I know what you mean
But I can't remember hearing about any dawkins-ites demanding seperate (lack of) faith schools, or calling for the death of the pope.

I feel that he is a product of our age, and fighting fire with fire is not neccesarily a bad thing. Agnosticism (fence-sitting) is not enough any more.
( 100% Cock Raw like carrots., Thu 1 Apr 2010, 15:43, 1 reply)

Agnosticism is the only way one can be.
Although agnosticism is really a-theism, but still - we can't and don't know either way, and all Dawkins is doing is making the atheist cause seem all the more arrogant and ill-informed.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Thu 1 Apr 2010, 15:51, closed)

I'll have to disagree.
Agnosticism is not "being accepting", it is being an atheist but not having the courage of your convictions.

If you believe something, tell it like it is. That doesn't mean running around quoting Dawkins, or telling muslims that they should not be calling their children muslims, it just means accepting within yourself that religion is clearly not a valid concept.

If enough people believed that the moon's core is made of cheese, should we say "in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary and not a shred of evidence to support your idea, i still respect it and will make allowances for your belief. In fact, let's spend lottery money on a school for moon-core-cheese-believers, so your children can also benefit from this theory".
( 100% Cock Raw like carrots., Thu 1 Apr 2010, 15:58, closed)

No, agnosticism is saying you don't know whether God exists or not
(Though if he, she or it does then he, she or it seems to have a strange and rather unpleasant sense of humour.)

It's not lacking the courage of your convictions to say you don't know, and it doesn't mean you can't believe that most organized religion is fuckwitted or barmy.
(littlesunshine licked your blinky diodes on, Thu 1 Apr 2010, 17:32, closed)

That's still giving credence to an issue that shouldn't have any. The only possible reason to believe that there is a God is because of social history, agnosticism is the equivalent of equating a panel of experts with a homeless person whispering in your ear.

You can still be Atheist and admit the possibility of a God. Anything is possible. All Atheism means is that you acknowledge that, with all the current data and rational thinking available to us, it is likely that God does not exist.

The term 'God' also confuses the issue entirely, as it usually refers to the Judeo-Christian deity but can also just be a generic term for a creator. Personally, I firmly believe that no being exists to the specifications of Christianity or any other organized belief system. I accept the possibility of an undefined creator, but I do not think it a likely one.
(Legion, Sat 3 Apr 2010, 8:47, closed)

I like this guy's take on it
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager
(lardyboy Next stop, Fissplap Central, Thu 1 Apr 2010, 16:21, closed)

Pascal's Wager
Isn't that great a bet really, when you think how many religions there are out there.

When Pascal died, the Flying Spaghetti Monster probably wasn't at all impressed with his choice of deity, and condemned him to being boiled for all eternity in a vat of marinara sauce.
(Vice Admiral Sir Charles Cockbrush KCB MBE DSO, who is finding it increasingly difficult to log into b3ta.com wants to duck your aunt and kick your puppy, Thu 1 Apr 2010, 16:39, closed)

Hmm.
If everyone's thinking was as wooly and wishy-washy as Pascal's, we would probably still be living in the 17th century!
( 100% Cock Raw like carrots., Thu 1 Apr 2010, 16:40, closed)

Pascal's Wager
is the most spineless bet-hedging imaginable. Notice it never says anywhere 'you might as well believe in Zeus' or 'Odin'. You 'might as well' believe in any of them, too.
(Falstaff's Spiritual Successor, Thu 1 Apr 2010, 23:24, closed)

Exactly. The reason Christianity has so much power is because it always ends up being 'They are completely right, or there is nothing'. If we're going to listen to the Pope, why not (Long list of other religious and spiritual leaders) as well?
(Legion, Sat 3 Apr 2010, 8:50, closed)

The argument against Pascal's wager is as follows.
If we were created by God in God's image then surely we were created to be free thinking and questioning of our environment.

It is taught by Christians that God is an infinately forgiving, benevolant God (the old 'how many times should I turn my cheek?' jazz). Surely if these two facts are true then God would not punish people for questioning his existance in the afterlife.
( Anthropos Was making beer on, Fri 2 Apr 2010, 10:04, closed)