General Religion & Philosophy Discussion Thread (18 Viewers)

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Yep, for me it was covering obvious ground that I figured out years ago, as most atheists and other free thinkers get quickly after becoming enlightened. These programs don't achieve anything and just bore me now. The ball is rolling and western organized religions are moving towards the mythical holding given to the Mediterranean religions. Without sounding bigoted, Islam is the only theistic issue in the distant future and given freedom of thought it would go the same way. Its a bright future and a shame we don't live there now. But Richard Dawkins sneering at theists won't help anything.

I doubt that the documentary is aimed at the "enlightened" ones. I see it as something for the fence sitters.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[swag]

Yep, for me it was covering obvious ground that I figured out years ago, as most atheists and other free thinkers get quickly after becoming enlightened. These programs don't achieve anything and just bore me now. The ball is rolling and western organized religions are moving towards the mythical holding given to the Mediterranean religions. Without sounding bigoted, Islam is the only theistic issue in the distant future and given freedom of thought it would go the same way. Its a bright future and a shame we don't live there now. But Richard Dawkins sneering at theists won't help anything.

Except that athiests are themselves belief-driven, just in the negative, unlike the agnostics who are evidence-driven.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Except that athiests are themselves belief-driven, just in the negative, unlike the agnostics who are evidence-driven.

Not this again!

 

[swag]

Ashamed of your beliefs, Sheik?

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Ashamed of your beliefs, Sheik?

Disappointed by your argument, actually.

 

[swag]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gtK_4gyf0M#t=6m27s
You know if I could choose to believe or not to believe
You know I would choose not to
You know if I could choose to believe or not to believe
You know I would choose not to
But I can't choose...
Not to. No fucking way!

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Ain't got no patience to watch that. So I'll agree to disagree.

 

[swag]

As a fan of Zappa, how can you not like Nomeansno at least musically.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

As a fan of Zappa, how can you not like Nomeansno at least musically.

You presume that I don't like them.

 

[Elvin]

"I call my weed the Quran...because burning that shit will get you stoned."

Even Allah would crack up

 

[Ford Prefect]

Swag that's a dumb definition and misses the point - and I don't identify as an athiest. An agnostic is someone open to the belief in a higher power, they just don't know which. An athiest, as dawkins has repeatedly said himself, would go to the point of 99.99999 certain there is no god and therefore have no belief system. Anti-theists are the unscientific ones.

 

[Enron]

Atheists have a belief system. That one's easy.

 

[ALC]

I'm atheist and I believe. I believe I can fly. I believe I can touch the sky.

 

[swag]

Swag that's a dumb definition and misses the point - and I don't identify as an athiest. An agnostic is someone open to the belief in a higher power, they just don't know which. An athiest, as dawkins has repeatedly said himself, would go to the point of 99.99999 certain there is no god and therefore have no belief system. Anti-theists are the unscientific ones.

How could we get to 99.99999% certainty that Newtonian physics was absolute until relativity came along? That's preposterous and presumes that we fully know what we don't know, which is absolutely naive and untrue. If Dawkins suggested that, that much makes him a conceited moron full of hubris.

Because the fact is that agnosticism is the only one of the lot not rooted in a leap-of-faith belief or belief system. The rest of the lot is based on a belief system.

Science has this problem all the time: people who look for the data and statistical patterns first to support their favored conclusions, selectively ignoring the stuff that doesn't fit or doesn't support their argument. That's not science.

 

[Enron]

How could we get to 99.99999% certainty that Newtonian physics was absolute until relativity came along? That's preposterous and presumes that we fully know what we don't know, which is absolutely naive and untrue. If Dawkins suggested that, that much makes him a conceited moron full of hubris.

Because the fact is that agnosticism is the only one of the lot not rooted in a leap-of-faith belief or belief system. The rest of the lot is based on a belief system.

You can have a system of belief if you're an agnostic.

 

[swag]

You can have a system of belief if you're an agnostic.

True dat. But they are more of the skeptical lot that says, "Prove it, fatso."

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

True dat. But they are more of the skeptical lot that says, "Prove it, fatso."

Atheists are skeptical too. In fact, they're the ones who are usually asking the theists to "prove it".

 

[GordoDeCentral]

walks like a duck talks like a duck, then argument has to break like a pato

 

[swag]

Atheists are skeptical too. In fact, they're the ones who are usually asking the theists to "prove it".

There's a fine line between skepticism and dogma. That's where a lot of athiests get lost.

 

[Enron]

Hard ons, the lot of 'em.