Dawkins interview on some sort of God channel...

[ford prefect]

People just love to compare atheism to a belief system no matter how many times you tell them it isn't, in fact it's defined by its lack of being a belief system

Well, actually it is defined as the doctrine or belief that there is no god or disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. If you disbelieve one thing, surely you must believe the opposite - making it a belief system.

Anyway, enough from me, I think I will bow out now

 

[Krazeh]

Well, actually it is defined as the doctrine or belief that there is no god or disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. If you disbelieve one thing, surely you must believe the opposite - making it a belief system.

If you actively believe in the non-existence of a deity then I agree that atheism could be seen to be a belief system, but if you have a disbelief in the existence of a deity then I'm not sure how you can equate that to a belief system. Seems you'd be clutching at straws to try and wedge not holding a belief in something into being the same thing as a belief system. And i'm really not getting how you've jumped from having a disbelief in one thing means that you must believe the opposite.

 

[DaGaffer]

Well, actually it is defined as the doctrine or belief that there is no god or disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. If you disbelieve one thing, surely you must believe the opposite - making it a belief system.

Anyway, enough from me, I think I will bow out now

*sigh* It isn't defined that way. The key word you're missing is "proof". It is defined as the doctrine there is no proof of the existence of a supreme being or beings. "Belief" doesn't need to come into it. If there was any substantive and repeatedly verifiable way to show the existence of Gods, atheists would stop being atheists (whether any of them would then choose to worship such beings is a separate issue).

 

[Scouse]

...

Does it not feel like same conversation once again, anyone?


Human beings have a reality and comprehension based on experience. Religious people live in a very specific reality and, as much as they hate you saying it, are unable to comprehend the alternative - i.e. a lack of belief is a concept that they cannot realistically grasp. (At least not easily, and not without risking damage to their own faith).

It's why a "loss of faith" is an incredibly traumtic experience. Naturally, they go back through their lives and re-evaluate things only to find out they've been misguided fools for their entire existance.


It's part of the reason (other than being a troll) Toht won't accept my argument about the action of believing being the single thing that defines all religions. Even though it's an argument that has been accepted for hundreds of years and is even used in day-to-day journalism with an expectation of understanding. For example:

This article from teh Beebz0r

The BHA has complained the wording of the optional census question about religion encourages people to wrongly identify themselves as believers....

....[the BHA] is running a national campaign encouraging non-religious people to state their unbelief clearly on their census forms.

The BHA aren't being pedants - they're being functionally accurate.

The reason religious people try to deny this argument (and desparately attempt to paint both atheism and science as religions in their own right - despite them being the complete opposite) is because acceptance of them, without the religious slant, fundamentally undermines their own beliefs. That, and the fact that they don't really get it.


To protect themselves against our argument they perform their action - believing - which in this case means ignoring pertinent argument, disregarding evidence and outright refusing to engage.

Believers, eh?

 

[old.Tohtori]

Quite an assumption that religious people can't grasp the alternative, it's quite easy to grasp.

The reason i won't AGREE with your definition of all religion is that it's A: not all there is and B: non-issue as it's a given.

But it's good to see that you're actively not believing.

I don't find atheists at all undermining or threatening to my beliefs, but it seems that a lot of atheists do see religion as threatening since they are so vocal against it.

 

[Raven]

I like to think of it as battling idiocy myself.

 

[nath]

I don't find atheists at all undermining or threatening to my beliefs, but it seems that a lot of atheists do see religion as threatening since they are so vocal against it.

Likewise lots of religious folk find atheist threatening.

There's bound to be plenty of atheists who attack religion simply to feel superior, but there are more valid reasons than that.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Likewise lots of religious folk find atheist threatening.

There's bound to be plenty of atheists who attack religion simply to feel superior, but there are more valid reasons than that.

Ofcourse, and as said, i don't have a problem with atheists, just dumb atheists.

Just like with religious folk, agnostic, gardeners, or candlestick makers; If you're reasonable, it's fine. If you're preachy, not so much.

Problem with Scouse is that he thinks i'm just another preachy, jesus loving, blind follower of the holy trinity.

 

[Calaen]

Ofcourse, and as said, i don't have a problem with atheists, just dumb atheists.

Just like with religious folk, agnostic, gardeners, or candlestick makers; If you're reasonable, it's fine. If you're preachy, not so much.

Problem with Scouse is that he thinks i'm just another preachy, jesus loving, blind follower of the holy trinity.

No he knows you believe in something that hasn't been proven yet. There is no difference whether you preach it or not, you believe in something that you cannot prove exists just like every other fool out there that believes in that shite.

 

[old.Tohtori]

No he knows you believe in something that hasn't been proven yet. There is no difference whether you preach it or not, you believe in something that you cannot prove exists just like every other fool out there that believes in that shite.

And that right there is the problem with some atheists, thinking they can just outright call people names(etc) simply because they believe in something. Nothing else, just that belief, green card to immunity it seems.

Same goes for some religious folk ofcourse, but it hardly makes it ok.

the moment you start judging someone elses way of life, you turn from someone having a conversation, to a preachy moron.

 

[Calaen]

And that right there is the problem with some atheists, thinking they can just outright call people names(etc) simply because they believe in something. Nothing else, just that belief, green card to immunity it seems.

Same goes for some religious folk ofcourse, but it hardly makes it ok.

the moment you start judging someone elses way of life, you turn from someone having a conversation, to a preachy moron.

Is calling you a believer a bad thing?

 

[Scouse]

Both a troll and doesn't get it:

Quite an assumption that religious people can't grasp the alternative, it's quite easy to grasp...

[Yet]

But it's good to see that you're actively not believing.

Q.E.D IMO

Problem with Scouse is that he thinks i'm just another preachy, jesus loving, blind follower of the holy trinity.

You've no idea what I think (despite me having tried to spell it out to you). You openly profess to follow some norse nonsense (though are really touchy when pressed for detail) so how you still hold the idea that I think (or even care if) you're a blind follower of the "holy trinity" amuses me

No he knows you believe in something that hasn't been proven yet. There is no difference whether you preach it or not, you believe in something that you cannot prove exists just like every other fool out there that believes in that shite.

I'd go further Cal. I think that he believes in some shite (it matters not what) that he knows can't be proven or disproven (another common feature of religions due to their mythical nonsensical nature) yet has made a choice to believe. That choice, by its very nature, prevents him from entering into a rational discussion of the subject - because to discuss it rationally would mean his eventual acknowledgement that he hasn't got a leg to stand on.

You're right though, it's very foolish indeed. Easy and seductive, but foolish.

 

[old.Tohtori]

You yourself posted;

"The BHA has complained the wording of the optional census question about religion encourages people to wrongly identify themselves as believers....

....[the BHA] is running a national campaign encouraging non-religious people to state their unbelief clearly on their census forms.

The BHA aren't being pedants - they're being functionally accurate."

So if you think they are being accurate, aren't you saying that it is an active unbelief?

Rest of your post is just the same old assumption over assumption.

The reason i can't enter a sensible discussion, is because it's you and your ridicilous blind zealotry, taking bits and pieces of posts to prove some point you don't even declare. Not to mention you think i'm trying to win some imaginary argument you have with, it seems, all religions.

But go on then, deny it all and pick a part of the post that interests you, that you can twist or just spout something about me that you somehow believe is true. Your belief in your own bullsh*t is stronger then any religion.

Calaen, that's not an insult now is it? If you don't know what an insult is, then you have bigger issues in understanding your own language.

 

[old.Tohtori]

If you want proof(as that's so highly regarded) of who is at fault in the discussion being "same old", you only need to compare my discussion with nate(regular discussion, little if any trouble, with both sides being sensible), and then me and Scouse.

My opinions certainly haven't changed person to person and my posting doesn't change either, so the only logical option to change is the person i'm talking to.

Ergo; the problem with having a sensible discussion isn't with me.

Now, have you Scouse had a sensible discussion with a religious person at any point?


(I know you hate this post because it's right )

 

[Scouse]

[Amongst all the MWAAAAAH! Scouse is ridiculing me (again)!]

"The BHA has complained the wording of the optional census question about religion encourages people to wrongly identify themselves as believers....

....[the BHA] is running a national campaign encouraging non-religious people to state their unbelief clearly on their census forms.

The BHA aren't being pedants - they're being functionally accurate."

So if you think they are being accurate, aren't you saying that it is an active unbelief?

Lol! "Active Unbelief"

Just. Doesn't. Get. It.

(Or Troll)

 

[old.Tohtori]

There was no "mwaaah" there and since you can't even answer a question, well, previous point proven really.

Enjoy "discussing" your views, done with your silly beliefs as it's worse then zealot reverands.

 

[Scouse]

/toys /pram

Ask me any question, directly, and I'll give you a direct answer, below.

It's pretty clear that you can't or won't get your head around the concept of a "lack of belief" as it's been a common feature in every thread about religion I've been involved in.

>Lack< of belief does NOT involve believing in anything. Period. As much as you would love it to.

That's why the BHA called it "unbelief" and you tried to redefine it "active unbelief" - which I laughed my ass off at. Right off! I'm still chuckling internally now!


As for name-calling and ridicule - you're as bad as anyone. McHypocrite

 

[old.Tohtori]

No /toys, no /pram, just can't be arsed. Saying "As much as you would love it to." even when i said nothing of the sort is quite the reason.

Try to get THAT.

Like i said on a previous post that you ignored completely(as you do with any proof on any subject), i'm not the problem with having a sensible discussion.

 

[Krazeh]

Actually Toht, while Scouse has been somewhat forthright in his posts, you have gone out of your way to deflect or skirt round the point he's been trying to make. You have also tried to yet again make out that atheism requires some sort of belief and want to argue that it's no different from religion.

 

[Scouse]

No /toys, no /pram, just can't be arsed. Saying "As much as you would love it to." even when i said nothing of the sort is quite the reason.

Try to get THAT.

Like i said on a previous post that you ignored completely(as you do with any proof on any subject), i'm not the problem with having a sensible discussion.

I said "as much as you would love it to" because despite many people telling you in many threads that not believing or "unbelief" doesn't require belief - you've flat-out refused to accept it.

Now, when I once again make the same point (which is pretty much all I've done in this thread), you've finally decided to disengage. As I predicted:

To protect themselves against our argument they perform their action - believing - which in this case means ignoring pertinent argument, disregarding evidence and outright refusing to engage

I'm still happy to answer direct questions with direct answers. Numbered if you like.

However, I can't see you engaging that way because every time it's been tried before you've thrown your toys out. Just like now.

Actually Toht, while Scouse has been somewhat forthright in his posts, you have gone out of your way to deflect or skirt round the point he's been trying to make. You have also tried to yet again make out that atheism requires some sort of belief and want to argue that it's no different from religion.

This. TBFH.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Actually Toht, while Scouse has been somewhat forthright in his posts, you have gone out of your way to deflect or skirt round the point he's been trying to make. You have also tried to yet again make out that atheism requires some sort of belief and want to argue that it's no different from religion.

I don't think atheism requires some sort of belief, nor have i tried to say it does. Only part where i said it is this;

"Enjoy "discussing" your views, done with your silly beliefs as it's worse then zealot reverands."

And it was simly because it's Scouse and i know he hates that.

THAT was a troll, simply out of all context, since the discussion(this particular one) is pretty much dead since the only point Scouse makes is self-evident that doesn't require agreement.

Scouse; i did ask you a question, but you avoid all points that are made that you can't somehow turn in your favor. And no, i'm not going to go and pick every one of them out for you. (Just peek at #104 if you want an example)

Now, that being said, if you have some point you'd like to discuss, make it clear and stop with the usual bullcrap, then we can talk.(I'll just do a Scouse'esque preminition and say that you'll probably just go and say something like "i can't be arsed" or "that's not what i asked" or "toht is in denial", just to cover my bases *trollface*)

 

[old.Tohtori]

Anyhoo, that lovely interlude aside, might aswell ask you smoe question Scouse. Interested in answers and not trolling(disclaimer bull );. Others can ofcourse answer too

- If some being appeared that was, by all descriptions and purposes, a god and said god would show two choices, effectively hell(eternal suffering etc) or heaven(eternal bliss yadadoodaa), would you worship it? Or how would you react in general?

- Let's assume that a persons default appreciation(and so on) to you is at a 100% level(before anything happens, friendships are born etc), how much would learning they believe in some form or other affect that %?

- Since we don't know for a fact, either way, that there is life after death; what is the harm in someone believing, IF they don't try to convert others and it doesn't effect their way of thinking on a day to day basis? Afterall, if there's nothing, no harm. If they happen to pick the one out of thousand right god, they do jackpot on afterlife.

Just some that come to mind.

 

[old.Tohtori]

So i guess questions aren't alright afterall?

 

[Scouse]

So i guess questions aren't alright afterall?

/toht jumps around waving his arms "look at me! look at me!"

Gimme a bit of time you dirty Odin-muncher. I can't spend all day on here and I was having a much better time in the pub last night than posting on a forum

 

[mooSe_]

Moose answerzz

- If some being appeared that was, by all descriptions and purposes, a god and said god would show two choices, effectively hell(eternal suffering etc) or heaven(eternal bliss yadadoodaa), would you worship it? Or how would you react in general?

That would require me to rethink more than just my belief in god. For example the concepts of heaven and hell are complete nonsense to me; not only do I think they don't exist, but I think they make no sense.
If it somehow managed to demonstrate to me that it was definitely god and that I do have a soul and there is heaven and hell I guess I would have no choice but to worship it. However I would do so very grudgingly at least at first, because in addition to not believing in god I really don't like the idea of one. I find the ideas and morals proposed in religions like christianity, islam etc repulsive (well at least some parts of them).
I don't think I'd be able to get myself to worship properly so I'd probably end up in hell anyway Maybe I'd be better off making a deal with satan and try and get some minor position of power down there

- Let's assume that a persons default appreciation(and so on) to you is at a 100% level(before anything happens, friendships are born etc), how much would learning they believe in some form or other affect that %?

This question is confusing, are you asking how much less I think of a person who believes in god? Not very much less tbh, although it does prevent me from having quite as close a friendship with them because I wouldn't feel like I could relate to them with regard to some subjects or talk about some things with them because we wouldn't see eye to eye at all. It also depends on whether their belief is full on theism or just some kind of deism because they think it gives a better account of the universe.

- Since we don't know for a fact, either way, that there is life after death; what is the harm in someone believing, IF they don't try to convert others and it doesn't effect their way of thinking on a day to day basis? Afterall, if there's nothing, no harm. If they happen to pick the one out of thousand right god, they do jackpot on afterlife.

I don't really see how it couldn't affect their way of thinking on a day to day basis. But assuming that it didn't, there is no 'harm' as such, but they are still strongly holding an irrational belief; which regardless of it's overall benefit or harm to their life, should be abandoned simply because it is irrational.

 

[old.Tohtori]

/toht jumps around waving his arms "look at me! look at me!"

Gimme a bit of time you dirty Odin-muncher. I can't spend all day on here and I was having a much better time in the pub last night than posting on a forum

Well you seemed to be posting all over the forum otherwise

 

[Scouse]

Well. I was hoping your questions would be on-topic but because I've been through this exact procedure with you before I was unsurprised.

But, in good faith, so to speak:

- If some being appeared that was, by all descriptions and purposes, a god and said god would show two choices, effectively hell(eternal suffering etc) or heaven(eternal bliss yadadoodaa), would you worship it? Or how would you react in general?

I've no idea. I'd like to think that I'd question it's validity as, as is oft quoted, any race that is far enough technologically advanced would appear to be god-like to us. However, if it was forcing us to worship it or go to "hell" then I'd go through the motions - or die.

Just like I'd do pretty much whatever someone who pointed a gun at my head told me to.

Only in the mind of a believer has this question got anything to do with belief, IMO.

Let's assume that a persons default appreciation(and so on) to you is at a 100% level(before anything happens, friendships are born etc), how much would learning they believe in some form or other affect that %?

I'm presuming that you mean I like everyone 100% at the start and then you want to know how much learning they're religious would affect that percentage?

Again, I don't know. It's probably because it's a completely unrealistic question. I don't like everyone 100% when I meet them. Getting to like someone is a gradual process and there's bits I dislike and bits I like about all my friends.

I went out with a staunch Catholic girl for 3 years once. The fact that she was religious and a church goer didn't bother me much at the time. I wouldn't choose it ever again though.

I guess finding out someone is religious doesn't bother me at all. It's the baggage they bring with them that would ultimately doom the relationship.

Since we don't know for a fact, either way, that there is life after death; what is the harm in someone believing, IF they don't try to convert others and it doesn't effect their way of thinking on a day to day basis? Afterall, if there's nothing, no harm. If they happen to pick the one out of thousand right god, they do jackpot on afterlife.

As discussed, we can never know, either way, if there's life after death. If the beilief in life after death could be restricted in the way you say then I can't really see any wider possible harm than to that persons perception of reality. However, I seriously doubt that the actions associated with belief can be contained in the way you say and spill out into other areas of cognitive reasoning - where the potential for wider damage is much greater.

That's why religious people in particular are easily manipulated from so-called peace-loving individuals into warmongering arseholes. If you can ditch reason in one part of your life it's much easier to ditch it elsewhere.



My question is, what makes the questions you asked above so damn interesting to you? From my "unbeliever" point of view they're on topics that only children would find interesting.

They're of the format: IF <unrealistic shite> was true THEN <how would you feel about shite>...

The <unrealistic shite> is just that, meaningless shite.

To be fair, considering the above means I've now got an update to question 2 (religious friends).

I find religious people fairly boring because they talk about this sort of meaningless wank all of the time. It's not that I dislike them, it's just that I've only got a finite amount of life and haven't got time to be wasting it on people that wander around with their heads in the clouds wishing for something that simply isn't.


In fact, I'm dismayed by how dull this conversation has now become. We're waffling about nothing of consequence at all. Only someone who cares about the non-existant could give a shit about any of the above

 

[DaGaffer]

- If some being appeared that was, by all descriptions and purposes, a god and said god would show two choices, effectively hell(eternal suffering etc) or heaven(eternal bliss yadadoodaa), would you worship it? Or how would you react in general?

I've actually thought about this a lot (see I am open-minded to the idea of a creator, I just see no evidence for it), and while I like to think I'd spit in God's eye, in reality I'd do what I needed to do to survive. But generally I'd still be pretty suspicious about the whole eternal suffering, heaven and hell bit (mainly because it means that billions of people have been following completely the wrong script for thousands of years, which hardly seems like the work of an omnipotent superbeing). As Scouse says, sufficiently advanced technology etc.

- Let's assume that a persons default appreciation(and so on) to you is at a 100% level(before anything happens, friendships are born etc), how much would learning they believe in some form or other affect that %?

It tends to be the other way around, I take the piss out of their ridiculous belief system so much they can't deal with it (I can't help myself - it annoys a number of family members). As far as I'm concerned people can believe in anything they like, but they shouldn't expect their views to be respected just because they believe something. "belief" and "faith" aren't arguments.

- Since we don't know for a fact, either way, that there is life after death; what is the harm in someone believing, IF they don't try to convert others and it doesn't effect their way of thinking on a day to day basis? Afterall, if there's nothing, no harm. If they happen to pick the one out of thousand right god, they do jackpot on afterlife.

Just some that come to mind.

Back to Pascal's wager again. The simple answer to your question is that it doesn't affect most people at all, and probably does little or no direct harm. On the other hand, it allows some pretty venal institutions to continue to exist, and in extreme cases (like idiot women who become nuns for instance) can completely waste a perfectly good life.

 

[Wij]

and in extreme cases (like idiot women who become nuns for instance) can completely waste a perfectly good life.

To be fair it's not like in films. Most women who become nuns are mingers so it's actually for the public good.

 

[Scouse]

To be fair it's not like in films. Most women who become nuns are mingers so it's actually for the public good.

Not in the films I've been watching.

"Having a crisis of faith love? Come over here, I'll give you a crisis...."

...or something.