if you don't believe then don't tick

[Damocles]

I think most intelligent and reasoned people are Agnostic rather than Atheist.

Agnostics are worse that god botherers if you ask me. Evoultion proves no designer made us.

Read god delusion, origin of the species or the selfish gene and you will understand my point.

-- Thu Mar 10, 2011 7:09 pm --

I contend that we are all atheists. It is just that I am atheistic about one God more than you. When you understand why you dismiss all other gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

- some clever twat

-- Thu Mar 10, 2011 7:17 pm --

Or the greatest show on earth, a bit dry but excellent. Indisputable evidence of evolution, including "lenski's work over the last 20 years with e coli bacteria.

Every single bit of that post is directly attributable to Dawkins in some way or another, the "some clever twat" was actually Dawkins.

Agnostics are worse that god botherers if you ask me. Evoultion proves no designer made us

Evolution proves nothing of the sort. NOTHING LIKE THIS. Either you are stretching the requirement for evidence or you have misunderstood evolution.
Evolution through means of natural selection proves how life has evolved over the billions of years; however, it doesn't prove abiogenesis.

 

[SWP's back]

Agnostics are worse that god botherers if you ask me. Evoultion proves no designer made us.

Read god delusion, origin of the species or the selfish gene and you will understand my point.

-- Thu Mar 10, 2011 7:09 pm --

I contend that we are all atheists. It is just that I am atheistic about one God more than you. When you understand why you dismiss all other gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

- some clever twat

-- Thu Mar 10, 2011 7:17 pm --

Or the greatest show on earth, a bit dry but excellent. Indisputable evidence of evolution, including "lenski's work over the last 20 years with e coli bacteria.

Every single bit of that post is directly attributable to Dawkins in some way or another, the "some clever twat" was actually Dawkins.

Agnostics are worse that god botherers if you ask me. Evoultion proves no designer made us

Evolution proves nothing of the sort. NOTHING LIKE THIS. Either you are stretching the requirement for evidence or you have misunderstood evolution.
Evolution through means of natural selection proves how life has evolved over the billions of years; however, it doesn't prove abiogenesis.

Ok a few things Damo, as much as I like and respect you and know you are a keen amateur scientist, I feel one the worlds leading evolutionary biologist's and current emeritus fellow of New College, Oxford, may carry a little more sway in this argument. You are entitled to your opinion ofcourse, but Dawkin's arguments are incredibly compelling.

Firstly, that quote "some clever twat" was not actually Dawkins at all, it was Stephen Roberts and a quick google would have shown this. I actually first read it on here and can't remember, though he may have, Dawkin's using it in any of his books. Also, the book "On the Origins of the Species" that I mentioned was by a fellow called Darwin, again not Dawkins.

Secondly, evolution dis-proves we were created in our form, as declared by the teachings of the major religions. Evolution proves that Adam and Eve, or humans being special and above animals in the scheme of things, to be false.

Your point about abiogenesis is correct, evolution does not prove it, though it is pedantic at best in the fact that we were not "designed" as the creatures we have evolved into. Any supreme being did not create humans, antelope or orchids. This "creator", at best created single celled organisms that evoled of thousands of millions of years into their present form. But current theory does suggest that this not happen and that the reducing atmosphere of the early world have provided the correct environment for abiogenesis. That in itself, is not not proven and is an incredibly interesting sphere of biology. Whatever your view on it, you must surely agree that it is fascinating.

Can we agree therefore, that evolution proves that none of the world's current religions to be precise or accurate and that humans were not "created" by a supreme being (certainly not on purpose), however a "god" can not, at this time be discounted for creating single celled organisms. Anything that took place after that time cannot be attributed to an almighty.

There is certainly more evidence to support abiogenesis than there is to support any of the current "en vogue" deities that people waste their time worshipping.

I shall leave you with a great quote

"It is often said, mainly by the 'no-contests', that although there is no positive evidence for the existence of God, nor is there evidence against his existence. So it is best to keep an open mind and be agnostic. At first sight that seems an unassailable position, at least in the weak sense of Pascal's wager. But on second thoughts it seems a cop-out, because the same could be said of Father Christmas and tooth fairies. There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can't prove that there aren't any, so shouldn't we be agnostic with respect to fairies?" - Richard Dawkins. Why I'm not an agnostic.

You can have that one as Dawkins ;-)

but I prefer

"Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?" - Douglas Adams

 

[BlueHammer85]

i beleive in God

 

[SWP's back]

i beleive in God

As is your right.

 

[Skashion]

There is a reason why we might believe there is a God and that is that the parameters of this universe appear to be finely tuned - for lack of a better expression. To explain this Dawkins uses a combination of the multiverse and the anthropogenic principle. He does not explain, nor even attempt to explain, why this is more likely than a creator. He simply says that a multiverse need not be more complex than a creator but from thereon in he's being very speculative and making assumptions about the complexities of a multiverse which may or may not exist. That's why I consider myself an agnostic atheist. As a species we simply do not know enough.

 

[BlueHammer85]

i beleive in God

As is your right.

dont tell me what my right is

 

[Damocles]

Ok a few things Damo, as much as I like and respect you and know you are a keen amateur scientist, I feel one the worlds leading evolutionary biologist's and current emeritus fellow of New College, Oxford, may carry a little more sway in this argument. You are entitled to your opinion ofcourse, but Dawkin's arguments are incredibly compelling.

Firstly, that quote "some clever twat" was not actually Dawkins at all, it was Stephen Roberts and a quick google would have shown this. I actually first read it on here and can't remember, though he may have, Dawkin's using it in any of his books. Also, the book "On the Origins of the Species" that I mentioned was by a fellow called Darwin, again not Dawkins.

The "one more God" quote was used by Dawkins in one of his TV programs. I've read Darwin's book ;)

Secondly, evolution dis-proves we were created in our form, as declared by the teachings of the major religions. Evolution proves that Adam and Eve, or humans being special and above animals in the scheme of things, to be false.

Agreed, evolution by natural selection does prove the Biblical accounts to be at best allegorical and at worse, fabrication.

Your point about abiogenesis is correct, evolution does not prove it, though it is pedantic at best in the fact that we were not "designed" as the creatures we have evolved into. Any supreme being did not create humans, antelope or orchids. This "creator", at best created single celled organisms that evoled of thousands of millions of years into their present form. But current theory does suggest that this not happen and that the reducing atmosphere of the early world have provided the correct environment for abiogenesis. That in itself, is not not proven and is an incredibly interesting sphere of biology. Whatever your view on it, you must surely agree that it is fascinating.

Abiogenesis as a theory is truly fascinating, and again I agree on everything that you have just written.

Can we agree therefore, that evolution proves that none of the world's current religions to be precise or accurate and that humans were not "created" by a supreme being (certainly not on purpose), however a "god" can not, at this time be discounted for creating single celled organisms. Anything that took place after that time cannot be attributed to an almighty.

Yes, but this wasn't what I was getting at earlier.

There is certainly more evidence to support abiogenesis than there is to support any of the current "en vogue" deities that people waste their time worshipping.

I shall leave you with a great quote

"It is often said, mainly by the 'no-contests', that although there is no positive evidence for the existence of God, nor is there evidence against his existence. So it is best to keep an open mind and be agnostic. At first sight that seems an unassailable position, at least in the weak sense of Pascal's wager. But on second thoughts it seems a cop-out, because the same could be said of Father Christmas and tooth fairies. There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can't prove that there aren't any, so shouldn't we be agnostic with respect to fairies?" - Richard Dawkins. Why I'm not an agnostic.

You can have that one as Dawkins ;-)

but I prefer

"Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?" - Douglas Adams

After reading through your post, I can see that we are differing on causality rather than science. I have not ruled out a designer of the whole Universe, rather than the entirely biologically based systems that you seem to be concentrating on.

I don't believe that proving that God had nothing to do with the progression of life means that has proven that there is no 'God' or creator being. Dawkins has successfully taught people about the biological systems that make up the appearance of life on this planet. He has not however, ruled out a designer. He has ruled out a designer as a guiding hand to nature, but not a designer of every system.

I look at it like this. Imagine the ancients trying to understand the Sun. Some would call it a God, other would call it a shining Moon and the rest would say "we don't know". What exactly is the 'correct' position? The only answer several hundred thousand years ago was "I don't know". Realities are completely dismissive, it isn't about who was right or wrong, it's about who can prove it.

 

[ElanJo]

I'm an agnostic atheist. (Credit to ElanJo for providing the reasoning for this term)

:)

It's a little annoying to see people say "I'm not an atheist, I'm an agnostic" since atheism/theism deals with belief (which is what this thread is about let's not forget) and agnosticism/gnosticism deals with knowledge. It's possible to be an agnostic theist tho almost everyone who says the that they're agnostic don't believe in a God.


If you (whoever reads this) do not actively believe in a God you are an atheist. Simple as that.

Why you don't believe will determine whether you're an agnostic atheist (otherwise known as weak atheist or negative atheist) or a gnostic atheist (otherwise known as a strong atheist or positive atheist).

Simply put:
Gnostic Theist = "I know that God/s exists" - This position requires proof
Agnostic Theist = "I believe in God/s" - This position requires justification
Gnostic Atheist = "I know that God/s do not exist" - This position requires proof
Agnostic Atheist = "I do not believe in a God" - This position is the default position and thus doesn't really require any justification

I'm both a gnostic and agnostic atheist. It just depends on the definition of the God in question. The Christian God, for example, simply does not exist. I know this for a fact. However, could it be possible that reality was created by some kind of "conscious being" (aka a God)? maybe, who knows? we're only just finding out how strange the universe is. There could even be fairies.

 

[SWP's back]

Damocles, thanks for that mate. I now understand where you were coming from and cannot disagree with anything you have written there from a theoretical point of view.

I would certainly say that there is enough evidence to remain atheist about any current (or past) man made religion however, no one will ever be certain about there being a "creator" of the universe. Nor can one ever discount fairies at the bottom of the garden or the celestial teapot.

(I must stop now on grounds of copyright infringement)<br /><br />-- Fri Mar 11, 2011 3:39 pm --<br /><br />

I'm an agnostic atheist. (Credit to ElanJo for providing the reasoning for this term)

:)

It's a little annoying to see people say "I'm not an atheist, I'm an agnostic" since atheism/theism deals with belief (which is what this thread is about let's not forget) and agnosticism/gnosticism deals with knowledge. It's possible to be an agnostic theist tho almost everyone who says the that they're agnostic don't believe in a God.


If you (whoever reads this) do not actively believe in a God you are an atheist. Simple as that.

Why you don't believe will determine whether you're an agnostic atheist (otherwise known as weak atheist or negative atheist) or a gnostic atheist (otherwise known as a strong atheist or positive atheist).

Simply put:
Gnostic Theist = "I know that God/s exists" - This position requires proof
Agnostic Theist = "I believe in God/s" - This position requires justification
Gnostic Atheist = "I know that God/s do not exist" - This position requires proof
Agnostic Atheist = "I do not believe in a God" - This position is the default position and thus doesn't really require any justification

I'm both a gnostic and agnostic atheist. It just depends on the definition of the God in question. The Christian God, for example, simply does not exist. I know this for a fact. However, could it be possible that reality was created by some kind of "conscious being" (aka a God)? maybe, who knows? we're only just finding out how strange the universe is. There could even be fairies.

Everytime I think that Bluemoon is going down the swanny. A poster will write something so clear and intelligable that my faith is restored.

Well done. I think you explained that quite excellently.

ps - I am with you. I am both a gnostic and agnostic atheist.

 

[Fame Monster]

Nice to see the lunatics disappear when talk of evidence begins.

Which lunatics would those be? Do you mean those that dare suggest that if you don't feel comfortable with any of the options, you shouldn't tick any of them and should leave it blank?

As far as I can see, people have merely debated which, if any, box one should tick.

Not sure why you really feel the need to insult anyone because their views might differ from yours but it does seem a common reaction from the atheist crowd.

It was the suggestion that there is more evidence for a Christian God than the tooth fairy that riled me. There is not. To say otherwise is lunacy.

'Lunatic' wasn't employed to be particularly pejorative, it was merely the use of the right term if you care to look it up in the dictionary. People seem to think that it is much more credible to worship a religious God than the tooth fairy or the moon. It is not.

Looking through my books on psychology, to believe in a Christian God is what the international diagnostic manual, the ICD 10, calls a 'first rank symptom'. This is because such a belief falls into the categories of 'primary delusion' and the subcategories, 'a delusion of grandeur', 'a delusion of persecution', and a 'delusion of reference'. If you display these symptoms for over 6 months i.e. if you believe in the Christian God for that amount of time, it is very likely that you would be classed as a 'Hebephrenic Schizophrenic'.

You might say that lunatic is the politer, and less esoteric synonym.

Personally, I think the op should change the title to, 'if you don't tick the no religion box, please see your doctor'.

I'm an agnostic atheist. (Credit to ElanJo for providing the reasoning for this term)

:)

It's a little annoying to see people say "I'm not an atheist, I'm an agnostic" since atheism/theism deals with belief (which is what this thread is about let's not forget) and agnosticism/gnosticism deals with knowledge. It's possible to be an agnostic theist tho almost everyone who says the that they're agnostic don't believe in a God.


If you (whoever reads this) do not actively believe in a God you are an atheist. Simple as that.

Why you don't believe will determine whether you're an agnostic atheist (otherwise known as weak atheist or negative atheist) or a gnostic atheist (otherwise known as a strong atheist or positive atheist).

Simply put:
Gnostic Theist = "I know that God/s exists" - This position requires proof
Agnostic Theist = "I believe in God/s" - This position requires justification
Gnostic Atheist = "I know that God/s do not exist" - This position requires proof
Agnostic Atheist = "I do not believe in a God" - This position is the default position and thus doesn't really require any justification

I'm both a gnostic and agnostic atheist. It just depends on the definition of the God in question. The Christian God, for example, simply does not exist. I know this for a fact. However, could it be possible that reality was created by some kind of "conscious being" (aka a God)? maybe, who knows? we're only just finding out how strange the universe is. There could even be fairies.

Amen Elanjo.