Richard Dawkins PH prophet

[ciege]

Nerve, no not overly, I'm just tired and rant on the internet because it's like real life hunney..bloody hell!!

People on here taking the time to prove a Christian wrong because you're so convinced I'm so hapless really do need to get out more.

I mean I was waiting for the pasta to boil and wanted to rant a bit, and I'm now waiting for the Mrs to change her diabetic pump so we can watch TV without it bleeping...

Do you really believe I'm going to read counter arguments and suddenly think oh my, people I've never met know everything about me and my life and my faith they must be right, it's the internet, stop taking everything so seriously.

I'll forget all about Dawkins and internet forums until I'm bored again honest, you don't have to worry about me.

[otolith]

ciege said:

Do you really believe I'm going to read counter arguments and suddenly think oh my, people I've never met know everything about me and my life and my faith they must be right, it's the internet, stop taking everything so seriously.

I think that’s highly unlikely, you can’t easily reason people out of views they didn’t reason themselves into.

[Vizsla]

Derek Smith said:

Burwood said:

His bks I assume you include his work on evolutionary Biology?

May I just point out that what you said in the opening lines (3rd) is fking bks. He can't prove his lack of faith? Come again? I assure you he can.

The old 'you can't prove god doesn't exist' line is peddled by thick people who don't realise you can't disprove something that doesn't exist. It's not possible.

Reminds me of my FIL who scoffed at a scientist who claimed Dinosaurs did not live with humans. To which he replied, how would they know, were they there. I looked at him like, I hope your daughter got more brains from her mother.

Damn. As I read his diatribe, I perked up at the suggestion Dawkins couldn't prove his lack of faith.

He's got to be a troll, hasn't he?

Not alone Derek, a logic fail of galactic proportions kinda leaps out of the page at you, doesn't it?

[Derek Smith]

ciege said:

Do you really believe I'm going to read counter arguments and suddenly think oh my, people I've never met know everything about me and my life and my faith they must be right, it's the internet, stop taking everything so seriously.

What makes you think we want to convert you? I for one am quite happy for anyone to believe what they want. That a god went up to heaven on a horse with wings? Walking on water? All the graves opening in Palestine and it not being recorded? That your particular god wants to reward anyone who kills thousands of innocents in his name? You want to believe it, if it makes you happy, go for it. It's the same with alcohol, drugs or plane spotting. You do your own thing.

I resent, and wish to stop, concessions. Churches should pay rates. There should be no faith schools. If wearing something conflicts with your ability to do a job, take the damn thing off. Don't like gays getting married? STFU. Want your opinion aired on TV over some incident? Then we should also ask rugby fans as well. Bugger little kids? Then anyone who failed to report it, helped cover it up, and then failed to cooperate with investigations should be imprisoned for a substantial length of time, if anything longer than the offender.

Oh, and pay a £500 fine every time if they mention praying as if it is anything other than talking to yourself.

If the top vicarship of any religion is not open to women then it should be condemned and not be allowed to be a charity. We should have standards.

But if you are happy to believe what you are told to believe, go ahead. I'll cry no tears for you.

The one thing in addition I want is to be protected from those who are certain.

[SpeckledJim]

Derek Smith said:

ciege said:

Do you really believe I'm going to read counter arguments and suddenly think oh my, people I've never met know everything about me and my life and my faith they must be right, it's the internet, stop taking everything so seriously.

What makes you think we want to convert you? I for one am quite happy for anyone to believe what they want. That a god went up to heaven on a horse with wings? Walking on water? All the graves opening in Palestine and it not being recorded? That your particular god wants to reward anyone who kills thousands of innocents in his name? You want to believe it, if it makes you happy, go for it. It's the same with alcohol, drugs or plane spotting. You do your own thing.

I resent, and wish to stop, concessions. Churches should pay rates. There should be no faith schools. If wearing something conflicts with your ability to do a job, take the damn thing off. Don't like gays getting married? STFU. Want your opinion aired on TV over some incident? Then we should also ask rugby fans as well. Bugger little kids? Then anyone who failed to report it, helped cover it up, and then failed to cooperate with investigations should be imprisoned for a substantial length of time, if anything longer than the offender.

Oh, and pay a £500 fine every time if they mention praying as if it is anything other than talking to yourself.

If the top vicarship of any religion is not open to women then it should be condemned and not be allowed to be a charity. We should have standards.

But if you are happy to believe what you are told to believe, go ahead. I'll cry no tears for you.

The one thing in addition I want is to be protected from those who are certain.

Amen.

[br d]

Derek Smith said:

What makes you think we want to convert you? I for one am quite happy for anyone to believe what they want. That a god went up to heaven on a horse with wings? Walking on water? All the graves opening in Palestine and it not being recorded? That your particular god wants to reward anyone who kills thousands of innocents in his name? You want to believe it, if it makes you happy, go for it. It's the same with alcohol, drugs or plane spotting. You do your own thing.

I resent, and wish to stop, concessions. Churches should pay rates. There should be no faith schools. If wearing something conflicts with your ability to do a job, take the damn thing off. Don't like gays getting married? STFU. Want your opinion aired on TV over some incident? Then we should also ask rugby fans as well. Bugger little kids? Then anyone who failed to report it, helped cover it up, and then failed to cooperate with investigations should be imprisoned for a substantial length of time, if anything longer than the offender.

Oh, and pay a £500 fine every time if they mention praying as if it is anything other than talking to yourself.

If the top vicarship of any religion is not open to women then it should be condemned and not be allowed to be a charity. We should have standards.

But if you are happy to believe what you are told to believe, go ahead. I'll cry no tears for you.

The one thing in addition I want is to be protected from those who are certain.

Testify.

[Funk]

Derek Smith said:

ciege said:

Do you really believe I'm going to read counter arguments and suddenly think oh my, people I've never met know everything about me and my life and my faith they must be right, it's the internet, stop taking everything so seriously.

What makes you think we want to convert you? I for one am quite happy for anyone to believe what they want. That a god went up to heaven on a horse with wings? Walking on water? All the graves opening in Palestine and it not being recorded? That your particular god wants to reward anyone who kills thousands of innocents in his name? You want to believe it, if it makes you happy, go for it. It's the same with alcohol, drugs or plane spotting. You do your own thing.

I resent, and wish to stop, concessions. Churches should pay rates. There should be no faith schools. If wearing something conflicts with your ability to do a job, take the damn thing off. Don't like gays getting married? STFU. Want your opinion aired on TV over some incident? Then we should also ask rugby fans as well. Bugger little kids? Then anyone who failed to report it, helped cover it up, and then failed to cooperate with investigations should be imprisoned for a substantial length of time, if anything longer than the offender.

Oh, and pay a £500 fine every time if they mention praying as if it is anything other than talking to yourself.

If the top vicarship of any religion is not open to women then it should be condemned and not be allowed to be a charity. We should have standards.

But if you are happy to believe what you are told to believe, go ahead. I'll cry no tears for you.

The one thing in addition I want is to be protected from those who are certain.

Great post.

The world's changed and religion is a nasty hangover from the past that won't go away yet. If you abolished all religions - wiped out all knowledge or memory of them - you wouldn't find that over time the same religions 'reappeared' in an identical form in the future, if indeed any appeared at all.

Now wipe out science. Give it time and you will absolutely end up, eventually, with science exactly as it is today.

Edited by Funk on Wednesday 18th July 22:46

[Jockman]

sidicks said:

jjlynn27 said:

sidicks said:

jjlynn27 said:

Blue Mosque, Istanbul

I keep being told that Istanbul is an amazing City to visit - what's the safety situation like now?

Amazing, imo, is an understatement. I was more impressed by it than I was by the Vatican (which is also one of the favourite destinations). The people, the food, the architecture, absolutely fantastic. As for situation right now, I don't know, haven't been in a while, I guess Jockers would know more.

The government website isn't particularly comforting in this regard:
https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/turkey

I think I'll pass for now and hope things improve

Not a great time for the cities. Post election clampdowns and threats of terrorist attacks. Coasts and tourist areas safe (I'm back in October). I visit the Mosque in Kalkan but it bears no resemblance to the one you two are discussing.

[robsa]

Derek Smith said:

I don't engage in plane spotting but I don't classify myself as a non-plane spotter.

No, but if plane-spotters said they wanted to replace your children's science lessons with plane identification classes, would you perhaps identify as one then? Or if they said they didn't want non-plane spotters to enter Gatwick or Heathrow airspace, would that bother you? You may not self-identify as an atheist but you are one if you think there is no convincing evidence of what we call 'Gods'.

[RTB]

Derek Smith said:

I don't classify myself as a non-plane spotter.

Exactly, I don't believe in unicorns but I don't have to come up with a word to describe my lack of faith in the existence of unicorns.

[Derek Smith]

robsa said:

No, but if plane-spotters said they wanted to replace your children's science lessons with plane identification classes, would you perhaps identify as one then? Or if they said they didn't want non-plane spotters to enter Gatwick or Heathrow airspace, would that bother you? You may not self-identify as an atheist but you are one if you think there is no convincing evidence of what we call 'Gods'.

There is no mildly positive, let along convincing, evidence for gods. Despite billions of people believing in them, no one has ever found any. Even some religious agree, suggesting that belief requires faith.

I don't say there are no gods. I just say that 'all' organised religions are man made and not the result of inspiration. My main contention is that if there is a god, or a number of them, she/they are not relevant to me in any way. I am not sure I am an atheist. It is not something that bothers me.

[Digga]

Derek Smith said:

I resent, and wish to stop, concessions. Churches should pay rates.

Hear. Hear.

Whilst we're at it, neither should churches and exclusive religious groups be allowed to use untaxed/untaxable capital to fund business networks and compete unfairly in the market place.

[otolith]

Derek Smith said:

I don't say there are no gods. I just say that 'all' organised religions are man made and not the result of inspiration. My main contention is that if there is a god, or a number of them, she/they are not relevant to me in any way. I am not sure I am an atheist. It is not something that bothers me.

If you don't believe in any gods, you're an atheist. That's literally what it means. If you accept that while you don't believe in any you can't be absolutely sure that there aren't any, you're an agnostic atheist. It doesn't mean that you have anything more in common with other people who don't believe in any gods than that.

[Halb]

br d said:

Testify.

go tell it on the mountain, brutha!

[Funk]

otolith said:

Derek Smith said:

I don't say there are no gods. I just say that 'all' organised religions are man made and not the result of inspiration. My main contention is that if there is a god, or a number of them, she/they are not relevant to me in any way. I am not sure I am an atheist. It is not something that bothers me.

If you don't believe in any gods, you're an atheist. That's literally what it means. If you accept that while you don't believe in any you can't be absolutely sure that there aren't any, you're an agnostic atheist. It doesn't mean that you have anything more in common with other people who don't believe in any gods than that.

If Derek says that he doesn't say there are no gods (ie. there could be one/several) wouldn't that make him agnostic rather than atheistic? An atheist would say there are no gods.

[RTB]

Funk said:

If Derek says that he doesn't say there are no gods (ie. there could be one/several) wouldn't that make him agnostic rather than atheistic? An atheist would say there are no gods.

To keep it on the topic of Prof. Dawkins; he produced a sliding scale from 1-7. One being I definitely know there is a God and seven being a definitely know there isn't a God:



I think Dawkins ranked himself as 6, as would most people who refer to themselves as atheists.

[otolith]

Funk said:

otolith said:

Derek Smith said:

I don't say there are no gods. I just say that 'all' organised religions are man made and not the result of inspiration. My main contention is that if there is a god, or a number of them, she/they are not relevant to me in any way. I am not sure I am an atheist. It is not something that bothers me.

If you don't believe in any gods, you're an atheist. That's literally what it means. If you accept that while you don't believe in any you can't be absolutely sure that there aren't any, you're an agnostic atheist. It doesn't mean that you have anything more in common with other people who don't believe in any gods than that.

If Derek says that he doesn't say there are no gods (ie. there could be one/several) wouldn't that make him agnostic rather than atheistic? An atheist would say there are no gods.

No. The two things are different, they're not degrees of the same scale. Atheists don't believe in any gods. Agnostics don't claim to know whether there are any gods. You can be both, indeed that is the position that rationality demands.

[Sticks.]

otolith said:

Atheists don't believe in any gods.

Slightly different, but atheism is the belief that there is no god rather than not believing in any of the gods, ie there is no such thing.

Perhaps that's what you meant.

Is there a scale for belief in Richard Dawkins?

[otolith]

Sticks. said:

otolith said:

Atheists don't believe in any gods.

Slightly different, but atheism is the belief that there is no god rather than not believing in any of the gods, ie there is no such thing.

Perhaps that's what you meant.

No, it's definitely not what I meant. It's from the Greek. a - without and theos - god. You are adding meaning to it which it doesn't contain.

A child who has never heard of gods is an atheist.

[Derek Smith]

A New Pagan here again.

I don't say there are no gods. I just say that if there are, they are not relevant to me.

What I do say, and with some firmness, is that the main organised religions are man made and are not derived from magical inspirations.

I read a lot about history, and political history especially. That means religious history and religions are political. I've read a lot about christianity, and enough about the others to accept that they are the same.

Christianity was started as a religion by a pagan Roman emperor. It was a shrewd move. Up until then it was more or less a jewish sect. The current eastern and western catholic religions draw their authority from him. It's all rather odd. The first council of Nicea is the start of what we know as christianity. It was where the four gospels became gospel and the other gospels became myth.

That's bad enough but it gets worse from there on. The fourth(?) crusade was an attack by one christian sect on another christian sect. All very love thy neighbour.

I read a defence of the church of Rome to the effect that they are changing their attitude to women. They have promoted one to the curator of a museum.

This condemnation by all by invisible praise was written by an apologist for Rome.

Read up on the churches with an open mind and you too will be convinced they are man made and full of, at best, distortions.

Gods? Who cares? Even various sects suggest that the Abrahamic god is not a personal one. Various bishops have suggested there is no life after death for us plebs.

I'm happy with my morals. They are not those of any church. I don't say women are inferior to men (all but universal in the main ones), that gays are to rot in hell (there's no hell, and why worry anyway), and that the followers on one particular sect goes to heaven and all the rest go to hell.

If there are gods, then OK. But if there are, what are they doing?

New Paganism now - there's something to take on board.