Richard Dawkins

[Charles Foster Kane]

Also, why is it when people say that their version of God exists, they don't automatically get labelled fundamentatlist or intolerant (even though they're saying everyone else's version is wrong). As soon as someone comes up with a well reasoned and passionate argument that God doesn't exist, he gets vilified as intolerant etc.

I agree with you, I think saying that other gods other than the one you believe in don't exist is just as bad as saying there is not a god at all.

[Old Greg]

I agree with you, I think saying that other gods other than the one you believe in don't exist is just as bad as saying there is not a god at all.

Except saying there is no god is great because it's the most likely scientific explanation

[Charles Foster Kane]

Except saying there is no god is great because it's the most likely scientific explanation

You just chastised people who state that there is no god other than the one in which they believe, yet you say it is great to say there is no god based on your faith in science, thus offending all the religions and deities you were just defending. You have just contradicted yourself (a true student of Dawkins contradiction i think).

Science and God can coexist believe it or not, have you ever stopped to think that the laws of physics may have come from the mind of God?

[Old Greg]

You just chastised people who state that there is no god other than the one in which they believe, yet you say it is great to say there is no god based on your faith in science, thus offending all the religions and deities you were just defending. You have just contradicted yourself (a true student of Dawkins contradiction i think).

Science and God can coexist believe it or not, have you ever stopped to think that the laws of physics may have come from the mind of God?

I said people who say there's no other god get called fundamentalist. Now I'll chastise them , because they are talking unreasonable nonsense with no back up. Saying I have a faith in science is like saying I have a faith in reason, facts and logic.

No contradiction.

It is possible that God exists, but there is no evidence and the arguments are against it. The laws of physics / mind of God argument is fine except it doesn't explain where God comes from - and so is not a solution to the question of what is the priime cause.

And of course - science can co-exist with fairies at the bottom of the gardes - but there's no evidence for them just as there isn't for God. They're on the same level.

[sasguru]

You just chastised people who state that there is no god other than the one in which they believe, yet you say it is great to say there is no god based on your faith in science, thus offending all the religions and deities you were just defending. You have just contradicted yourself (a true student of Dawkins contradiction i think).

Science and God can coexist believe it or not, have you ever stopped to think that the laws of physics may have come from the mind of God?

I have gone the other way to Greg. I have renounced my belief in logic and rationality and joined this church:

http://www.venganza.org/

[Old Greg]

I have gone the other way to Greg. I have renounced my belief in logic and rationality and joined this church:

http://www.venganza.org/

I have long been a member - aaaarrrgghhh. Bless us with his noodly appendage.

[shoes]

I've decided that there is another God, who I am going to call Colin. Colin is big and green and looks like a man except he has really small feet. All men must look up to the sky every day at 1pm and say 'hmm tasty I like a fish in each ear' or they will go to hell when they die. I know this because someone wrote it down ages ago. He made everything, including the known universe and all the atoms within it and in doing so made up a load of rules about how these things should interact. The study of these rules is what humans call 'science'. But there is obviously Colin behind it all, you just can't see it. You have to have faith that Colin exists. If you can't disprove the existence of Colin, it is reasonable to assume he may very well exist. Stop oppressing me with your so called 'science' and 'rationality'!


This position is obviously as ridiculous as it sounds. Douglas Adams was a better communicator than I will ever be, here is the relevant section.

"I don’t accept the currently fashionable assertion that any view is automatically as worthy of respect as any equal and opposite view. My view is that the moon is made of rock. If someone says to me “Well, you haven’t been there, have you? You haven’t seen it for yourself, so my view that it is made of Norwegian Beaver Cheese is equally valid” - then I can’t even be bothered to argue. There is such a thing as the burden of proof, and in the case of god, as in the case of the composition of the moon, this has shifted radically. God used to be the best explanation we’d got, and we’ve now got vastly better ones. God is no longer an explanation of anything, but has instead become something that would itself need an insurmountable amount of explaining. So I don’t think that being convinced that there is no god is as irrational or arrogant a point of view as belief that there is. I don’t think the matter calls for even-handedness at all."


Here endeth the lesson.

[bogeyman]

Here endeth the lesson.

Very well put (Mr Adams) and thank you Shoes for posting it.

[sasguru]

"I don’t accept the currently fashionable assertion that any view is automatically as worthy of respect as any equal and opposite view. My view is that the moon is made of rock. If someone says to me “Well, you haven’t been there, have you? You haven’t seen it for yourself, so my view that it is made of Norwegian Beaver Cheese is equally valid” - then I can’t even be bothered to argue. There is such a thing as the burden of proof, and in the case of god, as in the case of the composition of the moon, this has shifted radically. God used to be the best explanation we’d got, and we’ve now got vastly better ones. God is no longer an explanation of anything, but has instead become something that would itself need an insurmountable amount of explaining. So I don’t think that being convinced that there is no god is as irrational or arrogant a point of view as belief that there is. I don’t think the matter calls for even-handedness at all."


Here endeth the lesson.

Amen.

[Charles Foster Kane]

I've decided that there is another God, who I am going to call Colin. Colin is big and green and looks like a man except he has really small feet. All men must look up to the sky every day at 1pm and say 'hmm tasty I like a fish in each ear' or they will go to hell when they die. I know this because someone wrote it down ages ago. He made everything, including the known universe and all the atoms within it and in doing so made up a load of rules about how these things should interact. The study of these rules is what humans call 'science'. But there is obviously Colin behind it all, you just can't see it. You have to have faith that Colin exists. If you can't disprove the existence of Colin, it is reasonable to assume he may very well exist. Stop oppressing me with your so called 'science' and 'rationality'!


This position is obviously as ridiculous as it sounds. Douglas Adams was a better communicator than I will ever be, here is the relevant section.

"I don’t accept the currently fashionable assertion that any view is automatically as worthy of respect as any equal and opposite view. My view is that the moon is made of rock. If someone says to me “Well, you haven’t been there, have you? You haven’t seen it for yourself, so my view that it is made of Norwegian Beaver Cheese is equally valid” - then I can’t even be bothered to argue. There is such a thing as the burden of proof, and in the case of god, as in the case of the composition of the moon, this has shifted radically. God used to be the best explanation we’d got, and we’ve now got vastly better ones. God is no longer an explanation of anything, but has instead become something that would itself need an insurmountable amount of explaining. So I don’t think that being convinced that there is no god is as irrational or arrogant a point of view as belief that there is. I don’t think the matter calls for even-handedness at all."


Here endeth the lesson.

Douglas Adams rocks, as do Pastafarians, however to quote Bertrand Russell:

"An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God. The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not. The Agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds either for affirmation or for denial. At the same time, an Agnostic may hold that the existence of God, though not impossible, is very improbable; he may even hold it so improbable that it is not worth considering in practice. In that case, he is not far removed from atheism."
(Bertrand Russell / 1872-1970)


End! .