We Need To Make A Stand

[Cliff Rogers]

...Don't theoretise (new word?) this time, Darren. Just a simple answer. ....

Uh oh.... I smell a petard... look out for your hoist!!!

[Wongo]

God is in jail.


That’s where Paris Hilton found him.

[Ruddigar]

God is a 6000' tall Red Jelly Bean.

Pish. The closest thing we have to a God is the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Surely you've been touched by his noodly appendage?

[Cliff Rogers]

....Surely you've been touched by his noodly appendage?

I use a spoon.

[Gra]

God is in jail.


That’s where Paris Hilton found him.

didn't know he was lost....

He seems a bit like Wally, everyone seems to be finding him all over the place

[Gra]

I use a spoon.

oh no Cliff is THE FLEA

[Brown Dog]

OK, well let us know how you go with your evangelism

edit: I dont think evangelism is the correct word to decribe my argument I have said nothing in relation to the the gospel and its teachings.

I prefer to think of it as consciousness raising...as I said before

It's not so much that religion is given too much respect (in fact it's quite the opposite I reckon) it's that the debates inevitably become heated and it all comes down to a person's right to believe what they want. I'm all for it personally, I agree 100% that too much religious interference in day to day life is a bad thing.

with that point Im not debating a persons right to belief in anything....just (as I have already said ) the right to debate and question that belief. Examples can be given where religion does get preferential treatment.

debates inevitably become heated

that applies to anything, its not just religion specific as we have seen from the great sharpening debate . I certainly have no intention of becoming heated . Its all just in good fun

Because an atheist has no more proof that god does not exist (or is dead) than a theist does that he exists (or is alive). So making absolute statements one way or the other without proof is, to me, illogical. ".

Proof is such a finite word....I prefer evidence. It might be symantics to some, but in my argument it is important. I never said I have proof that god does not exist...I said evidence points too or is more on the side of, ie more probable that he doesnt. As an agnostic you sit on the fence, as a confessed athiest I stand on the side of the fence that currently has the most evidence. When or if the evidence swings the other way I will believe in a creationist god. My beliefs are by no means what could be called fundamentaly athiest....I have already admitted that by saying I agree there is no conclusive proof god does not exist, without that proof I cant definitivley say there is no god, I believe no one can

It's like saying "there is/is not life on other planets" rather than "there could be life on other planets

On that point I am agnostic

who said religion cant be argued logically

[silentC]

Then you are a 'weak atheist' which is more like an agnostic than a 'strong atheist'. A strong atheist denies the existence of god/s.

Evidence is not proof. You cannot say this is because I have evidence. You can use the evidence to attempt to prove or disprove your hypothesis. There is evidence for god, there is evidence against. I find the evidence against more compelling but there is no proof (nor do I believe there ever can be). You can call that sitting on the fence if you want, but I wont be compelled to make a decision one way or the other.

[Bleedin Thumb]

I can't find it in the script.... I think you made it up. (or remembered it from Kingswood Country )

No I looked it up and couldn't find either...Looks like it must have been Ted.


And also if there is not life on other planets who the hell was driving that flying saucer?

[Ruddigar]

IMO religion gets a little to much quiet respect. Whats wrong with asking questions ? and debating the answers you are given ?

I also dont see how respectful debate is against the rules.

'Snot the debate that's against the rules. It's the subject matter that ruffles a few feathers.

http://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com...ad.php?t=11512

[Ruddigar]

And also if there is not life on other planets who the hell was driving that flying saucer?

funkychicken

[silentC]

The way I see it, the whole debate is pointless because what you are asking a religious person to do is to forgoe the very thing that makes them religious, which is the faith that their invisible friend does exist. And what they are asking you to do is to accept that he exists. Neither of those things is going to happen. All the debate about the truth of the bible, the age of the earth, evolution vs creationism that is used to try to win the argument would crumble away if you remove the idea of faith. Without faith, there is no longer anything to argue about.

I find it amusing that you have creationists trying to find evidence to counter evolutionist theory, Trying to use science against itself. Science would drop evolution theory like a hot potato if someone came up with something better. It still doesn't prove the existence of god.

And vice versa. Say you could prove that the bible was actually complete fiction. Do you think that would bring an end to christianity?

[Zed]

Too many greenies to hand out in this thread.

I quite like Douglas Adams take on religion Ie the bit where he indicates that without faith god is nothing, and proof belies faith thus if you get proof it negates faith and removes the need for faith therefore god cant exist and thus vanishes in a puff of logic. or some such thing...

I love it. He must a spent some time navel contemplating over that one...

all th god botherers should keep it to themselves, there'd be less war and swearing at the front door.

Anyone watch that show on SBS about the freak Mormon polygamists ? I wonder how truthful that is... surely they cant be THAT good looking, I imagine polygamy is so ugly people can get married but at least the spouse doesnt have to shag an ugly person too much due to having to spread themselves around...
see my auto signature...

[Brown Dog]

Then you are a 'weak atheist' which is more like an agnostic than a 'strong atheist'. A strong atheist denies the existence of god/s.

You can call it what ever you want. But I agree there are levels to theism and atheism. In fact Dawkins (who I agree with) suggest there are 7 levels or spectrum of possiblities

1. strong theist 100% pobability of god

2.Very high prob. but short of 100% ie " I stongly believe in God but cant be certain. I live my life on the assumption that he is there"

3. Higher than 50% but not much....technically agnostic but leaning towards theism ie "Im very uncertain but im inclined to believe in God.

4 50 50 "gods existance and non-existance are equally fesible"

5. less than 50% technically agnostic but leaning toward atheism

6. Very low probability, but short of 0% ie "God is very improbable and I live my life on the assumption that he is not"

7. Stong atheist "I know there is no God"


I would call my self a 6 leaning towards 7...so on the scale of things I wouldnt call it "weak" maybe more defacto Atheist


Evidence is not proof. You cannot say this is because I have evidence.

Why not, isnt that how court cases are decided every day...why cant I apply the same logic to the religion debate ?

There is evidence for god,
What evidence ?
I dispute that there is any evidence for God. Hence my atheistic stance
.

[MurrayD99]

What happens on Friday?

Friday is the day each week 'pon which the meaning of life is explored. Yer'll need a password and a creative mind.... (no, no pun; well...)