i agree
atheists who give religious people a hard time are just as bad - maybe worse as they're first grade hippocrates. Trying to convince people god doesn't exist is just as ignorant as trying to convince that he does
(
null and void, Fri 24 Oct 2008, 13:29,
Reply)
But
Atheists son't stand in the street bellowing at me through a megaphone, knock on my door to tell me 'the good news', or get automatic seats in the House Of Lords.
(, Fri 24 Oct 2008, 13:36, Reply)
I dispute your House of Lords point.
Anglican Bishops are not really religious types. Some have famously disputed things such as the virgin birth.
In reality they are there as representatives of the fanatical and powerful tea-drinking lobby
*Am from clergy family. This is, therefore, fact*
(
prince-igor si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses, Fri 24 Oct 2008, 13:43,
Reply)
First grade Hippocrates?
Eh? What's Hippocrates got to do with it?
And how is a refusal to believe in a sky-fairy until evidence is provided ignorant?
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Fri 24 Oct 2008, 13:52,
Reply)
well think about it
believing that once there was absolutely nothing, totally nothing. then all of a sudden, something bumped into somehting else at high speed which made a FUCKING HUGE explosion that created everything in the universe, then little microbes turned into fish, which turned into lizards which turned into monkeys which turned into humans, and here we are today.
truly, to an unbiased mind, both stories sound like utter shit.
(
Just Flange, Fri 24 Oct 2008, 14:29,
Reply)
And if that was the sum total of an atheist account of the world...
... it would be shit.
But it isn't.
And just because atheists have trouble explaining the origin of the universe, it doesn't follow that a theist account is better - or even as good. It isn't. The problem remains, but with a much higher metaphysical price.
I will believe in anything for which there is evidence and a good argument. Until then, I will not believe it. I think that that's in intellectual good taste.
At the same time, I will point out fallacies in others' accounts. That's a legitimate move as well.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Fri 24 Oct 2008, 14:39,
Reply)
hey hey hey,
you're preaching to the converted.
i'm merely pointting out that you can't just say "oh i'm supposed to believe in some guy floating around in the sky made the world" because to be honest, what's provable? to a believer, god is provable, by the strength he gives them and by the way he makes them feel.
to a non believer science is provable, but only by the measures of science.
EDIT: and i'm aware that's not the sum total of atheist thinking but im summarising to assist my point, that both sides will never quite believe/understand the other, that's a fundamental fact, and arguing about it hurts too many people.
(
Just Flange, Fri 24 Oct 2008, 14:59,
Reply)
Your choices are:
(a) Don't know;
(b) An all-powerful man outside of time and space created everything, waited for several billion years, then created humans, waited a few more million years, then started speaking inside the heads of one particular tribe on one particular part of one particular planet, told them a load of contradictory stuff, sent his son to be executed, stopped speaking to people for a few thousand years, but keeps an eye on them so that he can punish/ reward anyone who manages to figure out what he was on about previously.
(, Fri 24 Oct 2008, 14:40, Reply)
dude, i'm just saying that to a believer, god's believable. to a non-believer, he's not.
So why the big hoo-ha about who's right?
www3.barnesy.org/links/239760
(
Just Flange, Fri 24 Oct 2008, 15:00,
Reply)