I'm beginning to feel the furry, even though I shouldn't.

I thought he was talking about Juli, not my son.

Either way like I said in another post, I align more with anti-theism. Yet if they want to learn about a certain religion, then I'd help them research it. I think specific religious education is a little much for my boy at his current age. Learning about a god though seems ok for him now.
 
Ol' Diamondback Sturgeon said:
Going to have to explain that one to me.
Click to expand...

there is no proof there is a god, there is no finite proof there is no god. unless he reveals himself in some ridiculous way, or we discover it without a shred of a doubt.

neither stage has been reached, on either side. even dawkins describes himself as an "agnostic leaning incredibly towards atheism", but can't go the whole hog to "atheist".

the proof for atheism may be overwhelming, and there shouldn't be a question of if there is a god. there's more than likely not. i'm 98% certain of it. but noone can be 100% certain of it.

that is a theist stance.
 
polo said:
there is no proof there is a god, there is no finite proof there is no god. unless he reveals himself in some ridiculous way, or we discover it without a shred of a doubt.

neither stage has been reached, on either side. even dawkins describes himself as an "agnostic leaning incredibly towards atheism", but can't go the whole hog to "atheist".

the proof for atheism may be overwhelming, and there shouldn't be a question of if there is a god. there's more than likely not. i'm 98% certain of it. but noone can be 100% certain of it.

that is a theist stance.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. Ok. I see what you mean.

I've always been of the belief that if you claim something then you must prove it. Obviously people would have had to claim god exists first in order for people to claim he does exist. Therefor I believe those who claim he does bear the onus of proving the existence of their claim.

My disbelief in the existence of god comes not by way of proof, but rather by lack of proof in his existence.
 
polo said:
there is no proof there is a god, there is no finite proof there is no god. unless he reveals himself in some ridiculous way, or we discover it without a shred of a doubt.

neither stage has been reached, on either side. even dawkins describes himself as an "agnostic leaning incredibly towards atheism", but can't go the whole hog to "atheist".

the proof for atheism may be overwhelming, and there shouldn't be a question of if there is a god. there's more than likely not. i'm 98% certain of it. but noone can be 100% certain of it.

that is a theist stance.
Click to expand...
That's a very basic and misguided view of atheism.

Atheism does not mean "there is no god".

edit: nor does that even qualify as a theist stance. theism requires a belief in a deity. doubting whether or not one exists does not equate to belief
 
Last edited:
SemperFly said:
That's a very basic and misguided view of atheism.

Atheism does not mean "there is no god".

edit: nor does that even qualify as a theist stance. theism requires a belief in a deity. doubting whether or not one exists does not equate to belief
Click to expand...

oh so atheism needs read into? the word alone is not a sufficient communication?

grow up.
 
fly said:
I'd like to see a direct quote on that, since I read the God Delusion where he called Agnostics pussies.
Click to expand...

I read the God Delusion 2 days ago - and he says precisely that.

Not remember him referencing 'stages' of Agnosticism? Referring to himself as a 6 and to a 'Hardline Atheist' as a 7. "I have met very few 7's".

The book was still a piece of trumped up shit. Coming from the guy who wrote the Selfish Gene, which originally got me interested in cancers. Weak.

Also he doesn't call them pussies - he quotes the cleric at his old school calling them something similar.
 
polo said:
I read the God Delusion 2 days ago - and he says precisely that.

Not remember him referencing 'stages' of Agnosticism? Referring to himself as a 6 and to a 'Hardline Atheist' as a 7. "I have met very few 7's".

The book was still a piece of trumped up shit. Coming from the guy who wrote the Selfish Gene, which originally got me interested in cancers. Weak.

Also he doesn't call them pussies - he quotes the cleric at his old school calling them something similar.
Click to expand...

Well I read it a long time ago and will have to take your word since I can't be bothered to go find it. However, I seem to recall it going down differently.

And Dawkins is a horrible writer. The Blind Watchmaker, which is kinda the de facto sexual/natural selection book for the laymen, is a TERRIBLE read.
 
fly said:
Well I read it a long time ago and will have to take your word since I can't be bothered to go find it. However, I seem to recall it going down differently.

And Dawkins is a horrible writer. The Blind Watchmaker, which is kinda the de facto sexual/natural selection book for the laymen, is a TERRIBLE read.
Click to expand...

"Hence category 7 is in practice rather emptier than its opposite number, category 1, which has many devoted inhabitants. I count myself in category 6, but leaning towards 7- 1 am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden."

"6 Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."

Page 56.

I have heard the Blind Watchmaker is terrible - I try not to read Dawkins at all. I only read this because A) It was there B) I was bored.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back