talkmagic.co.uk

AndyRegs wrote:But doesn't his opinion have more substance as it is based on scientific methodology, research, and factual information, rather than wishful thinking?
I haven't read any of his more academic works which you may have done, so I may not know the whole picture, but I have his arguments have a clarity and persuasiveness to them.

It's very difficult to have a discussion about a faith based system in the context of scientific method.

Sure, you can have lots of theories about God, my personal one goes along the lines of "early man couldn't explain things so they assumed someone did it".

This, and other theories, have a wonderful way of being applicable in the presence of God or otherwise and it's generally the case that any theory about the non-existence of God would be applicable if there was a God anyway, and so gets nowhere.

oooh can of worms time...

im an atheist with zen buddhist overtones...i think the answer is whatever the individual thinks it is, as neither can be conclusively proven...

it ties in with magic, in so far as whatever you define, you create...

everyone has a few things that get them thru in life, be it booze, fags, joints, music, charity work, dancing or whatever...i just see religion as another "thing"...

there's obvious dangers, the same as whenever beliefs are threatened and challenged...and its very rare that you can change them long term either...

there's been other discussions on this kinda thing, very interesting reading...

what we understand, we call science, what we do not, we could call magic...

labels can be very dangerous things if adhered to too ferverently...

very interesting though...

There is no god. I mean what would be the point. What does he/she/it gain from controlling all this.
And if god created us, then who created him. And who created those who created him. And for what purpose?

Sorry, think it's time for my medication again. Thank you nurse.

Even Dawkins says that nothing including the existence or non existence of god can be proven conclusively. What he does say however that this doesn't mean that the scale is on a 50-50 footing.
He says in the God Delusion that the existence of God is incredibly unlikely and he is as sure as he can be that he/she/it doesn't exist.

As far as being a one sided arguement then yes of course it is. As a scientist it is his job to put forward a hypothesis and try to prove it.As with all science if his evidence or hypothesis is flawed then it is up to others to counter argue his preposition.

I think the God delusion is an excellent written and well thought out argument. I agree with one of the book reviews in the book which says it should be in every school along side bibles, Korans etc.

It's nice to hear rational thought being put forward over superstitious mumbo jumbo.

People are entitled to believe (or not) what every they want. I have my own beliefs that are mine, I don't expect everyone to believe the same as me and I respect their beliefs. But I don't like it when I see people saying that their way is the only way and I'll be damned to hell if I don't go to church and repent my sins. Fine if that's what they believe but it's not on to force it on other people.

Religion is the biggest cause of war and suffering in this world. If everyone was a bit more tollerant and understanding, how much nicer would this world be?

Before I go any further can I just re-emphasise one of the thing I said I loved in the 'LOVE' thread:

"Having a good argument with an intelligent person who feels passionately about something that I don't agree with with, and then be able to go out for a drink afterwards" (the quote button didn't work!)

Just in case anyone feels insulted, though saying that, it often occurs to me that someone can express a belief in god and no-one bats an eyelid, yet if someone says they don't and backs this up with valid reasons, people get insulted.

I was actually a Christian (confirmed, church groups etc up to the age of about 14), and so I am well read in what the bible actually says (though I often wondered why the teachers never talked about certain parts of it (perhaps they hadn't read it?). That has been one of the biggest reasons I am now an atheist. To many contradiction and nasty stuff, along with there being no proof.

Also, if the world was 5000 - 10000 years old like the bible suggests, why can we see stars that are milions of light years away. Someone will try and argue that the stories are symbolic. I would ask where it says that, and how they choose which ones are symbolic, and which aren't. Is the story about a virgin birth, or the ressurection symbolic too?

The so-called 11th Commandment is 'Love one another as I have loved you' which covers it all as far as I'm concerned - never mind all the business about not coveting neighbour's asses etc, if as Lady of Mystery says above we were all "a bit more tolerant and understanding", how much nicer would this world be?" I reckon the answer is 'Infinitely better'. Sadly, there far too many vested and selfish interests in the World to let it happen .

Lady of Mystery wrote:People are entitled to believe (or not) what every they want.

I know someone who would have a lot to say about a statement like that...

But onto the matter of God! I'm an atheist myself, however that is really a belief just as unsubstantiated as one in God. Really from my viewpoint I should be agnostic, but that's just the way the cookie's crumbled.

beeno wrote:There is no god. I mean what would be the point. What does he/she/it gain from controlling all this.

What does it matter though? The conclusion does not follow from the premises.

Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:The irrationality of a thing is no argument against its existence

beeno wrote:And if god created us, then who created him. And who created those who created him. And for what purpose?

This is where my 'I should be agnostic' view stems from: just because there is no proof of the existence of a God does not mean there is no such thing as a God. Similarly, if there is a God then just because we might not know God's origins does not mean they are not there, and does not disprove the existence of a God.

I'm an athiest, a big fan of Richard Dawkins and James Randi. I'm a skeptic too. I am an absolutist as far as free speech is concerned. I hate 99% of censorship.

If they teach theism in schools, they should teach atheism in schools.

(If I dont write it in simple sentences it doesnt make sense when I read it back to myself ) .

If there was a book that really did come from God's own hand, I would follow it no matter what it is. But what I won't follow is cheap and tacky hoaxes.

As for Abraham,
I've never met the man - so how can I trust him?

Cardza Wrote:
"This is where my 'I should be agnostic' view stems from: just because there is no proof of the existence of a God does not mean there is no such thing as a God. Similarly, if there is a God then just because we might not know God's origins does not mean they are not there, and does not disprove the existence of a God."

But this does not seem a reason to believe in a god. You cant prove that there aren't fairies at the bottom of my garden, but are you agnostic to whether they are there?

And even if I grant the luxury of there being a god. Why would he be bothered about us. Having said that, why would he have created us? Was he bored? Lonely? Couldn't be, he is perfect. And what was he doing during the infinite time before that? Why do we presume he is this all loving being?

AndyRegs wrote:Cardza Wrote:
"This is where my 'I should be agnostic' view stems from: just because there is no proof of the existence of a God does not mean there is no such thing as a God. Similarly, if there is a God then just because we might not know God's origins does not mean they are not there, and does not disprove the existence of a God."

But this does not seem a reason to believe in a god. You cant prove that there aren't fairies at the bottom of my garden, but are you agnostic to whether they are there?

It's not a reason to believe in God: it's a reason not to take a stance either way.

Now, assuming you're on about invisible fairies (it would be quite easy to prove - insofar as anything can be proven - that there were visible fairies there ) you're right, I cannot prove that there are no fairies there - and I cannot prove that there are. From a philisophical viewpoint I would have to take the stance of 'I cannot say for sure'.

Of course because I take a scientific approach to things I would be more inclined to say that there probably weren't any there - but I do not know for sure.

It's like the old philosopher's thought experiement to test whether you believe in an inner self experiencing your life, which basically goes as follows: Would you use a teletransporter to travel from one side of the world to another? Every molecule that makes up you is destroyed but recreated in exactly the same was as it was before in the receiving device. It is 100% safe - so would I do it? Even though I have no reason to believe in an inner self, in the Cartesian Theatre, I still would not use the teletransporter device.

Even though I know there is no such thing as an inner self 'I' still would not feel comfortable teletransporting like that - just as although I cannot know for sure either way as to whether there are fairies at the bottom of your garden (or God in the heavens) I am inclined in one direction when really I should be comfortable using the device or saying 'I cannot say for sure'.

Again I refer you to the Nietzsche quote

Hope that clarifies what I meant!

supermagictom - Have you met Dawkins?

But if its so highly unlikely, and with no proof what so ever, is it worth even acknowledging that there might be a god. We don't spend time stating that there is a possibility that there are custard monsters in the middle of the earth controlling our thoughts with mind rays! (Yes I know thats silly, but thats the point!)

And would you blow yourself up, or start a war because these custard monsters told you to do it in your head? (obviously I know you wouldn't, but some possible would. If its for an invisible god they are sane. If its for a custard monster, they would be declared mad)

You see a beautiful woman standing across the street. She is absolutely breathtaking. You feel tingles up and down your spine just looking at her, and a feeling like no other has just come over you. Every nerve in your body is on fire, hairs standing up on the back of your neck. You feel a euphoric wave crest as your thoughts begin to swim in an ocean of possibilities. Visions of the two of you together - long kisses, soft caresses...magic is happening in your mind.

But then again - she's really beautiful, she has a shopping bag from a men's clothing store in her hand. You might have seen a ring on her finger, but you can't tell from this distance.

It's highly unlikely that she would speak to you, a total stranger, in the middle of the street. You have absolutely NO PROOF that she would even consider dating you (let alone stand in a public area with you and hold a conversation). Perhaps in the past you have approached beautiful women who have said no, laughed, yelled, screamed for help - etc. Perhaps there is personal experience from the past that says this will end VERY BADLY.

But does that mean you shouldn't bother crossing the street?

The likelihood of the thing shouldn't be the ONLY factor considered, sir.

Demitri wrote:supermagictom - Have you met Dawkins?

No, I get what you're saying though.

I've never met James Randi also - BUT they are alive and I have heard alot from them - I can hear them speak and explain things.

Whereas with Abraham he was dead long ago, maybe what I should have said was '' he's not even alive now and Ive never even heard him speak''. Not one single video or piece of evidence.

Plus, I never explicitly stated that I trusted either of Randi or Dawkins. But I did say that I am a big fan, which is similar. Trusting a man who is behind the majority of the human populations faith is a far bigger risk indeed.

And I would say that since the 3 biggest world religions are heavily influenced by his teachings, trust is a huge issue. Especially when alot of Muslims, Jews and Christians have never even heard of the man.