science vs religion

benpinnick

welshkev wrote:

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

thekickingmule wrote:

I don't understand why he's so anti-religious. Fair enough, he's an atheist. He just seems to be hamming it up for the American audience, as they seem to have really big atheist/religion arguements, whereas here it's more like 'meh'.

There's a big difference between people who don't have religious beliefs, and people who call themselves atheists.
Atheists are generally the most horrible people I've met, and approach the subject with the same zealotry as religious fundamentalists.

yeah, there's a book called the god complex by some one dawkins. i thought i'd like to read it as it was touted as a book arguing about evolution etc and i thought it'd be interesting.

i gave up after about 10 pages as the guy was just ranting about how there is no god and anyone who believes is a knobber....put me off really

I couldn't get past the first chapter either. This better sums up my view on religion; http://theoatmeal.com/comics/religion

Woodmonkey

But gervais is little and fat, therefore he is funny. Fact. Although not as funny as a monkey riding a dog, that is the funniest thing

chez_m356

Woodmonkey wrote:

But gervais is little and fat, therefore he is funny. Fact. Although not as funny as a monkey riding a dog, that is the funniest thing

sounds like you've been on the pull down your local nightclub again

Chinley Churner

[/quote]

I couldn't get past the first chapter either. This better sums up my view on religion; http://theoatmeal.com/comics/religion[/quote]

Exactly what I was going to post... brilliant and sums up my view totally.. I would call myself an atheist and used to be pretty strident but have definitely mellowed with age. I think Dawkins has also mellowed, he went through a real fundamentalist phase with The God Delusion and it is a bit ranty but you have to remember both him and his family have received numerous death threats and you can understand him getting a bit hot under the collar. The Selfish Gene, Blind Watchmaker and The Ancestor's Tale should be on the National Curriculum for sure though.

Daz555

thekickingmule wrote:

I don't understand why he's so anti-religious. Fair enough, he's an atheist. He just seems to be hamming it up for the American audience, as they seem to have really big atheist/religion arguements, whereas here it's more like 'meh'.

In the US, christian fundamentalism is a huge huge issue and where there is a powerful creationist movement seeking to force its agenda into government policy and education - this in a country which claims to have separation of church and state. Remember this is a country where 40% of adults genuinely believe in the literal interpretation of the Genesis myth.

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

Atheists are generally the most horrible people I've met, and approach the subject with the same zealotry as religious fundamentalists.

That'll be anti-theists, rather than atheists as such.

Cat With No Tail wrote:

Oh, and Atheism is a belief too.

Not this again. Atheism is by definition an absence of belief - it simply means non-theist, nothing more, nothing less.

It is very simple for me. Someone makes a hypothesis - in this example that there is a god. The response is "hmm, nice idea - got any evidence to support your hypothesis?.....No?......Ok, move along." That is atheism. All of us have a near infinite list of things we don't believe in but no-one is suggesting that this is a matter of belief in itself - there is nothing special about not believing in a god.

Almost ALL of us are atheist about one thing or another. Followers of the monotheistic religions for example are atheist about every other god apart from their own. Well atheists just go one god further. (I think Dawkins may have said words to this effect, or was it Hitchens?)

Daz555

duplicate post

Clank

Daz555 wrote:

Atheism is by definition an absence of belief - it simply means non-theist, nothing more, nothing less

Cobblers.

Dictionary.com:

a·the·ist
   [ey-thee-ist]

noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Origin:
1565–75; < Greek áthe ( os ) godless + -ist

Synonyms
Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.

Collins (for those who do printed media):

atheist (ˈeɪθɪˌɪst)
1.
a person who does not believe in God or gods

2.
of or relating to atheists or atheism

So, atheism, by the literal translation of the word is implicitly linked with the concept of the exisitance of a 'god' or 'gods'. Athiests can promote their viewpoint with the same fervour as any follower of the Abrahamic religions. Or beleivers in the spaghetti monster. Makes 'em zealots in my book (which happens to be a dictionary).

Daz555

Clank wrote:

Daz555 wrote:

Atheism is by definition an absence of belief - it simply means non-theist, nothing more, nothing less

Cobblers.

Dictionary.com:
a·the·ist
noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Collins (for those who do printed media):
atheist (ˈeɪθɪˌɪst)
a person who does not believe in God or gods

Thanks for those. Those definitions confirm my point - atheism is an absence of belief.

Of course if you check 100 different dictionaries you'll get 100 subtly different definitions of any word - rather annoying really! I suppose all I can say is what I mean if I refer to myself as an atheist - I mean non-theist, and that's it.

I do take issue with the "deny" part in the dictionary.com definition. I just don't see why anyone would need to "deny" any hypothesis - you simply reject it due to lack of evidence. Denial is not required.

Chinley Churner wrote:

I think Dawkins has also mellowed, he went through a real fundamentalist phase with The God Delusion and it is a bit ranty but you have to remember both him and his family have received numerous death threats and you can understand him getting a bit hot under the collar. The Selfish Gene, Blind Watchmaker and The Ancestor's Tale should be on the National Curriculum for sure though.

I have read much of Dawkins work. To be honest he makes a better "anti-god" case through his science writings than he ever does in his direct attacks in books like God Delusion.

To be fair to him and his "four horsemen" (now sadly only 3) they face a very different environment when talking about science and religion in the US. Creationist leaders are waging a war against rationalism and science and people like Dawkins have felt the need to be just as robust in their defence and promotion of science.

Over here in the UK this stuff barely gets a mention. There is some evidence of creationists trying to get a foothold in our schools but to be honest I think the UK population is generally a little too moderate when it comes to religion for the creationist movement to gain much traction.

cat_with_no_tail

Daz555 wrote:

It is very simple for me. Someone makes a hypothesis - in this example that there is a god. The response is "hmm, nice idea - got any evidence to support your hypothesis?.....No?......Ok, move along." That is atheism.

No it isn't, that's Agnosticism. Open agnosticism, but still not aethism. An open agnostic would say there is no evidence to suggest God exists, but I'm willing to be convinced if you bring me proof one way or the other. An atheist would say "Your hypothesis is wrong, I KNOW there is no god". The line is very blurry, but it's still there.

That's not really the point here though. If someone has a particular belief (ie a belief that god does, or does not exist), and assuming that person is not some crazy fanatical extremist, trying to pick apart those beliefs, or make them feel stupid about it, serves no useful purpose.

bg13

did you hear about the dyslexic athiest? he didn't believe in dog!

any good?

sandy hill

Cet your goat.

Daz555

Outside of mathematics it is almost impossible to prove or disprove anything with absolute certainty.

Cat With No Tail wrote:

An atheist would say "Your hypothesis is wrong, I KNOW there is no god"I KNOW there is no god".

Only a fool would make such a statement. The world has no shortage of those however! I'd wager that most people who regard themselves as atheist would not make such a statement either.

As for agnosticism - not quite sure what that is all about as to be agnostic is to believe that we can never know about the existence of a deity. That is a very strong statement to make. A rational agnostic would surely be a be an "agnostic agnostic" - ie they don't know if there is a god and also don't know if it is possible to know or not.

Ahh, all this pedantry needs to stop. Sorry.

bg13

atheism is a non prophet organisation!

Daz555

bg13 wrote:

atheism is a non prophet organisation!

You're on fire!

thekickingmule

Daz555 wrote:

Over here in the UK this stuff barely gets a mention. There is some evidence of creationists trying to get a foothold in our schools but to be honest I think the UK population is generally a little too moderate when it comes to religion for the creationist movement to gain much traction.

There are loads of creationist schools, if you mean Church schools! I'd also like to point out, that outside of private schools, Church schools get the highest grades in most areas, which isn't down to the religious side of it, I think they have better communities within them, and a different attitude to teaching.

Cat With No Tail wrote:

That's not really the point here though. If someone has a particular belief (ie a belief that god does, or does not exist), and assuming that person is not some crazy fanatical extremist, trying to pick apart those beliefs, or make them feel stupid about it, serves no useful purpose.

This. So much this. That was my point to begin with. In America, you have to believe, or not, and you have to be able to explain why you are on one side or the other. Over here, it tends to more be about believing what you want and nobody questions it. You're Catholic/Muslim/Pastafarian? Good for you, let's get on with our lives.

YeehaaMcgee

I believe that whilst Atheism as a concept is fine, it seems in recent years to have turned into an aggressive movement, spreading their hate filled message just as much as a religious fundamentalist.

Northwind

Yeah, evangelical atheism, it's a weird thing. I guess I can see why people end up like that but it makes a cult of irreligion.

bicyclepirate

bg13 wrote:

atheism is a non prophet organisation!

Lol!

All hail his noodly majesty

Woodmonkey

chez_m356 wrote:

Woodmonkey wrote:

But gervais is little and fat, therefore he is funny. Fact. Although not as funny as a monkey riding a dog, that is the funniest thing

sounds like you've been on the pull down your local nightclub again

Wow you've been out in Grantham!

Daz555

thekickingmule wrote:

There are loads of creationist schools, if you mean Church schools! I'd also like to point out, that outside of private schools, Church schools get the highest grades in most areas, which isn't down to the religious side of it, I think they have better communities within them, and a different attitude to teaching.

I don't mean church schools - I went to a very good one myself. I was referring to the creationist/I.D lobby who are trying to get their religious scripture taught in the science classroom.

Jimbob_no5

Ricky Gervais = tw*t nuff said in my opinion

mak3m

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

I believe that whilst Atheism as a concept is fine, it seems in recent years to have turned into an aggressive movement, spreading their hate filled message just as much as a religious fundamentalist.

in much the same way communisim is the perfect political system

cept both involves people

and people feck things up constantly

anyway

i have a beard and a 29er #justSayin

JamesB5446

Cat With No Tail wrote:

Oh, and Atheism is a belief too.

No it's not.

EH_Rob wrote:

Thinking about it, he had a beard, and wore sandals, so I'm almost certain he did.

He's got a lot to answer for.

Surely a recumbent rider then.

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

I believe that whilst Atheism as a concept is fine, it seems in recent years to have turned into an aggressive movement, spreading their hate filled message just as much as a religious fundamentalist.

I know, did you read that article by Dawnkins calling for churches and mosques to be burned?

Oh no, it never happened, you're talking rubbish.

thekickingmule

1. Who the fark are you?
2. Where the fark have you come from?
3. Will you fark back off there?

Dawkins isn't the only atheist you know.

welshkev

Holy thread resurrection batman!

Clank

Dear Strays from Road and Commuting.

Opinions are like buttholes. Everyones got one, we know, we just ain't that interested in seeing yours.

Especially when it's a wrong 'un.

JamesB5446

thekickingmule wrote:

1. Who the fark are you?
2. Where the fark have you come from?
3. Will you fark back off there?

Dawkins isn't the only atheist you know.

1. James
2. Bishop Aukland originally.
3. No way, have you seen it?

I know he isn't. Which atheist has suggested blowing up churches and mosques in the name of atheism?

And to that other chap, I've not even started posting pics of my bum hole yet, so don't give me ideas.

YeehaaMcgee

JamesB5446 wrote:

Which atheist has suggested blowing up churches and mosques in the name of atheism?

You're the one who bought that up. Which raises some questions of it's own.

pesky_jones

I think he brought it up because someone likened the agressiveness of an atheist to a religious fundamentalist...who blow up churches and mosques... which atheists don't. Fair enough.

YeehaaMcgee

MTB_TR wrote:

I think he brought it up because someone likened the agressiveness of an atheist to a religious fundamentalist...who blow up churches and mosques... which atheists don't. Fair enough.

Not really. Nobody said that atheists blow up churches. He's making that up, it's called a "straw man argument".