I finally saw two of these buses this morning on the way to work, which cheered me up no end.
Thanks to everybody who went to the trouble of organising this.
Scotland: a Humza Yousaf retrospective, part 2
7 hours ago
Monday 5 January 2009
There's probably no God...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
I accept that faith, by its nature, means a belief that cannot be proven, which means that believers and non-believers are both following a faith, one that God exists, the other that he doesn't. I hope that makes sense.
What I don't get is why people like Dawkins have to be so militantly anti-religion to the point that it is an obsession.
Sometimes even professed atheism and agnosticism can slightly overbearing. But in this case it was just what I needed.
In that case its served a useful purpose, and be it atheism or religion that's what we are all after, I hope!
I accept that faith, by its nature, means a belief that cannot be proven, which means that believers and non-believers are both following a faith, one that God exists, the other that he doesn't
Let's assume I believe there's an invisible dragon in the room, who tells me what to do; and you believe there isn't.
Under your approach above, both views are equally valid. But in fact, I'm obviously stark raving mad and you're obviously correct.
A bizarre comment that adds little, if anything, to the post.
No, it's an analogy that makes extremely clear to that your argument is specious crap.
The burden of proof in factual claims is on the person who claims that [a god / an invisible dragon] exists, not on the person who doesn't. Hence, non-belief is *not* a faith, whilst belief is.
"The burden of proof in factual claims is on the person who claims that [a god / an invisible dragon] exists"
Agreed - were this a scientific argument. However, as BE implies, this is a question of faith so all bets (and appeals to reason) are off. The answer to the question of god or dragon or nothing at all is that no-one knows or ever will know (although I'm willing to attach probabilities which would put the existence of the dragon or god very close to zero). The argument is barren and Dawkins is just as crazy as the Pope.
No, the point is the god and dragon types *need* faith, whereas the 'no god or dragon unless you can show me otherwise' types don't.
John B, what about the "I'm not really bothered whether there's a God or a dragon or a flying spaghetti monster or not, even if there were any evidence to support such claims" brigade?
Think about it, religions can't have arisen until after mankind became halfway civilised (unless you believe in Creation) so for a long time, nobody was religious at all and so they didn't have these debates. Or did they? I dunno.
"What I don't get is why people like Dawkins have to be so militantly anti-religion to the point that it is an obsession".
....and what I don't get is why people like just about every Muslim in the world especially those in the middle east and the "...stans" have to be so militantly pro-religion to the point that it is an obsession.
"god and dragon types *need* faith, whereas the 'no god or dragon unless you can show me otherwise' types don't."
The default position - or my default position anyway - is agnostic. I don't know and neither you nor anyone else can prove scientifically the existence or non-existence of God. The atheist position - a certainty that there is no god - is as much a faith-based opinion as the god believers.
MW
I reckon that Dawkin's ancestors, living in caves in Europe or Africa, would not have escaped with their lives had they claimed that "spirits (or whatever) don't exist" and gone up against the tribe's spritual leaders. Open debate on the existence or otherwise of God effectively disappeared in the West in around 400 AD and only reappeared in the 18th century. Speculation on the same theme has never been a noticeable feature of discussion in territories ruled by Islam.
VoB
Lunatic and murderous "faith" is not restricted to believers in God. Communists under Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot and the nazis were just as convinced of the rightness of their cause as were the crusaders and are Hamas.
U, you have fast forwarded to a time when there are 'spiritual leaders', it was too late by then and the religious meme had caught hold.
But assuming that we descended gradually from monkeys, ask your self, do monkeys believe in God? Perhaps they do?
The interesting thing is that, whether God exists or not, which was my point about faith orginally, we sure spend a great deal of time debating it.
BE, sure, but I'd rather debate the merits of Land Value Tax as against other forms of taxes, that seems a more productive use of my time.
Just pray and you will get the answer MW!!!!!!
BE, there are a lot of Christian LVTers who argue that as God created the earth, nobody should claim exclusive ownership of any part without compensating society in general for that man-made 'right'.
Sounds like liberation theology to me that.
Cool! What's 'liberation theology'?
Your 'red priests' in Latin America who thought Che was a God type of thing, and that Christ was a commie.
I see. OK, not cool at all, then.
MW
"But assuming that we descended gradually from monkeys, ask your self, do monkeys believe in God? Perhaps they do?"
Even if they do, there's no way of proving scientifically that they're wrong - or right!
"Just pray and you will get the answer"
I tried that and God told me he didn't exist. I think he's fucking with me.
Umbongo: I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the evolution of theology has produced a non rational concept. God just so happened to be that all along and it was revealed a few thousand years ago.
For clarity:
Non rational concept = God = Invisible Red Dragon = total bollocks that is neither provable nor disprovable by nature of a convoluted logical construction.
Post a Comment