now obviously evidence heavily suggests that unicorns (or Unicron ,) pixies and God do not exist and so I do not believe in them, but I cannot, for certain, say they do not.

If the universe is indeed "infinite" (which I do not currently believe) then everything exist as there is infinite possibilities of it happening.

We live on a planet were all the ingredients for life, a dominant species and a whole load of other coincidences exist. No one can explain that at the moment so who's to say?

On the other hand, I would not take "pixie studies" seriously.

[The ghost of Jim Morton]

I am a Jedi, I believe in the power of the light saber and "The Force"

I'll get ma coat....

[bluewhite4]

Fair enough, I do. Before you jump on me I am aware how rediculous that sounds. Its not as black and white as you make out. Now obviously evidence heavily suggests that unicorns (or Unicron ,) pixies and God do not exist and so I do not believe in them, but I cannot, for certain, say they do not.

If the universe is indeed "infinite" (which I do not currently believe) then everything exist as there is infinite possibilities of it happening.

We live on a planet were all the ingredients for life, a dominant species and a whole load of other coincidences exist. No one can explain that at the moment so who's to say?

On the other hand, I would not take "pixie studies" seriously.

Of course, people cannot prove things do not exist definitively, such as fairies (apart from Craig Brewster ), unicorns or a higher power such as a god. However, your view would make you an agnostic when it comes to all of them.

If someone asked you if you believe in an super-intelligent teapot that inhabits the sewers of Perth and controls what occurs in the city - I would be pretty sure you would say you were a non-believer, rather than simply say you were agnostic?

I would be a non-believer of the teapot until some evidence existed that made me question my belief - then I would become an agnostic or a believer.

People may be agnostics about religion for a variety of reasons, but the argument of "if there was concrete proof, I would believe" shouldn't be one of them. It is certainly not a scientific position.

[The Reverend]

People may be agnostics about religion for a variety of reasons, but the argument of "if there was concrete proof, I would believe" shouldn't be one of them. It is certainly not a scientific position.

Ok, I am also agnostic for the points I rasied in my previous post. The likelyhood of all the ingedients coming together for this life we are living may be really small but then the likelyhood of a robe wearing chef being the one that put it all together is probably less so.

You are right however. I guess you could say I was athiest until proved otherwise but am open to that proof rather than being completely closed off to the possibility which a lot of athiests are.

I am interested in your views on the super-intelligent teapot of Perth and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

[Dooj]

I dont think that agnosticism is just about 'not being sure' or 'sitting on the fence'. My understanding of agnosticism is that it suggests that 'god' (and other immaterial, non-physical entities) are unknowable i.e. an agnostic would say that it is impossible to know whether god exists or not.

For what it's worth, I think that many religious people are not that concerned with evidence in the way that atheists are. The whole point of faith, as I understand it, is that it isnt testable - and that's why it's called having faith.

[SaintDougie]

I dont think that agnosticism is just about 'not being sure' or 'sitting on the fence'. My understanding of agnosticism is that it suggests that 'god' (and other immaterial, non-physical entities) are unknowable i.e. an agnostic would say that it is impossible to know whether god exists or not.

For what it's worth, I think that many religious people are not that concerned with evidence in the way that atheists are. The whole point of faith, as I understand it, is that it isnt testable - and that's why it's called having faith.

Keep the Faith!

Oh sorry, wrong thread!!

[1884]

Agnosticism is a cop out in my view. It's like hedging your bets.

Not at all, Jimmy Wallace. When someone proves to me that God exists then I will believe he/she does. To the best of my knowledge nobody has ever provided proof that 'God' exists. I await that proof. I fear I will have a long wait... but I'll wait.

.You don't really believe but just in case there is a bloke with a beard waiting for you when you die you better not totally discount it.

Why do 'believers' believe 'God' is a bloke with a beard? Could be a lady - with a beard? Who knows...? Where's the proof?

[The ghost of Jim Morton]

Not at all, Jimmy Wallace. When someone proves to me that God exists then I will believe he/she does. To the best of my knowledge nobody has ever provided proof that 'God' exists. I await that proof. I fear I will have a long wait... but I'll wait.

Why do 'believers' believe 'God' is a bloke with a beard? Could be a lady - with a beard? Who knows...? Where's the proof?

Here....

damn.....sorry I thought you said ..:oops:oh it doesn't matter...

[1884]

Here....

damn.....sorry I thought you said ..:oops:oh it doesn't matter...

You are bad...but on a dreadful night for Scottish Football you've just put a smile on my coupon!

[The ghost of Jim Morton]

You are bad...but on a dreadful night for Scottish Football you've just put a smile on my coupon!

To be fair, I would say it's been a worse night for Irish fitba:laugh::laugh::laugh:

[1884]

To be fair, I would say it's been a worse night for Irish fitba:laugh::laugh::laugh:

That's for another thread...

Two goals at hame was never going to be enough but try telling them that...

[poang]

The problem with Richard Dawkins is that he is ultimately a Fundamentalist Atheist. He is also a horrendous human being who believes (sic) that his opinion is the only one that matters.

Equally as bad as a Fundamentalist anything else in my opinion.

Frankly, I have no idea what/who created this terra firma we call home. No one else does either. All speculation and rhetoric.

However i think Douglas Adams put it quite well:

"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"

A fundamental atheist the same as a religious fundamental??

When was the last time Dawkins beheaded someone, blew up an abortion clinic or stoned his wife to death?

[silver_blue]

I'm an atheist. Haven't always been and now I'm so annoyed with myself for ever being so utterly stupid and wasting years of my life believing such a crock of shit. Agnosticism is a cop out in my view. It's like hedging your bets. You don't really believe but just in case there is a bloke with a beard waiting for you when you die you better not totally discount it.

We'll surely all be fine seeing we're all Saints !

Have the prog recorded and will watch it when I get peace.

[saint jason]

A fundamental atheist the same as a religious fundamental??

When was the last time Dawkins beheaded someone, blew up an abortion clinic or stoned his wife to death?

Valid points. I didn't defend religious fundementalists. How can anyone?

If we are discussing Dawkins on a theoligical basis (which i thought we were), didacticism is wrong in whatever circumstance. It comes as no surprise to me that he is catagorised as a "popular scientist". Ergo, science for the dribbling masses.

I believe in freedom of thought. He doesn't.

Here's a good counter argument for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Midgley

[MiguelSimao]

The problem with Richard Dawkins is that he is ultimately a Fundamentalist Atheist.

And what on earth is a "Fundamentalist Atheist"?

EDIT: I didn't read far enough to notice that this subject had been raised in a manner of speaking, but I still think it's a valid question.

Edited August 27, 2010 by MiguelSimao

[saint jason]

And what on earth is a "Fundamentalist Atheist"?

EDIT: I didn't read far enough to notice that this subject had been raised in a manner of speaking, but I still think it's a valid question.

Didactic. Solipsistic. Intansigent. Intolerant of others opinions. Kapish?

The phrase "what on earth" did make me chuckle though.