God

[gnasher16 30,103]

It don't make someone a nutter cause they see things you don't

 

But surely it makes someone a nutter if they constantly discuss something they claim to not even acknowledge .....thats the bit i dont get.......if you dont even entertain the thought of something then what is there to talk about.

Edited November 6, 2014 by gnasher16

[WILF 46,786]

A section of people always need a reason in life, so maybe they need to keep reaffirming it in their mind?.......some of us realise that sometimes there is no reason to things

Maybe that's what they call simple faith ?

 

I guess that's the nature of the scientific mind, there must be cause and effect, 1+1 must make 2, if you do A,B,C then D happens sort of thing.......maybe that's why they struggle to understand people who just believe ?

 

Simple faith is anathema to the way their mind reasons........maybe that why they have to argue against it all the time ?

 

So yeah, I get your point but you always have something to say about stuff you can't get your head round I guess

[Tiercel 6,986]

Like you say Wilf, it is a belief not a certainty. When scientist believe something they have to prove it, as they deal in provable facts. If they cannot prove what they believe then it does not exist. Simplistic way of looking at things really.

 

TC

[sandymere 8,263]

No, they believe in what exists rather than what they wish for

 

[Born Hunter 17,763]

and folks tell me religion is misunderstood. If this thread has taught me anything it's that atheism is just as misunderstood as theism.

[sandymere 8,263]

Yes everyday by creating new viruses/bacteria with spliced DNA

Now GM is good, I like GM, (that's genetically modified not god modified)

[WILF 46,786]

No, they believe in what exists rather than what they wish for [/size]

No, they believe in what they can prove exists.

[gnasher16 30,103]

and folks tell me religion is misunderstood. If this thread has taught me anything it's that atheism is just as misunderstood as theism.

 

Im a self confessed thicko mate humour me and explain it to me if you have the time.....

Why would people who dont acknowledge or even entertain the thought of something ( aethiests/god ) spend so long talking about it ?......does talking about the existence of god or lack thereof....not go against everything an aethiest claims to be ?

 

For instance if you told me pigs could fly i would disagree with you once and never bother discussing such a ludicrous thought again......is that not pretty much what an aethiest thinks about god ?

[Born Hunter 17,763]

Because an atheist is not someone who doesn't entertain the thought of a god, that is the definition of ignorance not atheism, which I've come to learn is a standard understanding of atheism from anybody that classes themselves a theist or agnostic.

 

Atheism is the belief that there is no god, the complete opposite of theism. Now to take that belief you have had to entertain the thought of god. Without doing so you couldn't possibly be an atheist.

 

The reason atheists, despite having made the decision that the probability of god existing is less than likely, enter into discussions about god is because 99% of the time such a discussion ultimately (usually within seconds) becomes about our origin and the origin of the Universe. The discussion isn't about something mundane and un-affecting like; what god had for tea last night or the colour of his eyes.... it's about how we came to be and what makes the sun rise..... which theists claim to fundamentally be divine.

 

So, you see, we're not really simply talking about god, we're talking about our origins and effectively how the world we are in works fundamentally. So whether you believe in god or not the topic usually interests everybody.

[gnasher16 30,103]

Well now im totally bolloxed ...................so on entertaining the thought of a god and then deciding not to acknowledge his existence ( aethiest ) what is there to discuss ......i would feel a complete dick trying to convince people pigs cant fly because i simply dont acknowledge the possibility that they can.

 

What im getting at is a while back i listened to Dawkins say that when he discusses the origins of the universe the word God doesnt even enter his mind as its not a theory he even acknowledges.......He made a specific point of stating that during debates/lectures etc he never makes reference to a God unless pressed on the subject....surely that is the true essence of what being an aethiest is.....no ?

[Born Hunter 17,763]

I haven't seen that quote so shouldn't really comment on it but I'll try anyway.

 

I'm going to assume his statement was in the context of scientific discussion. Then of course it makes sense not to discuss it, there's f**k all scientific about the god hypothesis. So why should someone entertain it when talking about science? We established about a hundred pages ago that god can neither be proved nor disproved, so the topic isn't so much scientific as it is purely philosophical. If he chooses not to engage in philosophical debates then that's his right.

 

However, he has and does talked about the origin of life! As do many atheists. He's given up trying to educate those that don't want it, so fine. Personally, I enjoy talking about science and our origins, so when I see a theist use the question of our origin as evidence for the existence of god why shouldn't I enter into a scientific discussion and try to educate others and myself by presenting a rational argument for the questions?

[Truther 1,579]

In reality Gnash god isn't important at all, its a pointless thing, atheists and believers are arguing about the ideas of mortal men, not god mate.

 

These ideas encompass a vast array of subjects like politics and science, history, the bible and other religious texts real worth are them being "historical documents" not an explanation of who/what the creator is, if you believe their is one that is.

[Born Hunter 17,763]

And why the f**k do theists jump on the Dawkins bashing bandwagon, presenting Dawkins as the head honcho of atheism?

 

It's as bad as us atheists presenting the Pope as the head of theism!

 

Dawkins (a chap I'd never heard of until about a year ago), is just an outspoken atheist. He's a very good scientist, but unfortunately his scientific work is too often outshone by his very aggressive views on creation.

Edited November 7, 2014 by Born Hunter

[mushroom 12,917]

Agreed on that bh but you cannot fault his diagnosis. He's meticlous in his investigation

[Born Hunter 17,763]

He's an exceptional scientist. I just think he'd be more effective in spreading the understanding of evolution theory if he was less aggressive in his attacks on the alternate hypothesis of intelligent design.....

 

Having an apparently superior argument may give you the ability to ridicule others but not necessarily the right.... In doing so he gets folks backs up and then they loose any objectivity they might have had and emotion starts to sour it all.

 

To be honest though, he's probably sick to his back teeth of creationists challenging him simply because he is an authority on evolution theory. So I can see it both ways myself.

Edited November 7, 2014 by Born Hunter