sorry..........

[lAmBoY]

That's such bollox.

I say he has an answer, its really 'atheists have an answer'.
dawkins is a prominent scholar and an atheist spokesperson. Why would you think its bollox? Its basically evolution theory versus religious theory. He did a channel4 2 part program about the topic. Fascinating.

 

[TonyL]

If Britain is no better, as some of you appear to believe, then why not bugger off over there.

I wasn't saying Britain is no better, just that those in power currently appear to be opening the door to more religious intolerance and poisonous rhetoric, not restricting that which already exists as IMHO they should be. I would no doubt be killed within minutes of entering an Islamic police state as I'm an atheist and therefore make no secret that I consider their belief system to be entirely irrational. I have no wish to put this theory to the test! To be honest I'd probably be lynched in the US bible belt too…

Tony.

 

[greg]

Why would you think its bollox?

Your comment "...because he seems to have an answer against every aspect of religion." is silly.

Every aspect of religion?

This is as simplistic a way of looking at things as those who blindly believe in all the teachings of one religious group or another.

It shows a lack of appreciation of the magnitude of the subject, which Dawkins also demonstrates.

 

[greg]

I disagree, history (even religous history) should be a high priority in education (note: I suppose it helps having a headteacher wife who has a history degree!).
It is easy to diferentiaite faith from fact - lets stick to the facts!

Let's be clear an awareness of History does not constitute Theology (helps having a wife with a degree in Theology)

 

[lAmBoY]

Theology - the science of fiction.
All imho of course.

Arent we lucky to have educated wives! I bet we're not muslim.

 

[PBirkett]

I wasn't saying Britain is no better

I didnt actually say that you said it, I said some were saying that we are no better (not you)

I disagree. Yes there are plenty of scummy people in this country, and yes its far from perfect, but I dont know anyone who has witnessed anyone being stoned to death for having a mixed race/religion relationship in this country. Nor would I ever choose to live in a place like iraq.

We should all think ourselves lucky that this country is as far removed from a place like that as is possible. We can actually visit towns without thinking that we could be blown up at any moment. Sure the threat of terror is ever present, but its still fairly unlikely for any given person to experience it, especially outside the capital.

 

[greg]

Theology - the science of fiction.
All imho of course.

Lol. Amusing comment, but if you're serious it just illustrates your lack of understanding about the subject. It's not Divinity, it's a study of the History of Religions in context of literature, general history, cultural contexts, conflicts, ethics and morality and general philosophy. I've come to realise that aside from perhaps PPE it's the degree I would have really enjoyed.

The Wikipedia page on The Philosophy of Religion is a very good start point for examining various much more serious approaches to the subject than Dawkins could ever dream to attempt. He is a Biologist pretending to be a Philosopher.

 

[Bob McC]

Wikipedia is about the best place for it as well. A web blog pretending to be an authoritative encyclopaedia.

 

[greg]

Wikipedia is about the best place for it as well. A web blog pretending to be an authoritative encyclopaedia.

Ie. the page on Wikipedia on The Philosophy of Religion does appear to succinctly capture the core subjects and writers names in the opinion of my Wife who graduated with a 1st from Bristol. The Theology faculty there is considered the equal of Cambridge.

I can't comment on the validity of content on Wikipedia generally.

 

[7_V]

When the day comes that scientists can explain what happened before the first billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a second, when something was made out of nothing, then perhaps there will be no place for a 'god' or an 'intelligence' or creative force in the universe.

Until then, atheists can't prove there isn't one any more than believers can prove that there is. Why then the debate?

I assume that everyone here believes in evolution over bible-style Creationism. Even so, can anyone prove that all mutation has been random rather than intelligently inspired or created?

 

[la toilette]

Anyone can make up a stupid story that cannot easily be proved wrong, it doesn't mean you have to believe it.

 

[Robbo]

When the day comes that scientists can explain what happened before the first billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a second, when something was made out of nothing, then perhaps there will be no place for a 'god' or an 'intelligence' or creative force in the universe.

Until then, atheists can't prove there isn't one any more than believers can prove that there is. Why then the debate?

I assume that everyone here believes in evolution over bible-style Creationism. Even so, can anyone prove that all mutation has been random rather than intelligently inspired or created?

I think the issue for me here is not whether there is/isnt a god, I have no problem with spirituality. Whatever floats people boat.

The problem for me is organised religion and the intolerance, bile and and hate that practitioners of these religions all spout in the name of their god. Also the abdication of thought that followers of these religions inevitably demonstrate.

 

[TonyL]

When the day comes that scientists can explain what happened before the first billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a second, when something was made out of nothing, then perhaps there will be no place for a 'god' or an 'intelligence' or creative force in the universe.

….

I assume that everyone here believes in evolution over bible-style Creationism. Even so, can anyone prove that all mutation has been random rather than intelligently inspired or created?

The burden of proof is not with the atheists to disprove religion, it is with those wishing to force such malicious nonsense upon others to prove it. A thing all religion is, by definition, unable to do. As it happens most biblical concepts and constructs have already been disproved, i.e. the timeline is wrong (carbon dating proves the 6000 year old dinosaur thing is bullshit), the fairy stories (Noah's Flood etc) have all been disproved, and evolution is accepted science to everyone with an IQ over about 80.

Until then, atheists can't prove there isn't one any more than believers can prove that there is. Why then the debate?

Atheists don't tend to blow themselves up in crowded places / stone each other to death / advise people to avoid proven medical precautions etc on the word of imaginary friends in the sky. It takes religion to make apparently intelligent people behave in an entirely irrational way, as such religion's place in society should at the very least be questioned and preferably be subject to strict controls. It is IMHO the most dangerous force in the world today – I'd far prefer to be hooked on crack than hooked on religion…

Tony.

 

[greg]

Anyone can make up a stupid story that cannot easily be proved wrong, it doesn't mean you have to believe it.

So you're suggesting there is nothing to be understood about humanity, society, cultural interactions, morals, ethics, social structures or anything useful from looking at the major belief systems?

 

[greg]

I think the issue for me here is not whether there is/isnt a god, I have no problem with spirituality. Whatever floats people boat.

The problem for me is organised religion and the intolerance, bile and and hate that practitioners of these religions all spout in the name of their god. Also the abdication of thought that followers of these religions inevitably demonstrate.

Nail on head. On the latter I agree with Dawkins. The latter is all about politics, power and indoctrination and I see little evidence of much good coming from it.

 

[Tenson]

I think the issue for me here is not whether there is/isnt a god, I have no problem with spirituality. Whatever floats people boat.

The problem for me is organised religion and the intolerance, bile and and hate that practitioners of these religions all spout in the name of their god. Also the abdication of thought that followers of these religions inevitably demonstrate.

Absolutely agree. Spiritualism is fine. Having organised religion which controls its followers is not.

Buddhism doesn't seem to bad though. Largely, I think, because they don't pretend there is a man in the sky telling them what to do.

 

[lAmBoY]

Lol. Amusing comment, but if you're serious it just illustrates your lack of understanding about the subject. It's not Divinity, it's a study of the History of Religions in context of literature, general history, cultural contexts, conflicts, ethics and morality and general philosophy. I've come to realise that aside from perhaps PPE it's the degree I would have really enjoyed.

The Wikipedia page on The Philosophy of Religion is a very good start point for examining various much more serious approaches to the subject than Dawkins could ever dream to attempt. He is a Biologist pretending to be a Philosopher.

I was illustrating my view on religion in general. My views on theology reflect my views on religion. If a dislike of religion shouldnt mean a lack of respect for theology, then I'll take it on the chin gracefully. Im sure its an interesting subject.

Dawkins is not liked by the theolgy crowd at cambridge - a view he shares vice versa. If you havent read any Dawkins he can come across as a little light. His written word is far more detailed than his talk show stuff.

 

[lAmBoY]

So you're suggesting there is nothing to be understood about humanity, society, cultural interactions, morals, ethics, social structures or anything useful from looking at the major belief systems?

Are you saying humanity cannot have ethics, morals, etc without a belief in a god?

 

[greg]

Are you saying humanity cannot have ethics, morals, etc without a belief in a god?

No not at all. And your reply to my question would be?

 

[greg]

Dawkins is not liked by the theolgy crowd at cambridge - a view he shares vice versa. If you havent read any Dawkins he can come across as a little light. His written word is far more detailed than his talk show stuff.

I don;t expect any issue Theologists might have with Dawkins is about their fear of his undermining of the belief in God.

Firstly I'm slightly confused about this idea that studying Theology or The Philosophy of Religion is about convincing oneself there is a God. It would be like suggesting studying the great wars is inevitably about liking war rather than about understanding mankind in more depth.

Secondly I'm amused at the suggestion (if that is your suggestion) that Dawkins is telling this incredible and undeniable truth that is opening the eyes of the masses and that's why he is disliked by Theologists.

Theologists might have an issue with Dawkins polemic due his seemingly poor quality understanding of the academics entailed in the subject.

Though let me reiterate I agree with some of his core tenets.