The Next Pope

[Claw75]

There's as much evidence to the existence of god (or gods) as there is to the Orcs in Mordor.

You can believe in the existence of either, but don't ask me to give evidence that they don't really exist - it's for you to offer evidence that they do. See Bertrand Russell's teapot.

Orcs in Mordor aren't real?

is that like Mork from Ork?  He's deffo real.

[ManuelsMum]

Catholicism teaches that Anathema be on those who say you can only know God through faith. So, many catholics believe there is a lot of natural evidence that allows you to come to the conclusion that there is a personal, intelligent, all good, all powerful creator who made the world as it is. For example, there is order and design in the world. Nothing comes to existence by itself; yet the universe is here, therefore some pretty big Guy most have wished it into existence. Like, people can make cars, they're pretty impressive. But DNA is muuuch more sophisticated, so a much more sophisticated guy must have made that.
So what that boils down to is faulty science, the premises are all wrong never mind the faulty logic. They're just lazy and they lack imagination. And that's before you even get to faith.

I'm not a huge fan of Dawkins position on some things. Don't get me wrong, the guy is one of the best evolutionary biologists, his books are really good, his atheistic reasoning and debating are pretty good. But I don't really agree with his position on the alternative. He does try hard to provide an alternative, and steer clear of nihilism. 'Oh the world is so beautiful, look at rainbows, blah blah.' It just doesn't fly. When people try to hold on to their Theism in the face of powerful arguments to the contrary, they're probably less scared of giving up a personal Father-god type guy and more fearful of having to embrace a cold dark pointless universe that we're hurtling through by accident on an overcrowded rock.
What science is beginning to show us in the last 100 years is that the world is far far weirder than we ever expected, we may come from nothing (unlikely), we may come from other universes, there may be many more around us; time may just be a messed up notion in our heads, the past present and future may all co-exist simultaneously; the material world may be a complete illusion. So since our knowledge of the very basics of the fabric of reality is in its very very infancy, it is haughty in the *extreme* to start extrapolating from a 'knowledge of the workings of the natural world' to the existence of a personal creator of it all. The desire in the heart of the Theist for an overarching Truth, an external origin and purpose to their lives, is nothing short of laudible. The rejection of that desire in the heart of some atheists is to be pitied, and it's probably unnecessary.

That Lane-Craig guy puts me on life tilt for some reason, he's like a slimy snake/ID-door to door-salesman hybrid, he never seems to lose steam or become aware of the power of his opponent's argument against his own.

[Rod]

There's as much evidence to the existence of god (or gods) as there is to the Orcs in Mordor.

You can believe in the existence of either, but don't ask me to give evidence that they don't really exist - it's for you to offer evidence that they do. See Bertrand Russell's teapot.

OK that's true (as I said earlier ITT), but for a second, just out of interest, pretend you do.

You seem to be pretty up on this subject, what are the thing's they lead you to dis-believe theism. I know you can't give total evidence for anything but there must be things that make you not believe.

(obviously you don't have to answer this but I am as I said just interested in the subject)

[Laxie]

His language can be a bit 'colourful' at times, so warning in advance...

[boldie]

There's as much evidence to the existence of god (or gods) as there is to the Orcs in Mordor.

You can believe in the existence of either, but don't ask me to give evidence that they don't really exist - it's for you to offer evidence that they do. See Bertrand Russell's teapot.

OK that's true (as I said earlier ITT), but for a second, just out of interest, pretend you do.

You seem to be pretty up on this subject, what are the thing's they lead you to dis-believe theism. I know you can't give total evidence for anything but there must be things that make you not believe.

Erm yes, maybe because almost everything in the bible can be proven to be bollocks?

You obv can't prove a negative

[ManuelsMum]

There's as much evidence to the existence of god (or gods) as there is to the Orcs in Mordor.

You can believe in the existence of either, but don't ask me to give evidence that they don't really exist - it's for you to offer evidence that they do. See Bertrand Russell's teapot.

OK that's true (as I said earlier ITT), but for a second, just out of interest, pretend you do.

You seem to be pretty up on this subject, what are the thing's they lead you to dis-believe theism. I know you can't give total evidence for anything but there must be things that make you not believe.

Erm yes, maybe because almost everything in the bible can be proven to be bollocks?

You obv can't prove a negative

Something seems unsatisfactory about the argument though. When most believers think of 'God' they're not really meaning someone like Thor or Zeus, a specific entity, the concept they are trying to identify can range from an Intelligent, kind of personal force that can explain the fact that there is something and not nothing. You can't really reject this hypothesis with the 'he's just among many now derided deities' and the universe just *happened*. Maybe there was some great unitary force that wooshed our known universe into being, that has something like an intelligence. It just doesn't send his kids down for mutilation to cancel out his old grudges.
Just because most religious people hold many beliefs that are total bollocks and in the shape of a force that almost certainly doesn't exist in that form, it doesn't mean that there is necessarily *Nothing*.

[thetank]

I still think Dick Dawkins is a twat.

The is religion a force for good in the world debate tends to come down to the Religios saying...

Religion does good stuff, all this bad stuff attributable to religion would be happening even if there were no religion.

and the Atheios saying...

Religion does bad stuff, all this good stuff attributable to religion would be happening even if there were no religion.

Or essentially, people don't need religion to not be cocks. The atheist argument slightly undermined then, by Dick Dawkins being a bit of a cock.

[Rod]

There's as much evidence to the existence of god (or gods) as there is to the Orcs in Mordor.

You can believe in the existence of either, but don't ask me to give evidence that they don't really exist - it's for you to offer evidence that they do. See Bertrand Russell's teapot.

OK that's true (as I said earlier ITT), but for a second, just out of interest, pretend you do.

You seem to be pretty up on this subject, what are the thing's they lead you to dis-believe theism. I know you can't give total evidence for anything but there must be things that make you not believe.

Erm yes, maybe because almost everything in the bible can be proven to be bollocks?

You obv can't prove a negative

Pretty good point (the one about The Bible) but I did state Theism and not Christianity which is pretty much fully debunked (and by association the Jewish view and Islam) and yet more people still hold that world view than any other, but it HAS been "proven" wrong in that the evidence against it is so overwhelming that anybody unbiased would consider it proven false. I can probably find some of the proofs if anybody wants them. A lot centre around the creation story and also the flood story. The whole thing is also illogical (the lack of logic is not proof in itself of course).

I can get my head around why Yahweh can basically be put in the same category as Santa Claw's. I can get my head around why Allah can be put in the same category as Santa Claw's. I can almost see why Theism itself would fit there but there is still that doubt whilst things remain unexplained (basically the God of the gaps argument). I have actually completely forgotten the point I was trying to make, I'm sure there was one about Agnostics and Atheists and if Atheists would also be considered Agnostic as they are open to having their minds changed if compelling evidence was presented.

You can prove a negative though, I can prove an orange is not blue. It may soon be possible for science to prove god does not exist. It may be the same kind of proof that we currently have that disprove the Bible and therefore Christianity and you will get the people who refuse the accept the evidence but it probably will be done.

Science may soon be able to explain the origin of the universe via entirely natural causes (again I have forgotten what the process is called and the source I got that from may be unreliable, it was Matt Dilluhunty). But if it happened. That might be enough to move Atheism from a well supported idea into the realm of hard fact. Once we know how the Universe began we not longer have any need of the supernatural.

[redarmi]

2) Do strong Atheists have any evidence which they believe disproves God's existence (I know they don't need to but does anybody believe they can).

Does anyone have any evidence that disproves Xenu's existence?

As much as I consider myself an atheist I do like Dawkins comment on this "I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden"

I don't believe this is true of many people.

Even Dawkins is an agnostic atheist though, in the God Delusion he says that if you put a scale in place where a 1 is being sure that God exists and a 7 is being sure that God does not exist then he would be a 6, maybe even a 6.5 (I don't have the book to hand but it's something like that). I am pretty sure most people (Richard Dawkin's included) would be a 7 with regard to Fairies, Santa Claws, Easter Bunnies etc. Maybe I am being too closed minded here but I don't think so.

Do you really think this?  I think most non believers would be the same rating for both.  Logically, I see no reason why they wouldn't be.  Maybe Santa Clause is a bad example but I certainly think fairies are as likely as god.  In fact overall my mind finds it potentially more manageable to believe in fairies than god.

[thetank]

That's maybe a good idea for all the militant atheist disciples who want to promote the idea a secular society.

It's all well and good saying that you don't need religion to stop you being a cock. To reinforce this idea then, atheists oughta stop behaving like cocks. Being rude to old ladies and calling everyone with a different viewpoint an idiot is cock-like behaviour.

Cannot remember ever having seen someone on the telly talking making an argument against religion without them being a bit of a cock about it.

[Claw75]

cocks gonna cock

[kinboshi]

That's maybe a good idea for all the militant atheist disciples who want to promote the idea a secular society.

It's all well and good saying that you don't need religion to stop you being a cock. To reinforce this idea then, atheists oughta stop behaving like cocks. Being rude to old ladies and calling everyone with a different viewpoint an idiot is cock-like behaviour.

Cannot remember ever having seen someone on the telly talking making an argument against religion without them being a bit of a cock about it.

A secular society should be a must for people of faith surely?  By definition the separation of faith from politics means that you're free to practice any faith whereas in a state intrinsically tied to a religion the people of that state are not free to worship their particular faith.

Privilege through religion is a major problem imo, and whereas faith is a personal thing that doesn't have to impact on others, religion affords people power - and when certain individuals or groups are given power in this way it means others have some freedoms or rights taken away from them.

Oh, and what's a "militant atheist"?

[kinboshi]

There's as much evidence to the existence of god (or gods) as there is to the Orcs in Mordor.

You can believe in the existence of either, but don't ask me to give evidence that they don't really exist - it's for you to offer evidence that they do. See Bertrand Russell's teapot.

OK that's true (as I said earlier ITT), but for a second, just out of interest, pretend you do.

You seem to be pretty up on this subject, what are the thing's they lead you to dis-believe theism. I know you can't give total evidence for anything but there must be things that make you not believe.

Erm yes, maybe because almost everything in the bible can be proven to be bollocks?

You obv can't prove a negative

Pretty good point (the one about The Bible) but I did state Theism and not Christianity which is pretty much fully debunked (and by association the Jewish view and Islam) and yet more people still hold that world view than any other, but it HAS been "proven" wrong in that the evidence against it is so overwhelming that anybody unbiased would consider it proven false. I can probably find some of the proofs if anybody wants them. A lot centre around the creation story and also the flood story. The whole thing is also illogical (the lack of logic is not proof in itself of course).

I can get my head around why Yahweh can basically be put in the same category as Santa Claw's. I can get my head around why Allah can be put in the same category as Santa Claw's. I can almost see why Theism itself would fit there but there is still that doubt whilst things remain unexplained (basically the God of the gaps argument). I have actually completely forgotten the point I was trying to make, I'm sure there was one about Agnostics and Atheists and if Atheists would also be considered Agnostic as they are open to having their minds changed if compelling evidence was presented.

You can prove a negative though, I can prove an orange is not blue. It may soon be possible for science to prove god does not exist. It may be the same kind of proof that we currently have that disprove the Bible and therefore Christianity and you will get the people who refuse the accept the evidence but it probably will be done.

Science may soon be able to explain the origin of the universe via entirely natural causes (again I have forgotten what the process is called and the source I got that from may be unreliable, it was Matt Dilluhunty). But if it happened. That might be enough to move Atheism from a well supported idea into the realm of hard fact. Once we know how the Universe began we not longer have any need of the supernatural.

OK - give me ONE piece of evidence that supports the existence of a god or gods? The argument from incredulity isn't enough to give an idea viability - "godditit" just isn't a sound argument.

[thetank]

"militant atheist" in inverted commas. I forgot the commas, beg your pardon.

Atheists who, given sufficient oppurtunity, are rather keen to talk about their dislike of religion and the role it has within our society.

[thetank]

That's maybe a good idea for all the militant atheist disciples who want to promote the idea a secular society.

It's all well and good saying that you don't need religion to stop you being a cock. To reinforce this idea then, atheists oughta stop behaving like cocks. Being rude to old ladies and calling everyone with a different viewpoint an idiot is cock-like behaviour.

Cannot remember ever having seen someone on the telly talking making an argument against religion without them being a bit of a cock about it.

A secular society should be a must for people of faith surely?  By definition the separation of faith from politics means that you're free to practice any faith whereas in a state intrinsically tied to a religion the people of that state are not free to worship their particular faith.

Privilege through religion is a major problem imo, and whereas faith is a personal thing that doesn't have to impact on others, religion affords
people power - and when certain individuals or groups are given power in this way it means others have some freedoms or rights taken away from
them.

I think the intrinsic ties between favoured religions and the state which you speak of are a bit of a red herring.

Inequalities with regard to religion and people's decision to practice a particular faith will always exist irregardless of what the state does. Just as inequalities with regard to sport and what sporting activities people want to participate in will exist. The major factor behind both of these inequalities will be the relative popularity of others in the population making similar choices.

In practice people are free to crack on with whatever religion they choose in the UK. It's probably easier to be CofE than a Buddhist but eliminating whatever privliges Rowan Williams enjoys will not really acconplish anything. Eliminating all inequality would be a fools errand.