A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists
Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists
While I am what would be described here as an atheist I freely admit that I have no idea whether there is a God or not. I don't really see myself as agnostic because my outlook on life and the way I live it is based on the assumption that there isn't a God. It's a bit like the Big Bang thing. The scientists say that's how the Universe came into being and it seems to be fairly widely accepted to be the case. I can't say whether they're right or wrong because I don't understand a word of it. Consequently, it plays absolutely no part in my thinking, it is completely irrelevant to me, as is the notion of God.
Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists
It doesn't matter how you live your life, if you don't know whether or not there's a God, you're an agnostic, you idiot.Harbal wrote:While I am what would be described here as an atheist I freely admit that I have no idea whether there is a God or not. I don't really see myself as agnostic because my outlook on life and the way I live it is based on the assumption that there isn't a God.
You just don't get it do you? If you went to the trouble, you could gain at least a basic understanding of the Big Bang Theory. The information is out there and easily accessible. You might not understand every word but you would at least get an idea of how it works. God is completely different, you're not supposed to fucking understand, that's the whole point of it. Where would the credit be in having faith in something that made sense. It's a test, God needs to know that you'll accept any old tripe, no questions asked. It's only when you can do that, you will get on the admittance list for The Kingdom of Heaven. The last thing God wants is a load of souls floating round Heaven trying to make sense of things and asking stupid questions.It's a bit like the Big Bang thing. The scientists say that's how the Universe came into being and it seems to be fairly widely accepted to be the case. I can't say whether they're right or wrong because I don't understand a word of it. Consequently, it plays absolutely no part in my thinking, it is completely irrelevant to me, as is the notion of God.
Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists
I don't know whether or not the Big Bang Theory is true either. Does that make me an agnostic as well?Harbal wrote: It doesn't matter how you live your life, if you don't know whether or not there's a God, you're an agnostic, you idiot.
But I don't really care how it works. Just so long as it keeps working, that's good enough for me.You just don't get it do you? If you went to the trouble, you could gain at least a basic understanding of the Big Bang Theory. The information is out there and easily accessible. You might not understand every word but you would at least get an idea of how it works.
Well at least I'm doing that right then.God is completely different, you're not supposed to fucking understand,
It certainly sounds simpler but what if you don't like tripe?God needs to know that you'll accept any old tripe, no questions asked.
I'm pretty sure I don't believe in souls. Can you get away with believing in God but not in souls or do you have to buy the whole package? I mean, how implausible do things have to get before God gives you a break?The last thing God wants is a load of souls floating round Heaven trying to make sense of things and asking stupid questions.
Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists
No, it just makes you stupid.Harbal wrote: I don't know whether or not the Big Bang Theory is true either. Does that make me an agnostic as well?
It sounds like you'd be more at home with the theists then.But I don't really care how it works. Just so long as it keeps working, that's good enough for me.
Just swallow it without chewing.It certainly sounds simpler but what if you don't like tripe?
God doesn't give breaks, you either go all the way or you're fucking toast. You seem to be in an awkward situation: You're not smart enough to be a proper atheist yet you're not dumb enough to be a theist. So, I guess it's purgatory for you then, which, in terms of unpleasantness, would feel like being locked in a room with either bob evenson or Bill Willtrack, for eternity. Hell is probably like being locked in a room with bob evenson and Bill Willtrack, for eternity.I mean, how implausible do things have to get before God gives you a break?
Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists
This is so difficult, I don't know whether to be a theist or an atheist, which, I guess, makes me a double agnostic. What the fuck does God do with those.Harbal wrote:God doesn't give breaks, you either go all the way or you're fucking toast. You seem to be in an awkward situation: You're not smart enough to be a proper atheist yet you're not dumb enough to be a theist. So, I guess it's purgatory for you then, which, in terms of unpleasantness, would feel like being locked in a room with either bob evenson or Bill Willtrack, for eternity. Hell is probably like being locked in a room with bob evenson and Bill Willtrack, for eternity.I mean, how implausible do things have to get before God gives you a break?
Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists
C'mon guys... let's try to get along! You've both made some very good points... but in the end, we're all the same, right?Harbal wrote:No, it just makes you stupid.Harbal wrote: I don't know whether or not the Big Bang Theory is true either. Does that make me an agnostic as well?
Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists
No, I don't want to get along with him, he gets right up my nose.Lacewing wrote: C'mon guys... let's try to get along! You've both made some very good points... but in the end, we're all the same, right?
Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists
Don't listen to this halfwit Harbal, he doesn't know what he is talking about. No one knows if there is a god or not, not even theists. What matters is whether you believe it. The only people who definitely don't believe in god are atheists. Agnostics think we cannot know whether there is a god, because there is no evidence one way or the other, but they can still believe it.Some loudmouth wrote:It doesn't matter how you live your life, if you don't know whether or not there's a God, you're an agnostic, you idiot.
Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists
It's true, I don't know if there is a God. I don't mind if there is and I don't mind if there isn't, it dosn't make any difference to me. I figure if there is a God and he/she has done nothing to make me aware of his/her presence, then he/she must not have any interest in me. Far too busy administering the Universe, I imagine.uwot wrote: Don't listen to this halfwit Harbal, he doesn't know what he is talking about. No one knows if there is a god or not, not even theists. What matters is whether you believe it. The only people who definitely don't believe in god are atheists. Agnostics think we cannot know whether there is a god, because there is no evidence one way or the other, but they can still believe it.
Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists
They all refer to the place someone goes after death, so in that way they are the same, but there is much difference in what happens after the soul arrives.vegetariantaxidermy wrote:No they don't. 'Sheol' roughly translates as 'grave'. There's no punishment aspect. Anyway, you should be pleased. Now you don't have to worry yourself about burning and being tortured forever.thedoc wrote:Sheol in Hebrew, was translated into Hades in Greek, and then into Hell in English, so they all mean the same place.vegetariantaxidermy wrote: 'Sheol' does not mean hell, not even close to it.
Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists
I feel the same way.Harbal wrote:I don't mind if there is and I don't mind if there isn't, it dosn't make any difference to me.
Also... I'm not sure it really matters what role one plays on this Earth stage. I think the point is to ENJOY being part of the experience -- and the fewer divisions and less separateness one imagines, the more one MASTERS the enjoyment of all of it.
What if in the end one discovers that one was only arguing/fighting with oneself... and it was ALL oneself, all along?
Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists
I see that you didn't agree with my answer that everything is of God, so there is nothing to argue about. It seems that you are referring to a different group of theists than I am.Lacewing wrote:My question is not meaningless. I'm asking of the theist: WHY in the theist belief system, everything isn't of God? Clearly there are many things that theists judge and condemn as being wrong and evil. Why aren't THOSE things of God? Why are theists seeing so much that is NOT of God?thedoc wrote:But everything is "of God" just because we don't understand it doesn't make it one way or the other. Humans don't see things the same way that God might, so your question is meaningless.
Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists
I would agree that a person should be able to choose what is used for the swearing in.Lacewing wrote: To put this back into context, you said that Christians are only "stating" their beliefs, whereas I think theist beliefs are imposed much more broadly. So my questions were meant to give you an example of what YOU might experience if Bob's beliefs replaced theists beliefs. Since you seem unable to acknowledge that theism is imposed on non-theists, I was hoping to give you an example you could relate to by using Bob's bizarre beliefs. Thus, the following questions...
> How is that appropriate and necessary for Bob to repeatedly state what he believes over and over -- if nobody is asking... and it has already been stated... and anyone can go find more information if they want it?
> What if a U.S. president being sworn in had to place his hand on Bob's Ouzo manuscript? Or what if U.S. currency was imprinted with "In Ouzo We Trust"? Would you think that a belief system you didn't share was being imposed on you?
> Would you urge the end of such madness?
> Why should one belief system continually "talk over" other perspectives?
Okay... go ahead and misunderstand and slink around these questions too... or surprise me!
I would suggest that your choice of words is inflammatory and divisive, and not at all accurate.
We could have money with different logos printed on each, and the individual could choose which they wanted to use, but then would you also allow the business to refuse to accept a certain kind of money? If the customer is free to choose, shouldn't the business owner be free to choose what to accept and what to not accept? I believe that idea has been outlawed in the past.
Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists
You have repeatedly declared that there are no atheists but then you define the term as if it existed. You are attempting to tell everyone what you believe and implying that they must agree with you.surreptitious57 wrote: Where exactly have I tried to cram my beliefs down your throat? You are free to accept or reject anything I say
I have no jurisdiction over that at all. But it is interesting how you think that that is what I am trying to do here.
Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists
Oh but I do agree that it's ALL of the same stuff... or "god" if one wants to use that terminology. And I've expressed that repeatedly on this site. My point is that theism does not typically acknowledge that ALL is of "god" -- rather, theism judges and divides and condemns. I think it's reasonable for me to ask why that is. If that is not YOUR type of theism, are you still unable to see how MUCH of theism my question still applies to? Or are you just intent on defending theism and disputing whatever I point to?thedoc wrote:I see that you didn't agree with my answer that everything is of God, so there is nothing to argue about. It seems that you are referring to a different group of theists than I am.