The God Debate

[fLIP]

I've always wondered that CW.

If there's only room for 144,000 people, why the hell are they at my door every other bloody day trying to get more?

I'd be keeping it on the low down so my spot wasn't taken 😉

 

[Matabele]

JW have an Amway mentality. Ya know, pyramid selling to get your butt in paradise.

 

[robbiea]

You boys should find some time & delve into buddhism.They do & dont support both your fundamental arguments.

 

[Dan]

buddhism will only siderail the topic really and I treat that with the same disdain as other organised religion.

I believe in bettering ones self and doing the best you can with what you have, that is my religion!

Now this actualy debate however is not about the existence of a god really. It stems from and is about the book by Dawkins

 

[fLIP]

I believe in bettering ones self and doing the best you can with what you have, that is my religion!

Do you mean money?

 

[Dan]

ha ha, no i mean in every way.

I do good therefore i am good!

by the way here is the pearler that Dawkins puts out there and discusses, which will be leapt on by Matabele and his crazy crowd

* The impossibility of disproving the existence of God - something that has become a 'get out of jail free' argument for the inviolability of religion.

 

[Matabele]

Dan, would you consider Dawkins an atheist or agnostic?

And I resent your impication that I am a part of an "evangelical crowd". It is not useful to a debate to throw around such generalisations so loosely - particularly when you know better.

 

[Dan]

Dawkins is an Athiest by the labels put on him. He isn't so much an agnostic because he doesnt really say e cant pove it he wants to know either way.

He doesnt really fit under any of those two umbrellas

 

[Matabele]

I wil take up your challenge Dan.

 

[Dan]

Cool I am thinking of ditching stark and reading it later and buying the god delusion to read shortly

 

[fLIP]

* The impossibility of disproving the existence of God - something that has become a 'get out of jail free' argument for the inviolability of religion.

And what sort of 'fact' is he throwing out there that makes his side of the story so different to 'Get out of Jail'.

As far as I can see, while there is no physical evidence to the existence of a god, both arguments tend to fall into the same category.

Why is he able to speculate, while at the same time criticize religions for what he's obviously insinuating is speculation with a catch22.

If he does infact claim that " the impossibility of disproving the existence of God", how does he know its impossible?

Sounds like a load of BS to me.

But at least he has your money now.

 

[Dan]

[quote author=Daniel]

* The impossibility of disproving the existence of God - something that has become a 'get out of jail free' argument for the inviolability of religion.

And what sort of 'fact' is he throwing out there that makes his side of the story so different to 'Get out of Jail'.

As far as I can see, while there is no physical evidence to the existence of a god, both arguments tend to fall into the same category.

Why is he able to speculate, while at the same time criticize religions for what he's obviously insinuating is speculation with a catch22.

If he does infact claim that " the impossibility of disproving the existence of God", how does he know its impossible?

Sounds like a load of BS to me.

But at least he has your money now.
[/quote]

Woah.

Point Here


--------------------


fLIP



This is what matas also misses every single time.

Dawkins and infact myself also dont ever out and out say there is no god. That isnt our argument and isn't even in fact the point.

I am going to leave it at that and let you figure out why your statement was so wrong

 

[fLIP]

Is it wrong?

I can see what you are saying it looks like but when you add something like 'Get out of Jail Free', it is insinuating that they are wrong.

How can he be so sure that they are wrong?

 

[Dan]

He isnt fLIP that is the point you are missing!

He isnt saying they are wrong, he says he doesnt know, but rather than just assume they are right either way, lets try to actually discover the truth.

So he doesnt say he is right or that anyone is wrong. He says we simply do not know but he is willing to use scientific method to try to discover the truth and not make assumptions as religion does

fLIP read the book then we can all at least debate from a standpoint of having read the argument

 

[fLIP]

So he doesnt say he is right or that anyone is wrong. He says we simply do not know but he is willing to use scientific method to try to discover the truth and not make assumptions as religion does

fLIP read the book then we can all at least debate from a standpoint of having read the argument

But in the mean time, while it is not proven, religion uses a get out of jail free card so as not to be...?

 

[Dan]

ok what he means by that is best described by matas in this thread

Religious types take the stand point that they are right and have the answer. They will take the "50 billion to 1" that we cant prove that there is no god and run with that as the answer.

Dawkins wants to look at the evidence, test, experiment and find the answers to the questions

 

[fLIP]

Fair enough too.

Does he single out a particular religion or all religions?

 

[Dan]

All religions. read the book there is no point discussing it because I have not read it either

 

[fLIP]

there is no point discussing it because I have not read it either

You brought the book into it?

 

[Dan]

no it was the original topic mate