He Is Dead

[Piamed]

Go, aposhark Go
Fight the Christian hordes off with your shield of atheism.

NEWS FLASH!!!!!!!!!!

That sticky brown stuff you are holding in front of you in an attempt to parry probing questions and a quest for rational debate is not a shield!!!!!!!

[kimmi]

For the benefit of the other members and the Forum in general I would respectfully ask you to fight those terrible hordes some other time, some other place.

By now your dislike or hate for everything resembling some kind of faith, is well known to us all, and it would be really appreciated if you don't jump at people's throath again.
You do not have to participate in religion based threads

This thread started innocently by someone celebrating Easter in her own way, and escalated, near enough, into a full scale slanging match.

No member is bigger than the forum.

Unless is Keith...................

i second the motion..

[JudyHon]

this saying is related to this discussion..

It's better to live and believe as if there is God and die and to know there is none

than

Live and believe as if there is no God and die and to know there is..

You can not turn back the hands of time...

It's not a very logical saying if you ask me...

Surely it's better to live a good and full life (regardless of religion) and if there is a hereafter, then that's all gravy....
....than to forgo and sacrifice now (as most religions demand) in the hope of a better life that may or may not exist?

Neat trick to keep the hoi polloi from complaining and rebelling mind you.

Also how will you 'know' there is no God when you're dead and there's no afterlife?

[aposhark]

.....You remind me of Boy George he is intolerant of heterosexuals because he is gay and will take every opportunity he can to tell everyone who is not gay that they are wrong.

So, do you like my new clothes, then?
Come on, you do really don't you?
Do they clash with my eye shadow?
Go on, I can handle the truth....

But you know what they always say "There's no shame in one man's love for another"....
Now here's some hot oil on your head, it's like shampoo you know....

Like that? You look so good down there, sorry it's a bit hot, came out of the cauldron that way! Sorrrryyyyy

[aposhark]

For the benefit of the other members and the Forum in general I would respectfully ask you to fight those terrible hordes some other time, some other place.

By now your dislike or hate for everything resembling some kind of faith, is well known to us all, and it would be really appreciated if you don't jump at people's throath again.
You do not have to participate in religion based threads

This thread started innocently by someone celebrating Easter in her own way, and escalated, near enough, into a full scale slanging match.

No member is bigger than the forum.

Unless is Keith...................

"You do not have to participate in religion based threads."
They are participating too.
It takes two to tango.
I will stop when they stop.

I suggest Keith close the thread because my right to free speech is as strong as their right to try to brainwash people.

[Mrs.JMajor]

No member is bigger than the forum.

Unless is Keith...................

and why he is so small then Mod,but opss keith says god doesnt exist too...

Dont quote me,im not ready for discussion

[aposhark]

For the benefit of the other members and the Forum in general I would respectfully ask you to fight those terrible hordes some other time, some other place.

By now your dislike or hate for everything resembling some kind of faith, is well known to us all, and it would be really appreciated if you don't jump at people's throath again.
You do not have to participate in religion based threads

This thread started innocently by someone celebrating Easter in her own way, and escalated, near enough, into a full scale slanging match.

No member is bigger than the forum.

Unless is Keith...................

They have jumped down my throat too, in case you haven't noticed.
There are others here who also feel as I do.
This thread has 1,500+ views already.
That IS what healthy debate is.
That is why people are constantly coming back to it.

Keith is "THE BOSS" (bugger he's a red nose too). He has the same basic idea as me......
People enjoy debate, that is why talk radio is so big.

[aromulus]

and why he is so small then Mod,but opss keith says god doesnt exist too..

During the course of the thread, Keith and Rob also commented on a few occasions, but they had respect for other people's views and did not insult their faith or their choice to believe in something.

[joebloggs]

maybe i was born an Eskimo

my fav quote “Eskimo: "If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?" Priest: "No, not if you did not know." Eskimo: "Then why did you tell me?"

but i'll be keeping little joe free and innocent from religion for as long as possible and let him decide


peace guys

[aromulus]

This thread has 1,500+ views already.
.

I must have logged on the thread at least 40 times since yesterday...

And if every contributor to this thread logged on at least 7 times or 8, just to check if anybody posted something else, or see if there was anything worth replying to, you soon get to 1500 +....

[KeithD]

Kippers!

[aposhark]

Dom,

I will not give up on fighting rascism and religious intolerance.
If I did, it would be another victory for lack of moderation.
Doing nothing is not an option.
All my life and all over the world I have stood up against rascism and intolerant religious ideas.
BUT when people try to convert me (as they all seem to want to do) I will tell them why religion is wrong IMO.

I sat with 20 muslims in a Baltimore cafe on the day after the 9-11 tragedy and explained to them that it wasn't a Jewish plot.
I told a whole bar of irate Americans that nuking Afghanistan was not a good idea because of the civilian loss of life.
They wanted to rearrange my exterior but their shouts of "Commie Barsteward" had a rather comical edge.
They gave up.
I have Jewish friends too...
None of them will try to tell me that their religion is better than the other, because I will tell them that it is all bad, and that no religion is better than a religion that will not listen to reason.

[KeithD]

.... keith says god doesnt exist too...

I've never said that!

Can't close the thread......we're still celebrating Easter I even seen the Bunny before....not much of it left on the road though

[aposhark]

During the course of the thread, Keith and Rob also commented on a few occasions, but they had respect for other people's views and did not insult their faith or their choice to believe in something.

Nice to see you join in Dom.
You think that I have "insulted their faith or their choice to believe in something".
There is an opposite view that I belong to, that I think they are just not happy that others do not subscribe to their way of thinking.
I am not insulting their faith, I am just saying that in my opinion, there is no god and no Jesus.
It is the basic tenets of atheism.

[aposhark]

I've never said that!

Can't close the thread......we're still celebrating Easter I even seen the Bunny before....not much of it left on the road though

I like your style.
It is as trendy as my Boy George dress.....
There is justice in that free speech is probably the most important thing we ALL have.
We cannot give the floor to only religious people, that would be a disservice to everyone.
Likewise, the floor cannot be occupied solely by atheists like me.

[Mrs.JMajor]

I've never said that!

Can't close the thread......we're still celebrating Easter I even seen the Bunny before....not much of it left on the road though

I am a Christian in the eyes of my parents and the church, but I do not follow religious twaddle. I do not worship anyone as that I regard as a type of slavery, and all religions just pick out the bits they like.
I neither acknowledge nor deny the existence of a 'God', but until someone supplies solid proof either way I will continue with my life .

Yap, apology for my words,i should just quote it.....

[Eljohno]

I did hope you'd see the funny side of my "syndrome" comment.
I equally have given my life to anti-religion.

"It's good to post"

I am Irish and love a good joke so sorry if i never picked up on it but thanks anyway for the humour as this thread needs it

[Jamesey]

An interesting thread!

But it's very difficult to have a sensible debate with religeous types. The doctrine just won't allow it!

The beauty of science is that it is constantly challenged by new ideas and theories. If they can be backed up with empirical eveidence, then they are adopted, until a better one comes along.

But don't take my word for it. Read something by Richard Dawkins.

Having said all that, I really enjoyed my 4 day weekend!

[Piamed]

An interesting thread!

But it's very difficult to have a sensible debate with religeous types. The doctrine just won't allow it!

I can't believe that even Aposhark would associate himself with such uninformed statements. As with Christians or other faiths, the reality is that there numerous intelligent atheists and non-believers - the two can be quite distinct groups, that are able to debate in a highly interesting and robust manner using complex data and rational interpretation. A couple of the loudest athiest voices on this thread have called for proof that God exists. Some then go on to suggest that only empirical data is valid as a proof source and cite observers, the full works of whom they have never read or understood. Had they done so, they would realise that the concepts of proof are varied and complex a la legal concepts of proof or evidence. All the time unqualified statements such as the church is in decline are made. But what is the church to which they refer? I'm uncertain. They then start talking about Catholicism. Their attention is drawn to the fact that Catholicism is no longer the church and that Charismatic and Evangelical churches are thriving at a fast rate. Any reply from the particular individuals? Absolutely, silence. They make mention of hail-Mary's and Confession. Again an attempt is made to make them aware that they are talking about Catholicism. Any response? Again, none.

All contributors to this thread should also be aware that so many people of varying backgrounds read the posts and receive a wide variety of messages that differ on an individual basis. This is because we lall have different histories, backgrounds, biases and thus perspectives. For my part, the central issue was not about trying to convert one side to another's 'correct' way of thinking. Why should it be? How dare anyone be arrogant enough to think he can and has the right to do that.

In my own case, I was really intrigued to query where a particular individual was coming from and get him to confront the weaknesses and omissions I perceived to be present in his initial and unsolicited statements. Thus, engage in a debate. I think that was achieved to some degree and the outcomes will be interpreted on an individual basis. Some like to learn about the perspective of others. One way to do that is through constructive debate. Those that like to do so participated and tried to avoid trivia and focuss on salient points. Others that do not like debate or to query these things in this manner have not done so. In my view neither is right or wrong. We are who we are.

I did not see this thread totally descend into a slanging match but I did see some misunderstandings perhaps. Anyway, I think to honest partis of this thread have run their course so I will now totally exit from further participation in this thread but would like to first comment on the following 2 points:

The beauty of science is that it is constantly challenged by new ideas and theories. If they can be backed up with empirical eveidence, then they are adopted, until a better one comes along.

Firstly, science does not force one into atheism. I myself am a scientist. You seem to think that religious theory is not advanced by continual understanding. I believe that to be patently incorrect. You have outlined an oversimplistic and inaccurate view of how theories are constructed. It is surprising how many people are unaware of anything other than positivistic evidence. Consider advanced social science theory. What about realism, Post-Structuralism and Postmodernism, rationalism, etc?

But don't take my word for it. Read something by Richard Dawkins.

We really must stop quoting people in a manner that insults their original observations. Also, Dawkins et al. would hastily remind you that theirs is only considered an acceptable series of relational notions by some of their peers until something else comes along. They also write for critical consideration.

You are implicitly unaware that Stephen J. Gould, argued for the mutual co-existence of science and religion as non-overlapping magisteria while Richard Dawkins wrote that claiming that religious beliefs are outside the domain of science is intellectually dishonest.

The underlying problem with Richard Dawkins and the vast majority of other practising scientists, is that they are an ontologically empiricist. This means among many other things, that they view definition of cause as simply being a correlation between events: if you find that whenever A happens, then B follows, and that if A doesn't then B doesn't. Thus, A causes B. Oversimplistic and often wrong.

For example, if you flick a light switch the light comes on. If you don't then it won't. If this is the case then by definition the switch caused the light to come on. Richard Dawkins is quite explicit in his agreement *at least in how the concept of `cause' is used in practice:

To many, causation is a rather simple statistical concept. Operationally we can never demonstrate that a particular observed event C caused a particular result R, although it will often be judged highly likely. What some non-empiricists do in practice is to establish statistically that events of class R reliably follow events of class C... Statistical methods are designed to help us assess, to any specified level of probabilistic confidence, whether the results we obtain really indicate a causal relationship.

Observers such as Denett believe`If one finds a predictive pattern of the sort just described one has ipso facto discovered a causal power * a difference in the world that makes a subsequent difference testable by standard empirical methods of variable manipulation.'

The problem with this definition of cause is that it doesn't give us a way of looking beneath the surface appearances of events, to their underlying reality. Marx once noted that if the world worked just as it appeared to, then there would be no need for science.

Take a simple example. Most people who bought a council house during the 1980s voted Conservative in 1987; most who refused, or couldn't afford to, didn't. The empiricist must draw the conclusion that buying a council house causes voting Conservative. There is certainly an element of truth in this, but we all know that the real situation is far more complicated. A specific economic and political situation, including rising property prices, caused both house buying and Conservative voting. Therefore they were correlated. If the situation changes, for example, if falling house prices as seen today, produce negative equity, then the link between house ownership and voting intentions changes. Some would argue these days it is those trapped with big mortgages compared to their income who most want to strangle Conservatives.

The empiricist definition of cause raises a correlation between events into a real mechanism, and tends to obscure the complexities and dynamics of real life.

Religious faith is assumed by Dawkins to be unevidenced belief. But Christian faith is grounded on a combination of evidence, including that drawn from history, personal experience and the world around. The justification for such belief is in the nature of a cumulative case. Like the clues in a detective story, no single item of evidence may be totally compelling on its own, but together they may build up a convincing case, sufficient for trust and action.

Dawkins constantly assumes that, since material objects have beginnings, God would also have had to have had an origin and asks 'who designed the divine creator?' But he vehemently rejects (rightly) the similar argument from analogy that, since everyday objects have designers, the universe must have a designer.
If the universe doesn't need a designer, why should he claim that God needs one?

[pennybarry]

I don't speak if the topic is Religion and Politics

Too critical topics to discuss and debate

[Happy_Now]

This thread is not a mistake. And it reveals what to reveals;
I am not a religious person and my faith is not depend on it.
Salvation for me is a personal relationship with God and accepting Jesus Christ as saviour & Lord…
Our life in this world is just a glimpsed my friends, Think what is behind…
I don’t want arguments…
I don’t want debate…
I don’t mind if in this site you call me LOSER…..
I don’t mind if you are laughing at me…………………. because,
Exodus 14:14 The LORD will fight for you; you need only to be still."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Love you all guys…
If you really concern, or want to know about salvation
OR, if you want to know who really I am, you can send me email;

[JudyHon]

Religious faith is assumed by Dawkins to be unevidenced belief. But Christian faith is grounded on a combination of evidence, including that drawn from history, personal experience and the world around. The justification for such belief is in the nature of a cumulative case. Like the clues in a detective story, no single item of evidence may be totally compelling on its own, but together they may build up a convincing case, sufficient for trust and action.

Dawkins constantly assumes that, since material objects have beginnings, God would also have had to have had an origin and asks 'who designed the divine creator?' But he vehemently rejects (rightly) the similar argument from analogy that, since everyday objects have designers, the universe must have a designer.
If the universe doesn't need a designer, why should he claim that God needs one?

Dawkins is correct about evidence. Christian or any other faith is not based upon evidence. That's why it's called faith. Faith - 'belief that is not based on proof'.

There is no more evidence of a supreme being than fairies at the bottom of the garden or Santa Claus. Historical evidence is far too unreliable to be of any use, and personal experience and the world around is purely subjective, and often the result of people's need to see order and meaning in chaotic reality.

I find the 'cumulative evidence' of faiths entirely inadequate, whereas I find scientific explanations frequently compelling, and often revised. And any suggestion of equivalence (as are so often argued) between the two is purely spurious.

I am not arrogant enough to believe in absolutes and I wish all believers equally did not talk in certainties when none exists - that is what grates. Everyone is entitled to their views without condescension and sanctimony. The recent London Bus Advert episode is a perfect example of this...

[aromulus]

Dawkins is correct about evidence. Christian or any other faith is not based upon evidence. That's why it's called faith. Faith - 'belief that is not based on proof'.

Yup, have no argument with that.

Live and let live in peace and harmony.

[Piamed]

Although I can see how you have formed your opinion on some things, you appear to contradict yourself from the get go.

You say that you are "not arrogant enough to believe in absolutes" and "talk in certainties". Yet you said the following, "Christian or any other faith is not based upon evidence." Dawkins even conceded that Jesus probably did exist.
have you considered why Dawkins believes that. Btw, after you extensive review of the subject what empirical evidence do you have that God does not exist. There is not any sop all you are ultimately left with is nothing. Take any evidence that God exists from believers and we are still left with faith.

In addition, are you aware of the exchanges between Dawkins and many former peers including Flew?

Dawkins is a brilliant man. There have been many brilliant men throughout history that have later amended, adapted and recounted suggestions put forward earlier in their careers. Dawkins, whose whole case is based on the assertion that believing in a creator of the universe is no different from believing in fairies at the bottom of the garden, now says that a serious case can be made for the idea that the universe was brought into being by some kind of purposeful force. A creator. Some of us already knew that, yes, largely by faith.

Flew, the celebrated philosopher and former high priest of atheism, spectacularly changed his mind and concluded There Is A God - that life had indeed been created by a governing and purposeful intelligence, a change of mind that occurred because he followed where the scientific evidence led him. The conversion of Flew, whose book contains a cutting critique of Dawkins’s thinking, has been dismissed with unbridled scorn by Dawkins – who now says "there is a serious case for the position that Flew now adopts!"

Richard Dawkins said, 'Jesus existed, I'll give you that one." during a recent debate with John Lennox. Why did he say that?

Quite an admission for Dawkins who has been arguing that Jesus probably didn't in fact exist.

Flew points out in his own book that Dawkins’s claim in The God Delusion that Einstein was an atheist is manifestly false, since Einstein had specifically denied that he was either a pantheist or an atheist. In the debate, under pressure from Lennox Dawkins was actually forced to retract his previous claim that Jesus had probably ‘never existed’.

Most intelligent observers ultimately note that there are limitations to where their understanding can take them. Can anyone of us be arrogant enough to even think we are a millinion light years away from comprehending the world system and the order within it? In my view, that many call it chaos goes part way to answering that question.

On a lighter note, take Bruce Almighty, if Dawkins or any other scientist, world leader, etc were given the authority to govern the world on all levels as Bruce was given in the movie, do you think a chaos on a macro level and up close, that is beyond our worse nightmares would not ensue. Surely then you would be able to see that there was always a much greater hand at play.

Can I also say that faith does not require proof or empirical evidence? The only ones that require proof are unbelievers. Some believers try to offer proof but it really is not necessary to them just as miracles are not required by believers.

My very last contribution.

All the best!

[joebloggs]

yes back to nappy duty toks, i've got little joe tugging my arm, he will not stop til i get up

either wants ice cream, chocolate or cookies

[Piamed]

yes back to nappy duty toks, i've got little joe tugging my arm, he will not stop til i get up

either wants ice cream, chocolate or cookies

Marikit waits until her nappy has been removed and then goes again.

[Mrs.JMajor]

My very last contribution.

I bet when you reply post,you put marikit on the sofa and saying to her "wait anak,i got something to sort out"

commercial break--

[joebloggs]

Marikit waits until her nappy has been removed and then goes again.

yes you have to be quick or

trouble is with little joe, he's not so little, thou 2 1/2, hes the height of a 4yr old , now he can open the fridge door, reach most things out of the cupboards, turn everything on and off, and if he can't reach something he will carry or drag a chair, so he can

[KeithD]

It's simple.

Religious folk are all mental nutters.

Non-religious folk are crazy 's

Kind of cancel each other out

[Piamed]

I bet when you reply post,you put marikit on the sofa and saying to her "wait anak,i got something to sort out"

commercial break--

Hehe! Marikit is sleepining and when Pia is asleep or busy I post!

yes you have to be quick or

trouble is with little joe, he's not so little, thou 2 1/2, hes the height of a 4yr old , now he can open the fridge door, reach most things out of the cupboards, turn everything on and off, and if he can't reach something he will carry or drag a chair, so he can

Oh my! I'm dreading that stage. Already paranoid about wires, ornaments, etc within a young child's reach!

It's simple.

Religious folk are all mental nutters.

Non-religious folk are crazy 's

Kind of cancel each other out

I can live with that. Ah, but then since you are, by your own admission, either a nutter or crazy, perhaps we should disregard what you just said.