Evolution debate.

[symyjym]

Don't disagree with any of that, and it is sad.

Yep, if you are not religious attending religious ceremonies, especially funerals, are really awkward moments.

 

[Nibble]

Despite my disbelief I do like going into Churches. I like the simple little chapels as well as the monolithic cathedrals. They are fascinating places and I mean that in a completely non cynical way. You can find out a lot about an area's history as well as be astounded at the majesty of some of these places. The simple little chapel, that I believe is no longer consecrated, on the edge of Preston Park and is believed to be the oldest building in Brighton is very nice to be in.

 

[Mellotron]

The fact that there are so many different versions of the same rehashed "truth" says quite a lot about the reliability of its message IMO.

That's a bit silly as you could say the same about people's views on atheism - all different varieties of the "truth".

 

[pastafarian]

like this little gem...

You know thats fake right?

 

[jimhigham]

I've often wondered why some believers set their stall so firmly against evolution. I'm not a believer but I am prepared to accept that faith and evolution are not mutually exclusive. Many believers accept evolution but simply contend that God initiated the whole process.

Personally, I don't think that young earth creationists help their cause, as they seemingly delight in refuting evidence. Believers that accept evolution are acknowledging the evidence gathered over the last two centuries and therefore make their own position more tenable. I don't buy it myself but it is a damn sight more credible than the putting your fingers in your ears while yelling "la la la la la".

 

[ThePaddy]

That's a bit silly as you could say the same about people's views on atheism - all different varieties of the "truth".

There are no varieties of atheism. It is incredible simple: I don't believe that a God exists. Nor does any other atheist, as there's no wiggle room.

 

[pastafarian]

Interesting read. However all that does is explain a process. Not how the process came to be and what started it off.

you may be better off reading these then with regards to Enzymes DNA RNA etc


http://www.nature.com/horizon/rna/background/ribozymes.html

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1989/press.html

 

[ThePaddy]

You've probably never seen this diagram then - and as well as that there are negative or positive atheists (degree of affirmation), or broad and narrow atheists (degree of scope) etc. Unfortunately nothing in life is incredibly simple.

I've seen it, I just think it's drivel.

Atheism is a lack of belief in God. All atheists agree on that, anything else they believe in is unrelated to their atheism.

 

[Fungus]

You've probably never seen this diagram then - and as well as that there are negative or positive atheists (degree of affirmation), or broad and narrow atheists (degree of scope) etc. Unfortunately nothing in life is incredibly simple.

Please would you explain what you understand by "Gnostic atheism"?

 

[symyjym]

Please would you explain what you understand by "Gnostic atheism"?

Philanthropy?

 

[Bold Seagull]

That's a bit silly as you could say the same about people's views on atheism - all different varieties of the "truth".

Atheism only has a single truth though, and that is the absence of any belief in religion. There are no other attributable factors, no different varieties. Pure and simple an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God. End of story. No other philosophical or theological debates to be had. It's an absolute. Any ideals that spring from not believing in God require a different definition because atheism is a singular term.

It is only in semiotics does any challenge or idea toward religion become synonymous with 'atheism' however this is incorrect because there could be thousands of reasons why someone doesn't believe, however none of those reasons, ideals etc. can be termed 'atheism' because atheism requires no reason or justification, it is simply the absence of belief.

Richard Dawkins for example is only an atheist in the fact he does not believe in God. His work challenging religion is not atheism however, it is secular humanism, or another term because it is the articulation of a set of ideas. His reasons for not believing in God don't make him an atheist, only not believing does.

Interestingly, Dawkins never rules out the existence of god, but treats it as a scientific hypothesis like any other.

 

[daveinprague]

View attachment 50973

You know thats fake right?

Probably, but lets face it, weve heard similer examples from religious nutjobs...who i seperate from people practicing any sort of religion.

 

[Fungus]

Gnostic atheism includes atheists who believe they know that God doesn't exist (like [MENTION=5707]Nibble[/MENTION]), as opposed to agnostic atheists who don't believe in God but accept that it might exist.

So, that's pretty much just strength of disbelief, rather than hugely different versions of the "truth"?

 

[daveinprague]

I cant be bothered to really get into this thread as its always the same old shit (not had one in a while to be fair). What i will say is that its good to have someone like Buzzer who is actually capable of an objectional non-blinkered adult debate...a rarity on this thread (i see that guy from prague is behaving like a child again)

If not believing in a fantasy makes me a child again...great...for the record, I also appreciate buzzers input, but ill stand by my belief, of not believing in the 'bible' story, and continue to believe that it, along with other religions holy books are more trouble than they are worth.

 

[turienzo's lovechild]

If not believing in a fantasy makes me a child again...great...for the record, I also appreciate buzzers input, but ill stand by my belief, of not believing in the 'bible' story, and continue to believe that it, along with other religions holy books are more trouble than they are worth.

A complete inability to partake in reasoned debate without resorting to statements such as "If not believing in a fantasy makes me a child again...great." is what makes you childish. Nothing to do with your beliefs but how you present them. Buzzer has already stated that he's agnostic so is of a different belief to me, but I welcome his opinion because he behaves like an adult.

 

[ExmouthExile]

They say that man was made in God's image, did he have a butt hole as well, and if he did, did he use it, or was it just cosmetic?

....of course he used it !!!! - have you never had an away day in Sarf Norwood then?

 

[daveinprague]

Well, I truly apologise to you lovechild for my postings, and manner they are posted....

I prefer brief, and to the point.

Ok?

 

[Lyndhurst 14]

as opposed to agnostic atheists who don't believe in God but accept that it might exist.

An agnostic atheist makes about as much sense as the ”Jews for Jesus” I walk past each day on the way to work. There are agnostics and there are atheists, there is no crossover. This is just trying to muddy the waters.

 

[lawros left foot]

I am atheist, I do not believe in any god, or higher being, or whatever you choose to call your chosen deity. I do not, however care what, or who you worship, and would never try to convert you to my (lack of) belief, because, basically, its just not that important to me.

 

[Lyndhurst 14]

It is impossible to know whether God exists or not - those who claim to know otherwise, whether it's the gnostic atheists or the gnostic theists, are either deluded or lying.

Agnosticism on either side is purely open mindedness, accepting that we know nothing. Any rational minded person is agnostic in my opinion.

(I am an agnostic theist, I believe in a God of sorts, but I wouldn't rule out being wrong about God's existence)

With respect, I was not talking about whether or not it is possible to know if god exists – I’m just talking about definitions. An agnostic atheist is an oxymoron, you are one or the other – not both.