Tonight - More4, The God Delusion

[Tyrone Biggums]

Go and read about the crusades. Then come back and explain to me how they were not a strictly religious conflict.

Ummm the point was that even without religion similar conflicts could have occurred.

 

[magoo]

Really, what is the point in arguing about religion on a message board? None of you will agree. No one willl have their mind changed as a result of anything said as people read what they want to read and ignore what they can't argue with.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

That would be the nun who is a member of a religion which actively discourages the most practical defence against the transmission of HIV.

That's a sweeping statement.

The church advises ITS members to practice abstinence and fidelity within a relationship.

It's not talking to you or the Muslim bloke next door nor his Jedi practising room mate.

Interestingly Uganda an African nation with one of the best record in AID's reduction is also the African nation with the largest Catholic population in Africa.

 

[Stoo82]

That's irrelevant. The baby "coming back" may have given her faith, but that doesn't mean faith bought the baby back, which was what you suggested. The mother's faith (if it existed) didn't occur until after the baby came back.

Why can't you separate 'faith' from 'god'. Im saying she had faith in what she thought was her child was comming back to life, not that she believed 'god' braught him back.

Im trying to prove that faith exists, as some people say only proof and evidence can be excepted.

If I can proove that faith can and does exists then I can end my argument. If faith exists then nobody can say 'god' does not exist, becuase somebody can have 'faith' in the existance of 'God'.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

no, the difference on one side you have evidence and a better more workable theory (with experiments that can proof concepts), on the other you have nothing but faith. one one side you have enquiry and rational thought, on the other you have adherence to ancient ignorant dogma.

There is no proof we originated from a pile of goo.

Merely theories and assumptions.

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

There is no proof we originated from a pile of goo.

Merely theories and assumptions.

Yes, of course thats right.

To hell with Darwin, Dawkins and their ilk! curse them and their silly theories..

f*** me.

 

[stu7878]

There is no proof we originated from a pile of goo.

Merely theories and assumptions.

Theories yes, assumptions no.
This is left to religion to do. And how!!

 

[Acker79]

Im saying she had faith in what she thought was her child was comming back to life, not that she believed 'god' braught him back.

And I'm saying the article indicates no such thing.

She didn't hold the child because she had faith he could come back. She accepted the doctor's words the child had died and held him to grieve.

I'm not saying that the child coming back didn't give her faith, or that since the child come back she hasn't chalked it up to faith or god or anything.

I'm saying the article indicates she had no faith that the child would live when she placed him on her bare skin.

Any faith the mother had was the result of the baby 'coming back to life' not the cause of it.

 

[stu7878]

I'm sorry Tyrone, but your posts are full of holes, and only serve to compound the faults in the argument you are trying to put forward.

When has any religion provided anything that comes close to evidence that actually stands up to scrutiny. You cannot pick and choose what science to believe and what not to. I presume you agree that some science is true? If you drop a brick from a building, it will hit the ground. This is science, it has been tested, scrutinised and therefore proved beyond reasonable human doubt.
So when science proves other things, why do you CHOOSE to ignore it?? Because it contradicts religion?? I see no other reason.

One other point... Of all the main religions of the world lets say 6 of them, at the very very best, 5 of them are wrong. But probably 6!

 

[bhaexpress]

One thing that's very clear from the program is that Dawkins did indeed seek out the extremists and fundamentalist Christians are as mad as any other fundamentalist believer but they are the minority. having accepted that these people are extremists and don't represent the thinking of the majority of the faith it has to be accepted that they still are something of more than a little concern. Unfortunately these are the same people who are the ones that a lot of people (believers as well as non believers) get upset about. They are a danger because their fundamentalist beliefs seem to go against the law and also religion has a very serious influence on the politics of many countries.

It's safe to say whilst there may now be a Black man in the White House and it's just about possible that a woman or even a homosexual could one day be there it's a certainty that there will never be an Atheist there. Mind you not that many countries whatever their principle religion would be led by an atheist.

 

[daveinprague]

Australias prime minister or ex prime minister is an atheist isnt she?

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

Its like dawkins says...faith requires no proof, in fact proof would negate faith.

Let people get on with it.

Meanwhile, somewhere in Iran, a little Mohommedan is building Allah's nuclear warhead with which to smite Israels Jehova...and then we wont need to worry ourselves about the merits of religion anymore because we'll all be part of the nitrogen cycle once again.

Its too late to stop these f***ing maniacs...but do carry on with your nonsensical gibberings. Just don't bother me with your dross.

 

[beorhthelm]

Im not saying 'god' brought him back to life. I'm saying science failed where faith didn't.

He was 'dead' for 2 hours.

heres the thing: science is not always right. it doesnt claim to be either. thats because its not rooted in faith. Im wondering if the umbilical cord was cut, as other wise there is no known way *any* mammal (and they have tested such things) could have survived without oxygen for 2 hours. so we must comclude the cord was sustaining the baby or it was breathing itself. Acker79 makes a fundemental point above too, in no way is it implied she willed, prayed or otherwise refused to accept the "death" of the child, so there was not apparently any faith involved. i like what you are doing seperating faith from religion, but im not sure it really follows, as the word is tied to religious faith. you need another word to describe what you are trying to say.

There is no proof we originated from a pile of goo.

Merely theories and assumptions.

and the proof we originated from the ether, soil breathed on by a diety? we have seen simple "goo" in which basic organisms live and i believe recent experiments have triggered life-like signs from soups of suitable amino acids. in the vacuum of ignorance, science attempts to find an answer and prove or disprove those put forward. religion refers you to a parable written 4000 years ago and says its fact, the last and only word on the matter, take it or leave it. (and theres an awful lot that is subjectively left...)

all science is theory based, because it acknowledges that all is not known absolutly. electromagnatism is "merely" a theory, yet there you are on a computer using the fruit of that knowledge.

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

Incidentally...didnt that oh so pious "pastor" interviewed by Dawkins recently get busted for f***ing rent boys and snorting charlie? where was his god when dibble came calling?

By the way.

 

[Arthritic Toe]

He's a really clever bloke, but he is clearly bitter about something in his life to feel the need to preach atheism, arrogantly declaring "there is no God". I'm no believer in deities, but I concede that such a thing is unfalsifiable. It's a shame he can't see the hypocrisy in his constant attempts to get people to jump on his atheist bandwagon, which ultimately requires faith as well.

He would never declare "there is no God". His proposition is that "there is probably no God". If you dont understand the difference, you are totally missing the point.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

I'm sorry Tyrone, but your posts are full of holes, and only serve to compound the faults in the argument you are trying to put forward.

It's not an argument, it's a view point.

When has any religion provided anything that comes close to evidence that actually stands up to scrutiny. You cannot pick and choose what science to believe and what not to. I presume you agree that some science is true? If you drop a brick from a building, it will hit the ground. This is science, it has been tested, scrutinised and therefore proved beyond reasonable human doubt.
So when science proves other things, why do you CHOOSE to ignore it?? Because it contradicts religion?? I see no other reason.

Religion doesn't have to prove anything. It's followers believe, those who don't follow it aren't owed any explanation.

I have no problem at all saying great portions of science are going by human scientific standards are correct.

That does not mean these principles are the absolute truth, but they calculate in the human mind enough to seem plausible.

I don't ignore it. I just choose to keep an open mind about it and not take it as the absolute truth.

One other point... Of all the main religions of the world lets say 6 of them, at the very very best, 5 of them are wrong. But probably 6!

That's your opinion.

But you are in the same boat as me. You don't know the absolute truth.

None of us do.

 

[Stoo82]

Incidentally...didnt that oh so pious "pastor" interviewed by Dawkins recently get busted for f***ing rent boys and snorting charlie? where was his god when dibble came calling?

By the way.

A Christian would say that this "pastor" fell under the spell of the Devil who is fighting for your soul.

But like I said before, and i'm going to leave it like this, I believe in a 'God' but I don't belive in religion.

Its been good fun this thread, most enjoyable.

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

A Christian would say that this "pastor" fell under the spell of the Devil who is fighting for your soul.

But like I said before, and i'm going to leave it like this, I believe in a 'God' but I don't belive in religion.

Its been good fun this thread, most enjoyable.

A scientist would say that he is more likely a manipulative egomaniac with delusions of granduer and a liking for bum fun and bugle.

Either way his flock of followers...12,000 a week!! have been made to look like utter tools by that gurning freak.

Living proof that evolution sometimes gets it wrong I'd say.

 

[Stoo82]

 

[Pavilionaire]

I found it interesting that one of the main arguments from both the Jew turned Muslim and the Christian Evangelist is that without some form of religious morality framework providing a "moral compass" mankind would descend into anarchic hedonism.

I have some sympathy with this argument. Whilst Dawkins is pretty much correct in blaming religion for much of society's ills the alternative world with no religion is, arguably, even more dangerous.