Search results

MAy the force be with you :D

The transcript of the Simon Mayo interview is available on the link. It's probably worth reading because the context in which he says these things makes a difference IMO to the interpretation of what he says. With regard to the Star Wars/Force, The Ring Cycle/Odin point you made there is a...

That's not quite true. Rowan Williams said that in the bible it isn't stated how many 'wise men' there were, only that they were astrologers from outside the roman empire. The only thing he questioned was the number of them, nothing else.

To a certain extent he is. One of the main issues he has with religion is the implied and overstated importance it has gained throughout society. Carols, in a church at least, will be illustrations of the nativity and the festivals Christian joy. They are wholly religious and foundation...

I suppose the leap of faith [do you see what i did there :D ] is to interpret that experience as a ghost, although it may be all or none of your above explanations. Similarly, the interpretation of experiences in favour of divine intervention requires the same leap. :? But why call it god? ...

If, whilst examining the ghost phenomena, we were all convinced that the testimony of the witnesses was trustworthy - is that not meaningful evidence of the phenomena?

Yes. The Tooth Fairys m.o. is completely different :wink: Wiki: Some believe that the Tooth Fairy evolved from the tooth mouse depicted in an 18th century French language fairy tale. In "La Bonne Petite Souris," a mouse changes into a fairy to help a good queen defeat an evil king by hiding...

God is relevant to those areas in which science has yet to discover an explanation.

Indeed. If there is a God, it's going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed.

My point was that the majority of folk upset by Life of Brian had assumed quite wrongly that the film was portraying a disrespectful and innaccurate image of Jesus, this was largely sponsored by the appearance on the TV debate of the Bishop of Southwark and Malcom Muggeridge who had missed the...

I love that TV debate with Palin, Cleese, Muggeridge and the Bishop of Southwark, it's just outstanding. Is it on line? i've just tried at YouTube with no luck. Again though, this is about the ludicrousness of certain religions. What, if anything, does that have to do with god or the absence...

Hi Heathen I think the item above in bold is where i have some misundertsanding perhaps. The sentiment of the 'atheists' call for debate in terms of addressing how we understand and deal with extremist tendencies is replicated and commonplace in many groups arguments with and without god. It...

Forgive me, but what does the above assertion have to do with Atheism? It's something i'd hear from irreligious, agnostic and atheist alike. In fact i'd go some way to agreeing with you and i'm no atheist.

Forgive me if you got the wrong end of the stick. :oops: I am one hundred percent behind you where Human Rights are concerned. My point was more about the rights of the west to enforce sometimes inappropriate and destructive societorial change on another people. From what i've seen Human...

I think you've identified one of the main problems that runs through a hell of a lot of western comparative opinion and thought, especially in the media. In the majority of the communities/countries/settlements that adhere to religion centric law 'majority' means absolutely nothing. Our...

Such as a religion which has learnt from it's horrific acts buried in the realms of history and myth? or perhaps one which encourages actions which will indirectly cause the deaths of thousands of people? It's all a matter of context. We tend to judge wearing the spectacles of western...

It's one thing having a 'voice' but what are Atheists going to say? It's been pointed out to me on several occasions that Atheism is a purely reactive position. So giving them a soapbox is quite pointless, no? BTW the second page of that article is amusing... :D

Ooh Ooh Heaven? :wink:

Fats are you happy with that metaphor? Cause if you are i think i get it.

You're right Ted. I don't understand. I'm try desperately to absorb what it is an atheist is, what they stand for, and what they hope to achieve. I mentioned a few pages back that I don't have a defined position and i'm never likely to, if pressed i'd define myself as an Agnostic Explorer...

Of those contributing over that last few days who is an athiest? I'm not. Ted?, Dr?, Segovius? Fats? (To be fair, i think Fats might be :wink:) To debate requires two opposing arguments. And i may be wildly wrong here but we've established that the Atheists will only take part if: -...

If only they would debate :cry:

I'm with you to a certain extent. But the legacy of thousands of years of religious thought and action is like DNA it CANNOT be extracted and neutered without destroying the fibre of society. Yes, in a world where religion hasn't had such a profound effect on our society. The reality of...

Thanks Segovius, you've saved me some time. I was just about to make that point. It seems illogical for an athiest to bother arguing the existence of god, its a moot point. It's like plugging up the source of a great river because at some places on it's meandering route it is being...

From the last few pages it seem to me that the problems of the world that athiest wish to adress are entirely of human origin and go a long way to illustrate the fallibility of our nature. God has little, if anything to do with it.

A couple of points: -What does this have to do with god other than him/her/it being a kernal to wrap group/personal agendas around - an authorititive justifier if you like? - On what evidence do you base this assumption?

God may have been the misguided justification but surely it wasn't the cause. 911 was the horrific actions of a radical religious group to extreme perceptions and interpretations of both world events and their lore. Would you describe yourself as an atheist?

Doesn't your issue have more to do with religion than god?

Nope. Just one example that by the removal of god from it's genesis can be positively improved.

Do you have any examples of this?

I think one of the difficulties I have with the Atheist position is that it doesn't seem to be an independent philosophy. Atheism is entirely dependent on God and Religion. It seems to have a 'you tell me what you believe and i'll tell you your wrong' stance. In a hypothetical Great Debate...

Whoah there dude! :shock: Who said anything about it not being a book of stories. The bible is propaganda, it's important life lessons, it's how to farm your food, it's how to eat your food, it's how to build a big ship, it's violent and unforgiving, it promotes prejudice amongst other things...

Holy shit :shock: :wink: Explanatory tool for what? The existence of god? It does and can provide explanation to believers. It has a plethora of moral stories and myths that pass on deeply engrained values and lessons. The problem comes when people translate, de-mystify and extract the...

That's the bible isn't it. A very valuable book to a lot of people. It may not have any value to you but to say it has no value at all is just daft Anyway, god created atheists. :wink:

Is it true to say that atheism is completely reliant on the existence of theist belief.

Indeed, the James Randi of beliefs. :D

OK, Is atheism merely a reactionary position?

Could part of the athiest congregation :D explain their definition of god. Does it necessrily have any religious overtones or agenda?

Bloody lawyers - they spoil everything. Although, on reflection, atheists should have grown some bollocks and gone with the 'there is no god' headline. It would have been an outstanding way to get the debate going with very little, if any, consequences.

This is probably off topic Fats but why didn't the adverts challenge the Alpha course directly? And why 'Probably not a god"?

How successful was that bus advertising campaign? :wink:

OK Fats, I understand your position fully. But, I find it difficult to except the enboldened statement above as it is just not the case.

There is obviously a whole heap of phenomena, supernatural occurances, unnatural anomolies which are just fanciful wishes, propaganda and bullshit. But, there are cases that defy natural explanation and so, if there are 'more likely explanations' then what are they? and if these 'more likely...

Can we assume a phenomenon occurred?

I absolutely agree. The 'what' of it all is often left un-debated because the evidence is dismissed out of hand. If we assume that some evidence in 'religious' experiences or supernatural occurances withstands scrutiny and defies natural explanation then WHAT is it?

Given the physical evidence, multiple independent witnesses and written testimony there are cases that are incredibly difficult to clarify without convoluted explanation. If you were to apply Occams Razor the simplest explanation is that the phenomenon did occur and those involved are telling...

Scepticism is good to a point but a blanket dismisal of all cases is irrational. There are genuine cases of phenomena that just cannot be rationally explained, mutiple witnesses, physical evidence etc etc. Some poltergeist cases are utterly fascinating and convincing. Same goes for UFO and...

I'm not. Although i do find Omega Point Theory quite charming.

Fats, What has god got to do with the dogma and doctrine of religion?

Yep, that's kind the point, no? Why are Aliens possible and probable and not God? I don't. That's my point, the validity of Theism and Atheism requires a concept of belief however you dress it up.