51% of the British Population Believes in Creationism - Dawkins Says That They're "Pig-Ignorant"

coc wrote:

Yeah well, where is Pascal now?

Either in Heaven or in somebody's dahlias. Either way, he doesn't lose. With atheism, there is downside risk.

Unless you're including the risk of being murdered by a fanatic, no there is not.

coc wrote:

Unless you're including the risk of being murdered by a fanatic, no there is not.

There's an equal chance of being murdered by a fanatic as an atheist than not. In fact, your atheism would probably enrage the fanatic more, making them more likely to kill you.

Quite. That being Dawkins' main arguement against religion.

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

ibis wrote:

expat girl wrote:

Atheism is a faith, just like all the others.

I'm an atheist, and I partially endorse that message.

I don't understand that.

Atheism is a disbeleif in god. A - Theo. God NOT. So to call Atheism a faith is surely a piece of paper stuck in a printer.

dISBELIEF CANNOT EVER BE A BELIEF. wHICH IS WHAT A FAITH IS.

OOps sorry, me CAPS lock went on there.

Atheism is not a faith. Calling it a faith is rubbish.

Hence 'partially'. Atheism is not 'a faith', but it undoubtedly requires a step of faith - largely that nearly everyone is wrong, and always have been, and that there genuinely isn't anything behind the whole business except a quirk of human psychology, that the matter can be settled purely by reason, and so on. That is, if you think about it, quite a large step of faith.

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

ibis wrote:

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

ibis wrote:

expat girl wrote:

Atheism is a faith, just like all the others.

I'm an atheist, and I partially endorse that message.

Boo! Join Catholicism where you get money, fun and salvation!

I'm always up for someone trying to convert me. I have to warn you, though, I'm an extremely tough nut.

First Communion and Confirmation immediately sets you up for €3000 which is a nice wedge in this recessionary and post-liquidity times.

I also find the splendour of the Easter season to be a good bit of fun. The passion plays are interesting, the darkness of the Church on Easter Saturday captivating and the whole story of our salvation through Jesus Christ's sacrifice uplifting. As well as that, musical compositions like Gloria and Hallelujah are wonderful.

Finally, there is the salvation. If you sign up now you're putting down a nice deposit on life in the New Jerusalem. Think of Pascal's Wager, it's a sure-fire guarantee!

I find I appreciate all of those things without God. I find the world quite adequately immanent of itself - and I'd rather try to build the New Jerusalem (well, not Jerusalem as such) on earth.

Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven.

Amen.

All ye non-believers are not going to heaven you know.

Aragon wrote:

All ye non-believers are not going to heaven you know.

To a non believer such as myself, heaven and hell are states of mind. I'm mostly in heaven most of the time, but I require hell every now and then to understand and appreciate heaven. Besides, hell is where all the interesting folks will be at. A heaven full of people with the same views, opinions and outlooks would be hell and vice versa.

Hermes wrote:

Aragon wrote:

All ye non-believers are not going to heaven you know.

To a non believer such as myself, heaven and hell are states of mind. I'm mostly in heaven most of the time, but I require hell every now and then to understand and appreciate heaven. Besides, hell is where all the interesting folks will be at. A heaven full of people with the same views, opinions and outlooks would be hell and vice versa.

Now you put it like that...

Just to confound you I dont believe in an afterlife. Told ya I was a bit unorthodox.

Aragon wrote:

Hermes wrote:

Aragon wrote:

All ye non-believers are not going to heaven you know.

To a non believer such as myself, heaven and hell are states of mind. I'm mostly in heaven most of the time, but I require hell every now and then to understand and appreciate heaven. Besides, hell is where all the interesting folks will be at. A heaven full of people with the same views, opinions and outlooks would be hell and vice versa.

Now you put it like that...

Just to confound you I dont believe in an afterlife. Told ya I was a bit unorthodox.

Well, just to confound you, I do believe in an afterlife.

Hermes wrote:

Aragon wrote:

Hermes wrote:

Aragon wrote:

All ye non-believers are not going to heaven you know.

To a non believer such as myself, heaven and hell are states of mind. I'm mostly in heaven most of the time, but I require hell every now and then to understand and appreciate heaven. Besides, hell is where all the interesting folks will be at. A heaven full of people with the same views, opinions and outlooks would be hell and vice versa.

Now you put it like that...

Just to confound you I dont believe in an afterlife. Told ya I was a bit unorthodox.

Well, just to confound you, I do believe in an afterlife.

Where will you be? Will it be a spirt type afterlife or another manifestation of Hermes altogether?

Aragon wrote:

Hermes wrote:

Aragon wrote:

Hermes wrote:

Aragon wrote:

All ye non-believers are not going to heaven you know.

To a non believer such as myself, heaven and hell are states of mind. I'm mostly in heaven most of the time, but I require hell every now and then to understand and appreciate heaven. Besides, hell is where all the interesting folks will be at. A heaven full of people with the same views, opinions and outlooks would be hell and vice versa.

Now you put it like that...

Just to confound you I dont believe in an afterlife. Told ya I was a bit unorthodox.

Well, just to confound you, I do believe in an afterlife.

Where will you be? Will it be a spirt type afterlife or another manifestation of Hermes altogether?

Now there's the question of the night, or possibly the century. The answer is that I don't know and won't know until an observation is made.

There's this famous cat, an imaginary cat. Imagined first by Erwin Schrodinger. He stuck this imaginary cat into an imaginary box. Inside the imaginary box, there was an imaginary bowl of milk. In front of the bowl of milk there was a pressure mat, hooked up to a coin tosser. Erwin had never the once fed his imaginary cat, so it is reasonable to say that the cat was famished and would indeed go for the milk, given the opportunity. Once the mat is stepped on and the coin tossed two possibilities emerge. If it's heads, an odourless, tasteless and fatal poison, that will result in almost instantaneous death, is mixed in with the milk. If it's tails, nothing happens and Tiger will enjoy his first meal with no fatal side effects. The box, once Tiger is put inside it, is soundproof, lightproof and is immovable. So, Erwin throws Tiger into the box. After a few minutes, Erwin asks a very profound question. He asks is Tiger alive or dead? There's no way telling without looking inside the box. So what can he say about Tiger's current state of being, without looking into the box?

Tiger is in a superposition of states. Tiger is both alive and dead. Welcome to Quantum Mechanics.

Schrodinger's Cat is possibly the most famous and successful thought experiment ever conducted. And the theory behind quantum mechanics is the most successful theory that man has ever had the good fortune to encounter. The quantum nature of the universe is built upon uncertainty and probability. There are two main interpretations of Quantum theory. The Copenhagen interpretation and the Many Worlds interpretation. The Many Worlds interpretation is quite interesting from a theological perspective. It suggests that each and every possibility that crops up in the universe, results in the universe splitting into a number of separate universes, equal to the number of potential outcomes presented by the possibility. In other words, should I die in this universe, there are many more universes in which I avoid the cause of my death. Indeed, there's a good argument to be had that would suggest that I will survive for eternity and indeed that I've died already, countless times.

I don't need a sense of the divine to experience the wonder that theists allude to. The reality that is presented to us is more than enough for me.

Hermes wrote:

Aragon wrote:

Hermes wrote:

Aragon wrote:

Hermes wrote:

Aragon wrote:

All ye non-believers are not going to heaven you know.

To a non believer such as myself, heaven and hell are states of mind. I'm mostly in heaven most of the time, but I require hell every now and then to understand and appreciate heaven. Besides, hell is where all the interesting folks will be at. A heaven full of people with the same views, opinions and outlooks would be hell and vice versa.

Now you put it like that...

Just to confound you I dont believe in an afterlife. Told ya I was a bit unorthodox.

Well, just to confound you, I do believe in an afterlife.

Where will you be? Will it be a spirt type afterlife or another manifestation of Hermes altogether?

Now there's the question of the night, or possibly the century. The answer is that I don't know and won't know until an observation is made.

There's this famous cat, an imaginary cat. Imagined first by Erwin Schrodinger. He stuck this imaginary cat into an imaginary box. Inside the imaginary box, there was an imaginary bowl of milk. In front of the bowl of milk there was a pressure mat, hooked up to a coin tosser. Erwin had never the once fed his imaginary cat, so it is reasonable to say that the cat was famished and would indeed go for the milk, given the opportunity. Once the mat is stepped on and the coin tossed two possibilities emerge. If it's heads, an odourless, tasteless and fatal poison, that will result in almost instantaneous death, is mixed in with the milk. If it's tails, nothing happens and Tiger will enjoy his first meal with no fatal side effects. The box, once Tiger is put inside it, is soundproof, lightproof and is immovable. So, Erwin throws Tiger into the box. After a few minutes, Erwin asks a very profound question. He asks is Tiger alive or dead? There's no way telling without looking inside the box. So what can he say about Tiger's current state of being, without looking into the box?

Tiger is in a superposition of states. Tiger is both alive and dead. Welcome to Quantum Mechanics.

Schrodinger's Cat is possibly the most famous and successful thought experiment ever conducted. And the theory behind quantum mechanics is the most successful theory that man has ever had the good fortune to encounter. The quantum nature of the universe is built upon uncertainty and probability. There are two main interpretations of Quantum theory. The Copenhagen interpretation and the Many Worlds interpretation. The Many Worlds interpretation is quite interesting from a theological perspective. It suggests that each and every possibility that crops up in the universe, results in the universe splitting into a number of separate universes, equal to the number of potential outcomes presented by the possibility. In other words, should I die in this universe, there are many more universes in which I avoid the cause of my death. Indeed, there's a good argument to be had that would suggest that I will survive for eternity and indeed that I've died already, countless times.

I don't need a sense of the divine to experience the wonder that theists allude to. The reality that is presented to us is more than enough for me.

I'm very happy for you at that H. Not a lot of difference between us really, the way you put it above.

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

That said, they still produce damn good University Challenge teams. Lincoln College Oxford are a fair contender for the win this year, though I'm hoping St. Johns College, Cambridge get it since 75% of the team is Irish and their college is twinned with Trinity.

A friend of mine is on the St John's College team.

expat girl wrote:

coc wrote:

I'd recommend 'The Selfish Gene'. It is a modern classic and in no way 'evangelical' or preachy like 'The God Delusion', though it is not primarily concerned with the topic at hand. 'A Devil's Chaplain' is probably your best bet - it's a collection of essays and articles, so you can dip in and out at your convenience.

for balance (and a good laugh), can I recommend the Screwtape Letters?? The selfish gene, blind watchmaker etc are all good; Dawkins is at his best when he sticks to evolutionary theory.

Atheism is a faith, just like all the others.

Dawkins is getting as rabid as some of the US preachers and Muslim fundies he interviewed on his TV programmes. He gave the Bishop of Oxford no time at all, and cut him off when he looked about to say something intelligent....as an ex-atheist, I think he could have made the atheism argument much more subtly. I mean, it was ridiculous, he tried to blame the Holocaust and Hitler's hatred of Jews, on Christianity, when many of Hitler's "cabinet" were into astrologers and dabbled in Satanism. Finally, Hitler abused DARWIN's theories, not Christ's to argue that the Jews were "untermenschen" and therefore that they should be subject to "the final solution". The flawed theory of eugenics was a sorry offshoot of evolutionary theory, not Christianity (or any other religion). Dawkins claim that religion was the cause of the biggest massacres of human history is also just plain wrong. Stalin and Mao claimed to be atheists. if he had said "ideology", he would have been closer. But not all beliefs relate to religion or the supernatural.

Disclaimer: I don't blame Darwin for Hitler, nor do I blame Marx or Engels for Stalin and Mao.

What an interesting post expatgirl. I enjoyed it. I wish it wasn't so late. But I dispute that atheism is a faith, as it is arrived at from an opposite thought process to religion. You can't blame religion for atheism.

Quote :

What an interesting post expatgirl. I enjoyed it. I wish it wasn't so late. But I dispute that atheism is a faith, as it is arrived at from an opposite thought process to religion. You can't blame religion for atheism.

How so?

Comparative from Economist article:

You can see my own little green pixel of opinion just beside the white line ...

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

coc wrote:

Yeah well, where is Pascal now?

Either in Heaven or in somebody's dahlias. Either way, he doesn't lose. With atheism, there is downside risk.

Oh really? "Believing" in God because you actually don't know (NB: you actually don't know) whether or not he exists but you think believing will get you more benefits on balance of probabilities, isn't exactly what I call "faith".

Faith is taking a factual assertion to be true without any evidence - which, incidentally, is exactly why atheism is a faith.

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

coc wrote:

Yeah well, where is Pascal now?

Either in Heaven or in somebody's dahlias. Either way, he doesn't lose. With atheism, there is downside risk.

What if he's in Hell for picking the wrong God to worship (you know ... Homer's wager)?

I love how people scorn others who believe that some creator caused life. They believe in even a more remote possibility, that nothing caused life.

youngdan wrote:

I love how people scorn others who believe that some creator caused life. They believe in even a more remote possibility, that nothing caused life.

Uh oh...

evercloserunion wrote:

Faith is taking a factual assertion to be true without any evidence - which, incidentally, is exactly why atheism is a faith.

I would suggest, with all due respect, that your understanding of atheism is somewhat confused. I take it you've heard the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument?