Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Stephen Green of pressure group Christian Voice
'bendy buses, like atheism, are a danger to the public at large'
"Bendy-buses, like atheism, are a danger to the public at large.
Said Stephen Green, as he zipped shut his bag full of bingo markers.
I support this. Though the 'stop worrying' bit is totally wrong. Religious people don't worry about anything; that's the point.
My version would have read: "God doesn't exist, retard. GET BACK TO WORK!"
Fuck her good, Durgs
i stayed away from your thread to keep it alive...
christians worry about going to hell, or gay people touching them
consider it odd that the BHA have little enough confidence in the message that it's hedged with a 'probably'?
if our conception was highly improbable if by chance, therefore the creation of a higher being who in turn created us must be a magnitude more improbable... so it is probable that He doesn't exist.
Imagine the universe was created by a seris of accidents, coincedences that allowed for not only us, but also the planets and all the elements that exist. Now think about all the things that could have happened to cause us to not be here. Try and make that a probability. It is astronomical. This means that if that value of probabily that it took for this outcome is that high, if there is a creator that is by implication more complex and more intrinsicly complicated than us, for it to have created the probabilty would have to be higher than our previous value.
So, in all probability, by reasoning, it is more probably for us to have been an accident and a series a coincidencies rather than created by a more improbable being.
The counter argument holds some water too - if our creation was improbable, and it happened, what is to say that the improbable creation of a higher being hasn't happened.
even on its own terms, you are trying to compare two completely alien cosmological models here in a way that really doesn't work.
It's not possible to evaluate the 'veracity' of a particular model of reality because you can only approach a question when you already believe in one. Any system of 'rational' logic already relies on a particular model of reality, i.e. the linear, deterministic model in which it is possible for a proposition to be 'true' or 'false'. 'Probability' is a kind of frustrated, imperfect Newtonian translation of chaos.
Though I generally hate quoting, Zizek puts it pretty succinctly: "we are never in a position directly to choose between theism and atheism, since the choice as such is already located within the field of belief.... A true atheist does not choose atheism: for him, the question is irrelevant".
An atheist cosmology has no original cause - the isn't room for the notion of god and the question of evaluating the probability of his existence is nonsensical.
it's so that they don't get sued by zealots
richard dawkins is pretty funny sometimes 'thinking is anathema to religion'
on the zealots to prove there is a god, thus setting up an ideal publicity gaining test case?
Therefore "probably" is the only intellectually sound way of phrasing it.
The BHA errs on the side of scepticism because it posits that life would be better without belief/religion in God (which pretty much ties in with my views).
reminds me of a big placard with jesus on it along the main road near where i live,that had jesus qouting scripture at you.
somebody had drawn "PEADO BEARD">>> over the bible qoutes,pointing at jesus
Lots of people who believe in god enjoy their lives quite a lot. And I find my own lack of belief the source of not inconsiderable anxiety
That's depressing. I would have thought you'd have more than enough time to concoct an alternative unprovable premise to base your entire existence on.
I, for instance, believe that when I die, I'll get the option to play again in Arcade Mode.
0'52" = Oh my...
I thought I was doing pretty well until the smiley sunflower
"[It] will make people think - and thinking is anathema to religion."
This man is well aware that many of the middle ages' greatest thinkers and philosophers were clergy; Aquinas, Augustine, Duns Scotus etc. Yes, this was obviously because the church controlled learning in a way that had many unhealthy aspects, but it does prove that people don't stop thinking when they adopt faith.
Furthermore numerous clergy and lay believers were involved in 16th-17th century developments in astronomy (check the Jesuits) and the scientific revolution, and continue to be involved in scientific research. And anyone vaguely familiar with the history of the church will be aware that the reason it has repeatedly developed, debated, repudiated and embraced differing theological positions, and indeed the reason why the church has split so many times, is because it is full of people who are thinking at a very deep level about not only questions specifically of "faith", but of philosophy, science, ethics and numerous other aspects of the world.
See Terry Eagleton (literary critic not writing from a religous perspective) evaluate Dawkin's position here. He is largely spot-on in his point that the "religion" that Dawkins criticises is a straw doll not representing the reality of religious history and experience:
I'm not saying that atheists don't have some very strong challenges to faith, or that any of the above is "evidence" of anything other than that Dawkins chooses to use his position to issue simplistic and inaccurate attacks on religion. Genuine debate is always a good thing, but Dawkins' position is based almost entirely on caricature and misinformation.
Thinking restricted to rigidly controlled parameters of what one authority has decreed to be acceptable is not real thinking. That's his point.
Perhaps you might want to consider what we could have achieved as a race had certain aspects of Christianity not gotten in the way.
its an interesting review that I've never actually read, and some parts of it really hit home, especially when he points out that Dawkins' supposedly ideologically neutral atheism is actually a particularly fanatical and pernicious form of positivism, and when he points out that there are all sorts of atheist movements that Dawkins would almost certainly hate.
I think Eagleton is more than a little deluded, however, if he really thinks that any more than 0.01% of the population have a view of theology as nuanced as he outlines. The idea that he's not writing from a religious perspective is debatable - he's agnostic at best.
I'm pretty sure that the bible states that God is a really tough guy who lives in the sky, as opposed to the concept of indefinable quantum potential that exists in the twinkling of every star and the smile of every baby that Terry seems to think it is/may be/already is in every possible dimension.
Of course, I was never really convinced by Jesus' thoughts on the matter.
"He is, rather, the condition of possibility of any entity whatsoever, including ourselves. He is the answer to why there is something rather than nothing. God and the universe do not add up to two, any more than my envy and my left foot constitute a pair of objects."
"This false consciousness is overthrown in the person of Jesus, who reveals the Father as friend and lover rather than judge."
You don't have to be a theologist to understand Jesus was a shit-talker.
I just can't get over how people understand or rationalise God, you can't describe it or understand it because its God. I mean if it is beyond and invisible and transcendent how could our puny physical minds get it?