Dawkins is seen at Mass-what a turnaround. [Archive] - Page 2

Lionel Ritchie

19/10/2007, 11:56 AM

IMO funerals are by & large a familiar ceremony that comfort people when someone dies. To claim everyone who attends a church funeral accepts that religion is ridiculous.

I'm off to a months mind after work.:eek:

Whenever I roll a seven I've half an expectency that I'll be buried with the rites of the Catholic church. Why? Because while there was a time I'd have been arsed enough to arrange and leave instructions for a non-religious/secular/humanist "ceremony" I've now reached a point where I've concluded funerals are for the living -not the dead.

If those close to me get some comfort out of packing me off with a cross on my box, beads in my cold dead hands and a decade for the road ...what loss of mine is it to stop them?

Just so long as they play 'Streams of Whiskey' at some stage during proceedings I'll leave my contribution at that.

I believe non-believers, atheists (whatever term you want to use) are more abused by society that Catholics or other religious believers. Darn tootin ...But the gloves are off! We've taken back Sunday and now we're coming for Christmas ...sorry Xmas.:cool:

jebus

19/10/2007, 12:47 PM

I'll tell you what I think of the quote. I think you've deliberately taken it out of context to try and portray him as an anti-semite. There's nothing anti-semetic mildly or otherwise in there and I'm unsure what you're referring to when you say he's "ignoring large parts of history to make a point against the Jewish lobby"

I've taken it out of context? Then so have every other media (right and left) outlet I've come across, find me on that hasn't had that down as a direct quote in the context of what Dawkins was speaking about, which is atheists getting more power through lobbying yes. And anyone who says that Jews monopolise the US foreign policy hasn't a ****ing clue what they are talking about, and shouldn't be spouting such nonsense. How am I taking that word monopolise out of context Lionel? Do you wnat a dictionary? Or will you at some stage admit that Dawkins isn't right about everything he spouts on about? You and the rest of the Dawkins brigade are as bad as fundamentalist Christians at times.

I'll clear up ignoring large parts for you too. Dawkins was saying in the interview that atheists could form a lobby group to push through their own ideas, and back-handedly refereed to such a group being better than religious lobbists as they wouldn't have a religious bias. What that says to me is that atheists are more suited to running a country than the religious, which completely whitewashs former atheist leaders like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Chairman Mao to name but a few. Again anyone who says that you need to be religious or atheist to run a country effectively is talking out their arse.

As for you never insulting Catholics, well by saying that their beliefs are nonsense you have personally insulted everyone of them, if you think differently so be it, I just don't see the attraction of you and your like in your efforts to put down people with different opinions to yourself. But please do start insulting other religions if you see fit

Lionel Ritchie

19/10/2007, 1:47 PM

I've taken it out of context? Then so have every other media (right and left) outlet I've come across, find me on that hasn't had that down as a direct quote in the context of what Dawkins was speaking about, which is atheists getting more power through lobbying yes. And anyone who says that Jews monopolise the US foreign policy hasn't a ****ing clue what they are talking about, and shouldn't be spouting such nonsense. How am I taking that word monopolise out of context Lionel? Do you wnat a dictionary? Or will you at some stage admit that Dawkins isn't right about everything he spouts on about? You and the rest of the Dawkins brigade are as bad as fundamentalist Christians at times.

The quote appears to be lifted from an entire chapter in The God Delusion where Dawkins argues that Atheists should be more assertive, should have a more concerted voice and should make their numbers count. Monopolise might not have been the word I'd use or not in that context but it is undoubtedly true that Americas Pro-Israel clique hold a huge sway over US foreign policy as it pertains to one of the worlds most politically sensetive regions.

I'll clear up ignoring large parts for you too. Dawkins was saying in the interview that atheists could form a lobby group to push through their own ideas, and back-handedly refereed to such a group being better than religious lobbists as they wouldn't have a religious bias.
..and why the feck shouldn't they? Right-wing religious can hold up medical research, assert control over the birth control and end of life decisions of those who don't share their beliefs and get Biblical Creationism taught as a legitimate science theory ....and atheists/humanists shouldn't argue their case? fcuk that.

What that says to me is that atheists are more suited to running a country than the religious, which completely whitewashs former atheist leaders like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Chairman Mao to name but a few. Again anyone who says that you need to be religious or atheist to run a country effectively is talking out their arse.
Ah the old "Hitler was an atheist so Atheists MUST be bad" nugget. Look I dunno if Hitler believed in Jesus, Santa or anything else but I do know that in several speeches made before and in the earlier stages of WW2 he described himself as a decent Catholic. I also know that whatever else he believed in ... He believed in Belief. From the Wermacht standard issue belt-buckles with 'God Is With Us' emblazoned to the pamphplets given to teenage German maidens telling them to prepare for a life pre-occupied with "Children, Kitchen, Church" he and his regime were well into pushing, re-enforcing and instilling a strong religious bent in his people. Maybe it was because they understood the strong in-group loyalty and out-group hostility that religion can engender.

As for you never insulting Catholics, well by saying that their beliefs are nonsense you have personally insulted everyone of them, if you think differently so be it, I just don't see the attraction of you and your like in your efforts to put down people with different opinions to yourself. But please do start insulting other religions if you see fit

By your logic Catholics, other Christians and any other religious group insult my atheism by not sharing it. They have to consider my atheism nonsense or they wouldn't be adherent to their own belief.

John83

19/10/2007, 2:51 PM

By your logic Catholics, other Christians and any other religious group insult my atheism by not sharing it. They have to consider my atheism nonsense or they wouldn't be adherent to their own belief.
Shh! You're not allowed say it aloud.

The teapot doesn't like it.

jebus

19/10/2007, 4:23 PM

The quote appears to be lifted from an entire chapter in The God Delusion where Dawkins argues that Atheists should be more assertive, should have a more concerted voice and should make their numbers count. Monopolise might not have been the word I'd use or not in that context but it is undoubtedly true that Americas Pro-Israel clique hold a huge sway over US foreign policy as it pertains to one of the worlds most politically sensetive regions.

It wasn't in the God Delusion, it was in relation to a lecture he gave recently I believe, I may be wrong but thats what has been reported. Either way using monopolise is ******** and is vaguely anti-semitic, but what you said is about as close as an admission that Dawkins may have got it wrong as I could possibly hope to get from one of his acolytes so I'm happy

..and why the feck shouldn't they? Right-wing religious can hold up medical research, assert control over the birth control and end of life decisions of those who don't share their beliefs and get Biblical Creationism taught as a legitimate science theory ....and atheists/humanists shouldn't argue their case? fcuk that.

I never said I agree with the religious right running things (I'm pro-choice, pro-basic human rights, pro-sexual equality, pro-belief equality) equally I don't agree that atheists would make a better job of it, I just don't think that anyone can or should say that they would be more qualified to run this show based on their belief system, what would be next Dawkins and his ilk start outlawing religious beliefs?

Ah the old "Hitler was an atheist so Atheists MUST be bad" nugget. Look I dunno if Hitler believed in Jesus, Santa or anything else but I do know that in several speeches made before and in the earlier stages of WW2 he described himself as a decent Catholic. I also know that whatever else he believed in ... He believed in Belief. From the Wermacht standard issue belt-buckles with 'God Is With Us' emblazoned to the pamphplets given to teenage German maidens telling them to prepare for a life pre-occupied with "Children, Kitchen, Church" he and his regime were well into pushing, re-enforcing and instilling a strong religious bent in his people. Maybe it was because they understood the strong in-group loyalty and out-group hostility that religion can engender.

Hitler didn't believe in Christ, but he knew how to use religious beliefs for his own gain and so did so, but you've missed the point completely here. Hitler (amongst others) was thrown in as a valid example that atheists running things might not always equate to the government being better, which is what Dawkins seemed to be getting at

By your logic Catholics, other Christians and any other religious group insult my atheism by not sharing it. They have to consider my atheism nonsense or they wouldn't be adherent to their own belief

If they start saying that your beliefs are nonsense and that you're somewhat braindead for believing them, and then they go on..and on...and on...about it then yes I'd say they are, and I would equally call them on it. Point me in the direction of the board member that has gone on...and on...and on...about how stupid you are and I'll gladly go have a word

Vitruvian Man

19/10/2007, 10:55 PM

Explain to me Jebus how Hitler was an athiest when all the evidence we posess points to him being a religious person.

I can even find quotes from Hitlers speaches condemning athiesm.

Hitler was indoctrinated as a catholic like, I suspect, most of us here but later tried to found his own pseudo pagan Nazi religion, with himself as high preist. That makes him a religious guy to me, ailbit not a Christian.

Religious people tend to trot out this ignorance like you just did, despite Lional ritchie giving you the read on Hitler being one in the religous camp rather than the athiest camp. Take yourself off with Google and straighten yourself out.

Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao were all indeed avowed athiests, but they were also communists so maybe their draconian and genocidal tendencies came from their politics rather. If we are throwing digs in here it's also worth mentioning that Stalin did train as a priest.

Another ignorance trotted out by religous people is how can you be moral if you are not religous. eamo1 asked me to provide Dawkins stock answer to this question and here it is...

"When a religous person puts it to me this way...my immediate temptation is to issue the following challenge. 'Do you mean to tell me the only reason you try to be good is to gain God's approval and reward or to avoid his disapproval and punishment?'... If you agree that in the absence of God you would commit rape robbery and murder you reveal yourself to be an immoral person... If on the other hand you admit that you would continue to be a good person even when not under divine surveillance you have fatally undermined your claim that God is necessary for us to be good."
The God Delusion pp 226-227

Now I am selectively quoting here to edit out his throwaway insults of religions and just give you the gist but if you think I am being disingenouos with context etc you can look up the referance yourself. I can go on with how Dawkins believe athiests get their morality but I'll just summarise by saying "the same way religious people do."

ie By observing what is acceptable in their society and thinking on the great utilitarianism / deontology sides of the ethics coin. Something we all do whether we think we are or not.

Just to say while I recently changed my position from a long long held agnosticism to athiesm I wouldn't consider myself a deciple of Dawkins who is boorish and arrogant and prone to wild conjecture as much as the religious people he is taking on. In fact I only bought his book to see what the fuss was about after reading a thread here on foot.ie.

I can see what he is trying to achieve though. He believes that most poeple in Western europe are practicing athiests even if they still hold an allegience to a creed - he thinks if they all come out of the closet and face up to what they really are then the world will be a better place. I think he has a point

I would advise anybody to read the work of a philosopher called Bertrand Russell instead. IMO his work along with Karl Popper's concept of "falsifiability" provides the foundation for a properly modern mind.

eamo1

20/10/2007, 12:39 AM

I didnt say you needed a religion to be moral but if you dont have one then what do you base moral's on?????
Dawkins was seen AT MASS for the last few wks,not funeral services.
To the person who said "that saying something is Gods will is convinentfor believers".One of the main reasons that the christian religion isnt popular today is that there is no catch in 1 of its most important aspects.EG;if we pray for something and we get our prayers answered its Gods Glory,yes.and if we pray and its not answred then its Gods Will,also yes.theres massive consolation and thus a certain peace in that its Gods will.its basically a win-win situ.and thats why its not popular today because today we are thaught that "theres always a catch",theres always a "*" sign next to something,read the small print etc,etc.
FAO lionel:i read a nice paragraph in a book just last night that made me think of you,ill post it tomorrow and then i eagerly await your reply.

CollegeTillIDie

20/10/2007, 9:00 AM

I should lay my cards on the table, people are entitled to be as religious or irreligious as they wish. I won't force my opinons down their throats if they won't force theirs down mine.

One of my problems with some atheists and non-believers is their penchant for publicily berating religions ( and I include all religions in that). Dawkins is a typical example.

I have two questions for atheists/non-believers.
1) The stuff that went bang in the big bang... where did it come from?
Scientists aren't 100% clear on this one.
2) Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin, and Adolf Hitler had two things in common the first was they were the worst mass murderers of the 20th century, What was the second one? Don't know?, Well the second thing they had in common was.. THEY DIDN'T SUBSCRIBE TO ANY RELIGION ! Hitler , a lapsed catholic,was in to mystical mumbo jumbo influenced by many things. As an aside dietary experts reckon that the lack of protein in the vegetarian diets available in the 1920's 30's and 40's may account for his symptoms of maniacal behaviour while he was in power.
Stalin was a lapsed member of the Orthodox faith and Pol Pot was a lapsed Buddhist, and he was also a vegetarian as far as I know .

As Dave Allen used to say'' may your God go with you!'' :D

Lionel Ritchie

20/10/2007, 9:45 AM

It wasn't in the God Delusion, it was in relation to a lecture he gave recently I believe, I may be wrong but thats what has been reported. Either way using monopolise is ******** and is vaguely anti-semitic, but what you said is about as close as an admission that Dawkins may have got it wrong as I could possibly hope to get from one of his acolytes so I'm happy It's not anti-semetic and I don't disagree with his substantive point. I just said I wouldn't have used the word monopolise because it's the incorrect word. Note I said incorrect ...not mischievious, not hateful, not inciteful or malicious. So yes, saints be fcuking praised, Dawkins got something wrong. Still happy?

I never said I agree with the religious right running things (I'm pro-choice, pro-basic human rights, pro-sexual equality, pro-belief equality) equally I don't agree that atheists would make a better job of it, I just don't think that anyone can or should say that they would be more qualified to run this show based on their belief system, what would be next Dawkins and his ilk start outlawing religious beliefs?

You're raising the bar for yourself in the nonsense stakes now. Everyone with any political or religious belief reckons they'd make a better job of it than the other guy. So you're demanding a higher standard for Dawkins and Atheists in general and then sliding into hystionics about outlawing religions.

Hitler didn't believe in Christ, but he knew how to use religious beliefs for his own gain and so did so, but you've missed the point completely here. Hitler (amongst others) was thrown in as a valid example that atheists running things might not always equate to the government being better, which is what Dawkins seemed to be getting at So you agree he believed in belief? Now why would and atheist believe in belief? In pure humble speculation I'll chuck in a Dawkins quote (paraphrased) of my own "...without religion good people will do good things, bad people will do bad things and bad people will occasionally do good things ...but in order to get good people to do bad things ...you need religion or something very like it."
By the way I could likely spend the day running through the names of profoundly religious despots many of whom based their admin style on their beliefs and no small amount of them still in office.

If they start saying that your beliefs are nonsense and that you're somewhat braindead for believing them, and then they go on..and on...and on...about it then yes I'd say they are, and I would equally call them on it. Point me in the direction of the board member that has gone on...and on...and on...about how stupid you are and I'll gladly go have a word
I'll mind myself thanks. Mercifully haven't found anybody on this thread going on and on and on and on and....

FAO lionel:i read a nice paragraph in a book just last night that made me think of you,ill post it tomorrow and then i eagerly await your reply. I'm veritably chomping at the bit I'm sure. :D

1) The stuff that went bang in the big bang... where did it come from?
Scientists aren't 100% clear on this one.
2) Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin, and Adolf Hitler had two things in common the first was they were the worst mass murderers of the 20th century, What was the second one? Don't know?, Well the second thing they had in common was.. THEY DIDN'T SUBSCRIBE TO ANY RELIGION !

1. I'm sure I don't know and scientists, who are far from 100% sure, would be queing up to talk to me if I did know. But just because I don't have the answer and may never have the answer doesn't mean that a. the answer isn't out there or b. that I should tie my boat to badly translated archaic middle eastern folk tales in it's absence.

2. dealt with previously

micls

20/10/2007, 10:17 AM

I didnt say you needed a religion to be moral but if you dont have one then what do you base moral's on?????
.
What's right and wrong. Do you really need a priest to know hat is right and what is wrong? What the Catholic church finds immoral includes using contraception. Do you agree? Or do you take the pieces that you innately know are immoral and wrong i.e. murder etc and use your own sense.

Why do you need something to base morals on outside the basic this is right and this is wrong.

I have two questions for atheists/non-believers.
1) The stuff that went bang in the big bang... where did it come from?
Scientists aren't 100% clear on this one.
2) Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin, and Adolf Hitler had two things in common the first was they were the worst mass murderers of the 20th century, What was the second one? Don't know?, Well the second thing they had in common was.. THEY DIDN'T SUBSCRIBE TO ANY RELIGION ! Hitler , a lapsed catholic,was in to mystical mumbo jumbo influenced by many things. As an aside dietary experts reckon that the lack of protein in the vegetarian diets available in the 1920's 30's and 40's may account for his symptoms of maniacal behaviour while he was in power.
Stalin was a lapsed member of the Orthodox faith and Pol Pot was a lapsed Buddhist, and he was also a vegetarian as far as I know .

1. I have no idea. I don't pretend to know. But not knowing wont make me believe it was a higher being. There was a time people didnt understand the weather, didnt understand the world was round etc etc.

We may not know now but that doesnt mean we wont in the future. Personally I don't see a reason to belief in one thing based on not understanding another.

But am completely in agreement with you that everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and while I will discuss mine I would never attempt to force them on anyone

2. I cant find the question in there, but I dont see how their atheism is related to their actions, any more than a priest abusing a child is because he's catholic. There are evil people in every walk of life and in every religion or non religion. They are for the most parts not evil because of their beliefs although beliefs are regularly used for an excuse for what is done. People make choices you dont have to be religious to know whats right and wrong, and being religious certainly doesnt mean you do know the difference between right and wrong

pete

20/10/2007, 2:38 PM

I didnt say you needed a religion to be moral but if you dont have one then what do you base moral's on?????

I was unaware that Christian religions teach morals. Is this the do as I say not as I do rule? How do you explain the sexual abuse & subsequent institutionalised cover ups? Is this the problem with relying on someone for morals? If the priest does not say something is wrong then is it? Most Catholics seem to pick & choose so do they like some morals & not the other ones?

Poor Student

20/10/2007, 5:31 PM

richard dawkins did have a heated debate with david quinn on the ryan.tub show on rte radio.dawkins was stammering and stuttering when quinn asked him if he doesnt believe in God then what does he base moral decisions on etc?dawkins was shaken by this question and AVOIDED answering it by cleverly changing the subject.a tougher interviewer would have pressed him to try answer it,maybe he couldnt though:).

That's a pretty irrelevant point. To insinuate that people without religious or more specifically Christian belief cannot create or abide by their own moral code is ridiculous. There are many atheists who live decent lives by a Christian or general moral standard. Conversely there are many Christians who do the opposite. I just don't see where you're coming from with this point.

bennocelt

20/10/2007, 6:18 PM

I was told that dawkings daughter or grand daughter was christened (Iasked this on the last thread but it wasnt answered), which would be a bit of a surprise

anyway I really think he is brilliant, and love wacthing him on the box. Have yet to read any of his books though

That Quinn fella gives me a right pain, he is an idiot...........and a smug one at that, i doubt very much if dawkins would be outwitted by him

pete

20/10/2007, 6:22 PM

anyway I really think he is brilliant, and love wacthing him on the box. Have yet to read any of his books though.

Reading the God Delusion & its not a light read...

Lionel Ritchie

20/10/2007, 6:42 PM

I was told that dawkings daughter or grand daughter was christened (Iasked this on the last thread but it wasnt answered), which would be a bit of a surprise
Not especially. My parents are devout RCs, their grandson isn't baptised and unless he asks to be he wont be. They don't like that I'm sure but they got over it (quicker than I gave them credit for I must say).

I'm told Billy Connollys grandson is, along with his da, a season ticket holder at Ibrox. The sky didn't fall in and no-ones banned from the Big Yins house over it.

BohsPartisan

20/10/2007, 8:34 PM

Eamo, there is a whole chapter devoted to the morality question in The God Delusion.

dfx-

21/10/2007, 12:42 AM

Stop blaspheming against the Invisible Earth Supporting Rooster.

I couldn't agree more. He'll be getting very angry at all this and He scares me when He's angry :(

Macy

22/10/2007, 9:33 AM

I was told that dawkings daughter or grand daughter was christened (Iasked this on the last thread but it wasnt answered), which would be a bit of a surprise
Not sure why it would be that much of a surprise? I know many organised religions down play the role of women in the home, but very possible that his wife is Christian so he respected her beliefs, and I'm sure his son/daughter and their partner are old enough to make up their own mind about it with regard his grandchild.

Sure my own daughter will be christened, as I respect my wife's beliefs. Personally I'd like a pagan naming ceremony (to the Rooster), but then that won't get you into the local state school the same way as a baptismal cert will.

BohsPartisan

23/10/2007, 9:44 PM

We could set up our own Roosterfarian schools!

eamo1

23/10/2007, 11:24 PM

:).so Lionel you said ye took back sundays and are taking back christmas,why??what did "we" do with Sundays and Christmas that was so bad,a day of rest where you werent dragged around shops by your girl etc.And christmas,a time of joy and peace which charities use to love as they would get loads of oppurtunities to collect money.now everyone spends their money on rip off priced presents that will be forgotten about in a few months,material things bring happiness,but only God brings real Joy.Answer the qs,what do ye NEED Sundays and Christmas for??????
What i mean with reguard to the religious&moral question is your voice inside you that tells you whats "right" and "wrong",where does that come from??its your consciencness yes?so we believe your consciencness comes from God,where do ye think it comes from??
my net connection isnt great these days hence my absence,but ill keep coming back when i can.

Macy

24/10/2007, 6:57 AM

I always celebrate Yule, with mistletoe and holly. Celebrating the Winter Solstice on the 25th December is what my forefathers have done for centuries BC.

BohsPartisan

24/10/2007, 10:15 PM

Here's an article from the Atheist Alliance on xmas:

The Winter Solstice & Christmas

The Winter Solstice is the shortest day of the year, when the sun reaches its lowest point on the horizon. ("Solstice" literally means "sun stop.") In ancient times, pagans celebrated this day as a "rebirth" of the sun or a sun god, and the beginning of a new year.

In some cultures, the Winter Solstice was also a time to celebrate the birth or rebirth of a savior man-god (who was often connected with the sun). He was usually believed to be the offspring of a god father and a goddess or human mother, who was often a virgin.
Eamo, some things you need to know about xmas (http://www.atheistalliance.org/library/AB-Solstice.php)

X_AeCk7MBqs

osarusan

25/10/2007, 1:14 AM

What i mean with reguard to the religious&moral question is your voice inside you that tells you whats "right" and "wrong",where does that come from??its your consciencness yes?so we believe your consciencness comes from God,where do ye think it comes from??

So you believe that only religious people are able to tell "right" from "wrong"?

People who don't believe in God have no basis on which to determine "right" and "wrong"?

My conscience, my sense of right and wrong, comes from the understanding of what results my actions will cause regarding myself and others.

eamo1

25/10/2007, 3:02 PM

pete

25/10/2007, 4:21 PM

what i said was where does your conscience come from if not from God??

Which one?

Conscience probably comes from belief in right & wrong as opposed to fear of supernatural being(s).

theres a website which offers 250,000 dollars reward to anyone who comes up with 100% scientific concrete undisputable evidence with reguard to the big bang theory,ye should go try claim it.

That must be the sister site of the one offering reward for proof that there is a God. Besides I have faith in the big bang.

John83

25/10/2007, 6:41 PM

And also,with reguard to the whole big bang theory lads.the answer is pretty obvious i would have thought,the very fact that there is a creation means theres a creator!!!the chair your sitting on right now(creation) was obviously made by someone(creator),this is a universal truth in ALL things lads,ill explain this concept to a 10 year old and they will understand it,so why cant ye????
Who created the creator?

Schumi

25/10/2007, 6:54 PM

what i said was where does your conscience come from if not from God??
I would suspect that morality is useful in evolutionary terms, easier for societies to form, etc. Asking where your conscience comes from if not from a god is little different to asking why a volcano exploded if not because of the fire god.
And also,with regard to the whole big bang theory lads.the answer is pretty obvious i would have thought,the very fact that there is a creation means theres a creator!!!the chair your sitting on right now(creation) was obviously made by someone(creator),this is a universal truth in ALL things lads,ill explain this concept to a 10 year old and they will understand it,so why cant ye????In fairness a 10-year-old's understanding of the universe is hardly a useful place to start in a belief in a god. Going by that criterion, Santa must bring kids presents at Christmas rather than their parents.

micls

25/10/2007, 6:54 PM

what i said was where does your conscience come from if not from God??
And also,with reguard to the whole big bang theory lads.the answer is pretty obvious i would have thought,the very fact that there is a creation means theres a creator!!!the chair your sitting on right now(creation) was obviously made by someone(creator),this is a universal truth in ALL things lads,ill explain this concept to a 10 year old and they will understand it,so why cant ye????
theres a website which offers 250,000 dollars reward to anyone who comes up with 100% scientific concrete undisputable evidence with reguard to the big bang theory,ye should go try claim it.
im enjoying this discussion,i just wish my net connection allowed me to contribute to it more often.

No one here has claimed they can explain creation, bar you. Not understanding it now though means nothing really.

Your 'so why cant ye' comment is petty and childish. You may be able to explain this concept to a child and they would believe it but this does not make it true.

Im not as ignorant to believe I know everything, I accept the possibility that I am wrong and there is a God and if i was presented proof Id accept I was wrong. However I havnt seen any and so Il continue to disbelieve.

Do you not find it ironic that you ask for proof of the big bang while providing no proof for your alternative of a God

SkStu

25/10/2007, 7:07 PM

Do you not find it ironic that you ask for proof of the big bang while providing no proof for your alternative of a God

theyre equally as likely/unlikely and equally difficult to prove or disprove though and therein lies the question of faith. Without wanting to sound too sappy, when you look at the world and nature and the way we work and the perfection of the world its hard not to see some sort of divine creation in there, in my opinion. What i find more difficult to believe is that somehow everything just randomly aligned itself perfectly in the only way that earth could have been created as it is (a multi-billion to one chance)...

However, one thing Dawkins did convince me of was the pure evil of organised religion.

BohsPartisan

25/10/2007, 7:39 PM

theyre equally as likely/unlikely and equally difficult to prove or disprove

Not so. We have zero evidence of the existence of a divine being. Going back to my "tiny invisible rooster that has amazing strength, supporting the earth on its shoulder scenario" by your rational they are equally likely/unlikely.
As for looking at things and wondering how they came into existence, thats just a primitive instinct inherited from the first humans who assumed because an arrow head or a hut had to be made by someone in order to come into existence then so did the natural world.

SkStu

25/10/2007, 8:02 PM

As for looking at things and wondering how they came into existence, thats just a primitive instinct inherited from the first humans

i always thought it was just cos i smoked too much weed. :D

regarding the rooster theory, i dont buy into this line of argument - in other words ridiculing something by likening it to something even more ridiculous. Its a pretty cheap way of trying to make a point.

but youre right, i dont have much in way of evidence to support a creator but i dont have much faith in the big bang theory either. Personally i find a creator to be more likely, you clearly find the alternative to be more likely. Its a matter of opinion and i respect youre right to hold that opinion. Its not like either of us will be able to say "i told you so" anyway!!!! :D

micls

25/10/2007, 8:23 PM

but youre right, i dont have much in way of evidence to support a creator but i dont have much faith in the big bang theory either. Personally i find a creator to be more likely, you clearly find the alternative to be more likely. Its a matter of opinion and i respect youre right to hold that opinion. Its not like either of us will be able to say "i told you so" anyway!!!! :D

Its not that I have faith in the big bang theory, as it is yet unproven. Its that I have a lack of faith in a creator. I dont know if the big bang is 'right' but from what Ive read it seems more probable to me than a creator(which I would consider baseless apart from faith).

Tbh Im not that bothered what the right answer is, i just dont blindly have faith in something I see no proof for. Whoevers right it wont matter a tap in the end....unless I go to hell of course

BohsPartisan

25/10/2007, 9:21 PM

i dont have much in way of evidence to support a creator but i dont have much faith in the big bang theory either.

I don't believe in the big bang theory either.
The Big Bang Never Happened (http://bigbangneverhappened.org/)

As for the rooster theory being even more ridiculous, well you probably wouldn't think that if you'd been brought up as a Roosterfarian. :D

Funny song on the subject:
lJ4Tx2ivQuo

Macy

26/10/2007, 7:21 AM

what i said was where does your conscience come from if not from God??
If it is from a God, it's obviously a different one from most organised religions, who are in the most part misogynistic and homophobic and would rather see the spread of AIDS than educate people about condoms. If that's the type of morality God gives you, frankly you can keep it.

Lionel Ritchie

27/10/2007, 10:42 AM

:).so Lionel you said ye took back sundays and are taking back christmas,why?? what did "we" do with Sundays and Christmas that was so bad??????. I have to confess:eek: to having been a little trite and tongue-in-cheek there. I must resolve to use more smileys. ... though just as an aside on how the religious preference of some can impinge on the preferences of those beyond their camp -you only have to go about 100 miles up the road and you'll find a football league that will encounter considerable hostility should it ever attempt to switch fixtures to a Sunday.

a day of rest where you werent dragged around shops by your girl etc.And christmas,a time of joy and peace which charities use to love as they would get loads of oppurtunities to collect money.now everyone spends their money on rip off priced presents that will be forgotten about in a few months.... I agree with much of that. It's for another thread dealing with our socio-economic drift toward a U.S. model of (in)convenience culture where I'd personally prefer something closer to the French model where there's opening times, closing times and lots more free time as far as I can see. You'd like France. They shut up shop for what can seem like the most trivial reasons by our standards. All the usual holidays plus ...unknown local saints day? Fine. Shops close.
Local gluesniffers just witnessed face of Jesus in a discarded pizza tray?? Down tools. Everybody out -and grab a six pack on the way.

It's great.

What i mean with reguard to the religious&moral question is your voice inside you that tells you whats "right" and "wrong",where does that come from??its your consciencness yes?so we believe your consciencness comes from God,where do ye think it comes from??.

Reciprocal altruism. Look it up.;)