There is a God

[Matabele]

Maybe we should find more articles of the same to see if this journo is a clown then.

 

[Dan]

Or a transcribe of the full conversation as this would have been sourced off of a single interview and article released on the newswire. so unless you have full transcribe you are getting 3rd party information

 

[The Gronk]

I wonder if this will get a reaction?
[img=400x203]http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o99/seth_bucket_12/iChatImage891131384.jpg[/img]

 

[Canteen Worker]

A bit of a laugh Matt but it won't change a thing either way. 🙂

 

[Dan]

Flying Spaghetti monster

 

[The Gronk]

Flying Spaghetti monster

have you been touched by his noodly appendage?

 

[Dan]

[quote author=Dan link=topic=178266.msg198239#msg198239 date=1222320546]
Flying Spaghetti monster

have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
[/quote]
and purpleness

 

[Matabele]

Once upon a time two explorers came upon a clearing in the jungle. In the clearing were growing many flowers and many weeds. One explorer says, “Some gardener must tend this plot.” The other disagrees, “There is no gardener.” So they pitch their tents and set a watch. No gardener is ever seen. “But perhaps he is an invisible gardener.” So they set up a barbed-wire fence. They electrify it. They patrol with bloodhounds. (For they remember how H.G. Wells’s The Invisible Man could be both smelt and touched though he could not be seen.) But no shrieks ever suggest that some intruder has received a shock. No movements of the wire ever betray an invisible climber. The bloodhounds never give cry. Yet still the Believer is not convinced. “But there is a gardener, invisible, intangible, insensible to electric shocks, a gardener who has no scent and makes no sound, a gardener who comes secretly to look after the garden which he loves.” At last the Sceptic despairs, “But what remains of your original assertion? Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even from no gardener at all?”

 

[Dan]

profound Matabele, sounds like a philosophy I come up with whilst hanging a midnight bog after downing a case

 

[Matabele]

Once upon a time two explorers came upon a clearing in the jungle. In the clearing were growing many flowers and many weeds. One explorer says, “Some gardener must tend this plot.” The other disagrees, “There is no gardener.” So they pitch their tents and set a watch. No gardener is ever seen. “But perhaps he is an invisible gardener.” So they set up a barbed-wire fence. They electrify it. They patrol with bloodhounds. (For they remember how H.G. Wells’s The Invisible Man could be both smelt and touched though he could not be seen.) But no shrieks ever suggest that some intruder has received a shock. No movements of the wire ever betray an invisible climber. The bloodhounds never give cry. Yet still the Believer is not convinced. “But there is a gardener, invisible, intangible, insensible to electric shocks, a gardener who has no scent and makes no sound, a gardener who comes secretly to look after the garden which he loves.” At last the Sceptic despairs, “But what remains of your original assertion? Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even from no gardener at all?”

  Interesting, coz it ain't mine.  It was put out by two very high profile atheists. 

 

[Dan]

It doesn't really matter, because although it has an Atheist ideal behind it, it goes the long way about stating the obvious that you don't see.

And the Atheist view in that is not the same level or Atheism I subscribe to

 

[Matabele]

*sniggers*  It wasn't even a trap and you managed to make it into one!

 

[Dan]

No it's lazy Atheism, which is why I said it sounds like something I would dream up on the toilet after a case of beer.

The essential argument is this
- What is the difference between what you're saying and what I am saying and I am saying apart from you embellishing it with more.

so as a rule, they are saying it's easier to believe in nothing, than believe in something that is (for simplicity sake) nothing with bells on.

Far easier to do nothing for the same result. Hence why I call it Lazy Atheism. I have always leaned more to an agnostic side of Atheism or a more scientific side.

Flat out saying there is nothing as in the excerpt above defeats the purpose of the actual Atheist agenda, which is to either be prove themselves right or prove themselves wrong

 

[Matabele]

either my head is very fuzzy or you may need to explain to me that diatribe above.

 

[Dan]

either my head is very fuzzy or you may need to explain to me that diatribe above.

In a nutshell
The "prominent" atheists above subscribe to a different school of Atheism than I do

'tis a lazy reasoning and explanation for Atheism wrapped in an overly complex story

 

[Matabele]

So are you of the Muslim atheist school or the Chrstian one?

 

[Canteen Worker]

So are you of the Muslim atheist school or the Chrstian one?

I suppose it depends on which God he doesn't believe in!!!!

 

[Matabele]

If he doesn't believe there is a god then does that constitute some kind of proof that there may be one?

 

[ManlyBacker]

I'm leaning towards the Tantric universal thoughts. If they have got it wrong at least I will enjoy exploring the possibilities.

 

[Dan]

So are you of the Muslim atheist school or the Chrstian one?

Both, but as I have said I lean more to words the agnostic side, or thought-line of Atheism. Happy to be proven wrong or right, not content to believe in the face of not even circumstantial evidence.

I don't believe in any form of "sky god", earth god or any other being in the god sense of the word