How many of you are atheists?

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I think it's highly unlikely there's a god. Less than 2% would be my guess.

 

[stony]

I think it's highly unlikely there's a god. Less than 2% would be my guess.

Well I'm an atheist and I thank god for that.

 

[peoffrey]

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.

How many people began to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster as adults?

I'm a devout Agnostic these days and spent years agonising over faith and what life truly meant. I can't ever see myself being a hardcore Atheist because I've never managed to shake the existence of a God / higher being despite it seeming a fairly irrational school of thought when we look at evidence.

 

[Ban-jani]

I used to like Hitchens, he was entertaining when he was in his element, but his debate with religion was just to satisfy his ego and elevate him to an intellectual level that he wasn't going to reach another way. The politics of Hitchens is essentially what turned me off, this is more of an intellectually demanding sphere and he took the easy option, he justified war on behalf of anti-theism or anti fundamentalism in the same manner that the Taliban justify their war or Al-Qaeda their terrorism. He was a grade A arsehole who spun the illusion that religion poisons everything but then at the same time as taking the moral high ground justified military imperialism in which many innocents needlessly lost their lives.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying. I just like his points on God's so called intentions etc.

I once saw a youtube comment with the backhanded compliment(after the insult of something along the lines of warmonger or neo-con) "he could debate religious people though". That is how we should view Hitchens. He was entertaining, he wrote a good rant, he was a great orator and skilled debater (whether he used clean or dirty tricks) but he debated with people who had circular arguments and arguments formed in ignorance to science or even a good level of education in some instances. Why should we heap praise on him for that? For arguing with a group of selected idiots, or the brainwashed, and treading well worn ground in which their belief in god was debunked? He wasn't original, but he had his own style.

I have seen him debate with some well educated University professors on religion, who were Christian, Muslims etc. He's just very good at picking holes in the morality of holy books & why the so called gods acted in certain ways.

His views on the US & UK's foreign policy however, I completely disagree with. Didn't he actually used to be a left wing socialist who disagreed with Thatcher, then went completely the other way?

 

[pominoz]

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.

Krauss on "fine tuning", i would say it is being dealt with.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIDlIWYRjK8[/youtube]

 

[Skashion]

Krauss on "fine tuning", i would say it is being dealt with.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIDlIWYRjK8[/youtube]

I quite like listening to Krauss, but nowhere in there did he deal with it. How do you think he dealt with it?

 

[NPBlue]

Fair enough, I take your points on board.

Like I wrote, I have an inner belief that God, or something, is out there.

I know you love your science and space travel, but can't you also accept that some of us, for whatever reason, believe He exists?

I don't know if He exists or not, it's my choice and if I'm wrong when I die and I face an eternity of nothing, then so be it.

All I was saying was that my belief has helped me cope, and it has. It has brought me comfort.

Science may, in your mind, give answers to everything, but in my mind, science doesn't solve everything, especially when you believe something like God exists.

The big bang happened, but who started it?

I have no problem with people believing whatever they want and have often taken issue on here with atheists who have been extremely disrespectful to others faith.

As I have tried to explain earlier, the very question of who started the Big Bang is an invalid question because people aren't really understanding what that event was.

I also take issue with the fact that you believe that the Big Bang needed a creator but you have no problem believing in a deity that has no creator. Why cannot you just cut out the middle man?

Well, from my point of view, you are looking for a scientific answer that maybe, just maybe, has no scientific answer.

I don't have an issue with science solving anything whatsoever, but I don't recall reading anything that proved how the matter involved in the creation of the universe arrived, or was created.

Perhaps my understanding of science is not up to speed, but the ball of stuff, or whatever it was that exploded to create the universe and everything we know, well, where did it come from?

I't seems to me that physicists and mathematicians have enough difficulty trying to understand just what happened in the nano seconds after the big bang, but how did the stuff that exploded get there?

 

[Blue Til Death]

Religion is the cheap, card cut, additive riddled smack of the people. The dealers don't believe in their product, but it sells quickly and makes them rich so what the fuck.
There is no god smack heads, but don't be afraid, there is no devil either, just life, then death, enjoy the ride while you can.. !

Does this make me an Atheist..?

 

[pominoz]

Krauss on "fine tuning", i would say it is being dealt with.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIDlIWYRjK8[/youtube]

I quite like listening to Krauss, but nowhere in there did he deal with it. How do you think he dealt with it?

From 2-05 to 3-00 mins.

We are living in a universe and at a time in the universes history, where life is possible.
In most of the universes history there was no life, we are just a product of the changing conditions in the universe.

"Fine tuning" demands a "tuner", it is just a god of the gaps argument, with William Lane Craig, as its biggest mouthpiece.

 

[pominoz]

Fair enough, I take your points on board.

Like I wrote, I have an inner belief that God, or something, is out there.

I know you love your science and space travel, but can't you also accept that some of us, for whatever reason, believe He exists?

I don't know if He exists or not, it's my choice and if I'm wrong when I die and I face an eternity of nothing, then so be it.

All I was saying was that my belief has helped me cope, and it has. It has brought me comfort.

Science may, in your mind, give answers to everything, but in my mind, science doesn't solve everything, especially when you believe something like God exists.

The big bang happened, but who started it?

I have no problem with people believing whatever they want and have often taken issue on here with atheists who have been extremely disrespectful to others faith.

As I have tried to explain earlier, the very question of who started the Big Bang is an invalid question because people aren't really understanding what that event was.

I also take issue with the fact that you believe that the Big Bang needed a creator but you have no problem believing in a deity that has no creator. Why cannot you just cut out the middle man?

Well, from my point of view, you are looking for a scientific answer that maybe, just maybe, has no scientific answer.

I don't have an issue with science solving anything whatsoever, but I don't recall reading anything that proved how the matter involved in the creation of the universe arrived, or was created.

Perhaps my understanding of science is not up to speed, but the ball of stuff, or whatever it was that exploded to create the universe and everything we know, well, where did it come from?

I't seems to me that physicists and mathematicians have enough difficulty trying to understand just what happened in the nano seconds after the big bang, but how did the stuff that exploded get there?

I know Damo has issues with Krauss stating his hypothesis as fact (fair enough), but i love this lecture, even i can get my head around most of it.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZiXC8Yh4T0[/youtube]