How many of you are atheists?

[Tourist since 1971]

Yes, thank God.

 

[crazyg]

Yes, thank God.

Finally, the quote we've been waiting for!

 

[Skashion]

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.

Oh aye, yeah, I'm lying about having read it aren't I... It was an enormous waste of my time but now I at least know what a charlatan he is. He spent about two hundred pages setting up his sky cranes and hooks argument and then when it got to explaining fine-tuning, he had about one paragraph on a multiverse. It was laughable. His entire argument hinges on it, he's built up this entire huge argument about something which is designed needing a designer, but when it gets to the top of the argument, and the universe still needs to satisfy the fine-tuning problem whereas a creator deity needs no more sky cranes, he barely gives the a multiverse, the best scientific explanation we have for fine-tuning a paragraph. But that's his argument totally nullfied. His entire argument that no matter how complex we are, a designer would be more complex, runs out of puff and stalls next to the creator deity answer and he barely says a word... Completely pointless. As to whether Dawkins is agnostic atheist, no, he isn't. On his seven point scale he rates himself as a 6.9 i.e. nearly certain that God doesn't exist. That is a clear claim to knowledge.

 

[Skashion]

What is fine tuning?

If I think he's talking about what I think he's talking about then fine tuning is the idea that life could not have arisen if you change certain Universal constants to a different value.

The problem I have with this is that it is somewhat self-defeating. Life couldn't have arisen under any other circumstances so to point at those laws is circular logic. Life exists because those laws exists which we know because life exists because those laws exists which we know because life exists. Etc.

I might have gotten his idea of fine tuning wrong but to me it isn't something that needs to be addressed.

I have to say I'm quite surprised at your opinion on this. If I held your views God would be dead. Instead you seem to believe that a creator deity remains viable, but why?

 

[Damocles]

What is fine tuning?

If I think he's talking about what I think he's talking about then fine tuning is the idea that life could not have arisen if you change certain Universal constants to a different value.

The problem I have with this is that it is somewhat self-defeating. Life couldn't have arisen under any other circumstances so to point at those laws is circular logic. Life exists because those laws exists which we know because life exists because those laws exists which we know because life exists. Etc.

I might have gotten his idea of fine tuning wrong but to me it isn't something that needs to be addressed.

I have to say I'm quite surprised at your opinion on this. If I held your views God would be dead. Instead you seem to believe that a creator deity remains viable, but why?

There's no reason to discount it as a possibility. As boring as an answer that is.

 

[Skashion]

There's no reason to discount it as a possibility. As boring as an answer that is.

The enormous complexity of a designer? Why needlessly introduce massive amounts of complexity without a damn good reason?

 

[Damocles]

There's no reason to discount it as a possibility. As boring as an answer that is.

The enormous complexity of a designer? Why needlessly introduce massive amounts of complexity without a damn good reason?

I don't which is why I'm an atheist. I just also don't dismiss anything because to do so is to claim knowledge in an area of ignorance.

 

[Skashion]

I can't see where you're coming from. Sounds very hippy not to reject something because we can't disprove it.

 

[Chancy Termites]

I can't see where you're coming from. Sounds very hippy not to reject something because we can't disprove it.

No reason why the Flying Spaghetti Monster is any less likely to exist than the Abrahamic God when you think about it.

 

[Brightwell’s left peg]

I am......God help me!

Although watching David Silva play each week sometimes has me wondering.