Split from Welcome FAQ thread - Is there a God? Discuss

[Spacecadet]

the guy who would randomly change the subject to the evil of religion at a party and then harp on about it for an hour.

I have a strange feeling that he is a member of this forum!

[minestrone]

Sas, is there any guide to when you're being serious or not? A twitch of the left nostril, perhaps...

The wererabbit twitches for nobody.

FFS, look at the names Rev Doogie.

[d000hg]

Anyway, here's some suggestive proof

Really, you're playing the "bad things happen to good people" card?

OK, in that case:

[d000hg]

The wererabbit twitches for nobody.

FFS, look at the names Rev Doogie.

My apologies, reading is hard work for us fundamentalists.

[minestrone]

Well a degree in Maths you should have some understanding of probability. Anyway, here's some suggestive proof (its OK, I know its not scientific):

The penguins used to have 'black baby' collection in front of the tuck shop.

I'm sure there was never any chocolate in that shop. Had not been for years. Feckers.

[Ruprect]

Really, you're playing the "bad things happen to good people" card?

OK, in that case:

Aw that's lovely. You've changed my mind, there must be a God, not plate tectonics and light refraction.

[edit] those nasty little children must have been sinners [/edit]

[Ruprect]

[minestrone]

But seriously, pictures aside, if the scientific community cannot find a proof that God does not exist but still argues that god does not exist then it can hardly find call itself a scientific community.

As an aside, Dawkins is a biologist and uses creationism as his main grinding point towards religion. Really the religion that was formed from the first mass with Christ and has a direct lineage from that has never had any beef with the work of Darwin. If you look at amazon.com and amazon.co.uk you can see his work in the states is aimed at creationism. It gets to wind them up about that and he just calls European Christians delusional.

[Ruprect]

But seriously, pictures aside, if the scientific community cannot find a proof that God does not exist but still argues that god does not exist then it can hardly find call itself a scientific community.

As an aside, Dawkins is a biologist and uses creationism as his main grinding point towards religion. Really the religion that was formed from the first mass with Christ and has a direct lineage from that has never had any beef with the work of Darwin. If you look at amazon.com and amazon.co.uk you can see his work in the states is aimed at creationism. It gets to wind them up about that and he just calls European Christians delusional.

I don't think that's *quite* true; most scientists don't discount the possibility of a god, just work on the basis of probability and accept there most probably isn't one. Dawkins talks about scales of agnosticism rather than atheism, but just so far to one end of the scale that it is often mistaken for atheism.

[Moscow Mule]

I don't think that's *quite* true; most scientists don't discount the possibility of a god, just work on the basis of probability and accept there most probably isn't one. Dawkins talks about scales of agnosticism rather than atheism, but just so far to one end of the scale that it is often mistaken for atheism.

militant agnosticism - I don't know, and neither do you.