Well, that’s what Jehannette thinks in another thread. Which I didn’t want to derail, but did want to answer, so I hope it’s OK to start another.
Well, I don’t mind saying that I have no idea how the universe came into being. There are lots of things that I don’t know and I’m probably leaving it a little late to get all the answers. But I do know some people who are quite definite as to how it all came into existence. Some Christians, some Hindu, one Vietnamese and one or two Aboriginals amongst others. As you rightly point out, your choice is the Abrahamic God.
It’s not me (as an atheist you should be arguing with. I don’t know what the answer is. You should be talking to the others who say they know. Let me know when you’ve reached a consensus and we’ll take it from there.
I think that the idea that the Universe in infinite in extent and age went out of the window some time ago. The Steady State was replaced by something you may have heard about: The Big Bang (from an idea by a Catholic priest – Lemaitre). That’s the best scientific theory we have at the moment. Why do you think that atheists must assert that it’s wrong?
I don’t believe that. Je pense, donc je suis. There’s someone in here, I can tell. But a product of mindless evolution? Well, you have that right. I’m a chance event and I thank your God (and everyone else’s) for the brief opportunity to experience life. And I believe I have free will.
Hey, I didn’t exist before I was born. There wasn’t a ‘me’ for an awfully long time before I was born and there won’t be a ‘me’ a very long time after I die. I don’t see a problem with that.
Apologies, there apperas to be a limit on the size of posts, so I’ve had to split this:
I think you’re confusing emotion with inanimate reactions. I could care less about the molecules that were rearranged to allow you to read this. But I do care about music, love, hope, passion etc. Only a fool would think that someone who didn’t believe in a particular god could not care. Are you going to suggest that you love your children more than I love mine because I’m an atheist? If not, the point you just made is, well…pointless.
You’re repeating yourself. But one phrase is nearly correct: Evolution is stupid. It sounds like you do get it to a certain extent. There’s no intelligence behind it (maybe I should have used a capital ‘I’).
If you mean that moral values change over time and in certain circumstances, then yes, you’d probably be right. If you mean that you and I couldn’t agree what we consider to be morally correct and morally wrong, then you are probably wrong. If you are suggesting that I can’t decide myself what is morally correct, then you are suggesting that you personally need to be told. Is it only your belief in God that stops you from doing bad things? I certainly hope not.
I’m sorry, I’m not sure of your point. Why do you put ‘wrong’ in inverted commas? I don’t think you’ll find many people who think it’s a good idea. And I don’t think you’ll find many people who think that it’s a bad idea because it’s culturally incorrect. I don’t know about you, but I base my ideas on what is morally acceptable not on whether the act, either by the act itself, or the omission of the act, causes harm to another person.
To that end, we, as a civilisation, have become more civilised. Quite possibly my great great etc grandfather went around with his mates raping women because they felt no empathy towards them. To that extent, morality is subjective.
Most people who supported Hitler were Catholic. And your comment re Pius XII is noted. But we now disavow Hitler because he lost? I know that victors generally get to write the history, but good grief. I thought that the fact that he laid Europe to waste and killed tens of millions of people might have something to do with him getting a bad press.
You mean apart from pray for the guy? Maybe drop him a line suggesting that murdering millions of Jews was not such a good idea, perhaps.
I don’t believe you.
It’s not his whole argument and I’ll skip most of this in any case, thanks. Going into great detail about the odds of God’s existence is an exercise in futility. You seem, in any case, to be missing the point. Which is that Dawkins is arguing against certainty. As Voltaire said: Doubt is uncomfortable, but certainty is absurd. And Dawkins knows this full well – he’s a scientist. A scientist, by definition, and despite what you might believe, cannot say anything with 100% certainty. That’s almost one of the definitions of science.
So he will readily admit, as will I, that it is impossible to say that ‘God does not exist’ with 100% certainty. Hence his scale, (he used small numbers to not confuse people). I don’t think that he works it out each time. He’s picking a figure out of the air to represent his aversion to dogma.
I think it only makes sense if someone else presumes the existence of gods. Don’t be so self-centred. It’s not just your god in whom atheists don’t believe.
It’s funny that they never come back with some information that they could not have got any other way except by dying and coming back. Unless you know of some, perhaps?
It’s not one I’d use. I can’t see why, if He existed, He wouldn’t let us prove ourselves by eliminating it ourselves. I do know that there’s an argument that says that pain (in the world out there, beyond the camp fire) has got to be the cruellest way possible to set up a system of life. That almost every animal dies in terror and agony would be a black mark against any particular god that set it up that way.
I don’t think that even the Pope would put forward an argument for an actual Adam and Eve. Mitochondrial Eve and hermale counterpart didn’t even live at the same time. I can post you information on that if you like.
The only thing that that shows is that you don’t understand the concept of probability. Do you know the probability of someone winning a lottery that a million people have entered? It’s 1. But wait, you cry – someone has to win. Yeah, that’s right.
Get a pack of cards, shuffle them and deal 4 cards. Do you know the probability of you getting that exact sequence? It’s over 6.5 million to one. But wait, you cry - you have to nominate the cards before you deal. Yeah, that’s right.
Well, we don’t all think atheism is stupid. I hope atheists don’t all think Catholics are stupid either. I rather enjoy the atheist threads. I appreciate the honest searching and impressive list of books a lot of atheists have read. And the good vocabulary, too. We all should be so diligent and analytical in our approach to belief.
I agree. There are “stupid” Catholics just as there are “stupid” atheists. And each “side” may see obvious flaws in the logic of the other argument. But one cannot deny the personal experiences of each individual that influence their choice to believe in God or believe that there is not a god.
I pray that both sides of the debate will come to appreciate the unique circumstances behind each individual’s beliefs - and not just dismiss their beliefs as “stupid.”