How many of you are atheists?

[I'm With Stupid]

Well if you'd read it in the context of my post, he was clearly referring to "believing in religion" in the sense of believing that it's good for society, offers moral leadership, etc, not actually believing all of the supernatural claims involved. I think it's wrong, but it's far less controversial to believe that religion is a good thing (even if it's wrong) than it is to believe in an all-powerful supernatural being with no evidence whatsoever.

 

[Skashion]

Well if you'd read it in the context of my post, he was clearly referring to "believing in religion" in the sense of believing that it's good for society, offers moral leadership, etc, not actually believing all of the supernatural claims involved. I think it's wrong, but it's far less controversial to believe that religion is a good thing (even if it's wrong) than it is to believe in an all-powerful supernatural being with no evidence whatsoever.

Not when you have to account for fine-tuning. Zealots like Hitchens and Dawkins just neglect it and hope nobody notices. It works on most people because most people (like my dad who was the one who lent me The God Delusion and he accepted it quite willingly) who read popular science do so because they don't know the science beneath which would contradict it. The only people really on solid ground are agnostic atheists who make no claim to knowledge or belief. Until fine-tuning is dealt with, the likes of Hitchens and Dawkins are little saner than those they decry.

 

[Ban-jani]

Well if you'd read it in the context of my post, he was clearly referring to "believing in religion" in the sense of believing that it's good for society, offers moral leadership, etc, not actually believing all of the supernatural claims involved. I think it's wrong, but it's far less controversial to believe that religion is a good thing (even if it's wrong) than it is to believe in an all-powerful supernatural being with no evidence whatsoever.

Not when you have to account for fine-tuning. Zealots like Hitchens and Dawkins just neglect it and hope nobody notices. It works on most people because most people (like my dad who was the one who lent me The God Delusion and he accepted it quite willingly) who read popular science do so because they don't know the science beneath which would contradict it. The only people really on solid ground are agnostic atheists who make no claim to knowledge or belief. Until fine-tuning is dealt with, the likes of Hitchens and Dawkins are little saner than those they decry.

Hitchens is superb at pointing at the hypocrisy & the irrational so called acts that come from "heaven".

 

[hilts]

Well if you'd read it in the context of my post, he was clearly referring to "believing in religion" in the sense of believing that it's good for society, offers moral leadership, etc, not actually believing all of the supernatural claims involved. I think it's wrong, but it's far less controversial to believe that religion is a good thing (even if it's wrong) than it is to believe in an all-powerful supernatural being with no evidence whatsoever.

Not when you have to account for fine-tuning. Zealots like Hitchens and Dawkins just neglect it and hope nobody notices. It works on most people because most people (like my dad who was the one who lent me The God Delusion and he accepted it quite willingly) who read popular science do so because they don't know the science beneath which would contradict it. The only people really on solid ground are agnostic atheists who make no claim to knowledge or belief. Until fine-tuning is dealt with, the likes of Hitchens and Dawkins are little saner than those they decry.

What is fine tuning?

 

[Rocket-footed kolarov]

Of all Hitchen's debates did he ever argue with somebody outside of an organised religion? This approach allowed him to construct a straw man that arguing against recognised Gods is on par with arguing against the vague god concept, that can never be debunked.

It is possible that this "god" exists but we have no way of knowing what it is, energy, force etc. The architect of the universe operating and overseeing the order of the universe unbeknownst to us. But we have no meaningful way of expressing this like Catholics do with their God and or Muslims etc. You can't worship the potential existence of the vaguest of ideas, and applying your own fictional interpretation to that concept like Deepak Chopra does or like the gods worshipped by people of established religions, are interpreted by theologians. It is intellectually dishonest and hypocritical, such a "god" could exist but without such evidence you assume he doesn't. It doesn't justify certainty that no god exists but some Atheists still do like to think they are sure it doesn't because it is a comforting thought. It is still a bit hypocritical, but I suppose if you don't behave in the same manner as Christopher Hitchens then it is alright.

 

[Gaylord du Bois]

One here.

 

[Rocket-footed kolarov]

Well if you'd read it in the context of my post, he was clearly referring to "believing in religion" in the sense of believing that it's good for society, offers moral leadership, etc, not actually believing all of the supernatural claims involved. I think it's wrong, but it's far less controversial to believe that religion is a good thing (even if it's wrong) than it is to believe in an all-powerful supernatural being with no evidence whatsoever.

Not when you have to account for fine-tuning. Zealots like Hitchens and Dawkins just neglect it and hope nobody notices. It works on most people because most people (like my dad who was the one who lent me The God Delusion and he accepted it quite willingly) who read popular science do so because they don't know the science beneath which would contradict it. The only people really on solid ground are agnostic atheists who make no claim to knowledge or belief. Until fine-tuning is dealt with, the likes of Hitchens and Dawkins are little saner than those they decry.

Hitchens is superb at pointing at the hypocrisy & the irrational so called acts that come from "heaven".[/quote

Hitchens was a hedonistic old tart who used to rent his arse to tories. It is very easy to debate with the religious, he was in his element, Hitchens used rhetoric though to colour his argument. He didn't actually listen to what his opponents actually had to say (though most of them had well worn apologetics and logical fallacy arguments such as Hitler-Stalin-in the name of atheism etc. If he had actually
debated with somebody who pointed out that god could exist as Skashion does then he would have been stumped. But then those kind of debates just don't happen.

Your alter ego also liked Hitchens...

 

[I'm With Stupid]

Well if you'd read it in the context of my post, he was clearly referring to "believing in religion" in the sense of believing that it's good for society, offers moral leadership, etc, not actually believing all of the supernatural claims involved. I think it's wrong, but it's far less controversial to believe that religion is a good thing (even if it's wrong) than it is to believe in an all-powerful supernatural being with no evidence whatsoever.

Not when you have to account for fine-tuning. Zealots like Hitchens and Dawkins just neglect it and hope nobody notices. It works on most people because most people (like my dad who was the one who lent me The God Delusion and he accepted it quite willingly) who read popular science do so because they don't know the science beneath which would contradict it. The only people really on solid ground are agnostic atheists who make no claim to knowledge or belief. Until fine-tuning is dealt with, the likes of Hitchens and Dawkins are little saner than those they decry.

For someone who claims to have read it, you clearly didn't read them very carefully. Dawkins is quite clear that philosophically speaking, he is one of the agnostic atheists you claim are on solid ground, and goes into quite a lot of detail about it. "Fine tuning" is just another example of the ever-retreating argument of "we don't know why this is the case, therefore God." So yes, it's quite unreasonable to believe in a god on that basis. The only good reason for believing in God is that you live somewhere where people will kill you if you don't.

 

[hilts]

Of all Hitchen's debates did he ever argue with somebody outside of an organised religion? This approach allowed him to construct a straw man that arguing against recognised Gods is on par with arguing against the vague god concept, that can never be debunked.

It is possible that this "god" exists but we have no way of knowing what it is, energy, force etc. The architect of the universe operating and overseeing the order of the universe unbeknownst to us. But we have no meaningful way of expressing this like Catholics do with their God and or Muslims etc. You can't worship the potential existence of the vaguest of ideas, and applying your own fictional interpretation to that concept like Deepak Chopra does or like the gods worshipped by people of established religions, are interpreted by theologians. It is intellectually dishonest and hypocritical, such a "god" could exist but without such evidence you assume he doesn't. It doesn't justify certainty that no god exists but some Atheists still do like to think they are sure it doesn't because it is a comforting thought. It is still a bit hypocritical, but I suppose if you don't behave in the same manner as Christopher Hitchens then it is alright.

The argument always seems to be big bang vs god and afterlife, i think the arrogance of man is that we presume if a god or creator exists that means we are somehow special and end up at the pearly gates. an argument towards a creator of the universe but we all die and that is it has just as much validity, the universe could have been created by a god(as a term) but it doesn't mean it ends well for us as human beings

I cannot think of one good reason why a god in terms of the bible wouldn't present himself to us

 

[Ban-jani]

Not when you have to account for fine-tuning. Zealots like Hitchens and Dawkins just neglect it and hope nobody notices. It works on most people because most people (like my dad who was the one who lent me The God Delusion and he accepted it quite willingly) who read popular science do so because they don't know the science beneath which would contradict it. The only people really on solid ground are agnostic atheists who make no claim to knowledge or belief. Until fine-tuning is dealt with, the likes of Hitchens and Dawkins are little saner than those they decry.

Hitchens is superb at pointing at the hypocrisy & the irrational so called acts that come from "heaven".[/quote

Hitchens was a hedonistic old tart who used to rent his arse to tories. It is very easy to debate with the religious, he was in his element, Hitchens used rhetoric though to colour his argument. He didn't actually listen to what his opponents actually had to say (though most of them had well worn apologetics and logical fallacy arguments such as Hitler-Stalin-in the name of atheism etc. If he had actually
debated with somebody who pointed out that god could exist as Skashion does then he would have been stumped. But then those kind of debates just don't happen.

Your alter ego also liked Hitchens...

You mean my housemate?

Yeah we've both read his book. I disagree entirely with Hitchens on Irag & politics but he makes some decent points against religion.