Actually in all religions the after life can be more scary than the idea we are all headed towards nothingness.
Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
Actually in all religions the after life can be more scary than the idea we are all headed towards nothingness.
Interesting. All Gods? Or just one of the thousands that came out of middle east?
How is God a scientific explanation?
With the cat example. I was talking about after it has gone and what happens, not the creation. You can't have blueprint, evidence etc for what happens afterwards. That will ALWAYS be purely belief and opinions. My opinion is that there is nothing other than either a furnace or a hole in ground. I believe this because we have never seen any evidence whatsoever to the alternative. I was interested by your comment that there "There is no way we end up as nothing, there is no blueprint for it" and was asking what the blueprint is that there is more than nothing.
By your logic that us existing is the blueprint of a creator, could I not say the blueprint for werewolves, is wolves?
We were having quite a good chat apart from the statement that we are the evidence of a creator. I think that's a bit of an odd thing to throw in when talking about facts and reasoning rather than blind faith.
I call him the "World's foremost proponent of Atheism" because he is, I'd say, the World's most famous campaigning advocate of Atheism. That's fair I'd say, and is literally what a proponent is. That doesn't give any insight into whether I do, or don't, agree with or like him. If you want to know, and I've said something similar in this thread and before on this site, his works on evolution are great, I broadly share his views, although not entirely, on religion and I'd much rather he'd have continued to write about biology and his twitter and politics are a bit embarrassing these days. I don't really care if you call me a fan or not however, but you've a habit of calling people fans of famous Atheists you don't like in this thread. Whatever works for you.
You can't type out the words to back your assertion that Dawkins is a creationist polytheist because they don't exist. His issue is absolutely not with "who" created us and I'm struggling to believe that you've read the God Delusion at all, given your complete misconstruing of Dawkins core philosophy and principle argument thrust which is that no god or god exists. This is why he's famous as an atheist, as well as an evolutionary biologist, and not as a Graham Hancock style mythologiser, nor the script editor of Prometheus.
As for his income stream: have you any idea of Dawkins background and professional career prior to his decision to be a de facto professional atheist? Do you think he's skint? I know you like to think he's shilling, despite the utterly flimsy basis for this claim, but here's the thing @Roane: he really is an atheist and genuinely thinks advocating for atheism is important. As absolutely everything he has done, written and said in his adult life confirms.
I'm very simple terms we observe the natural world, look at the laws it's governed by, consider fine tuning and come to the conclusion of a creator.
We then propose theories and hypotheses about this creator and try and come to a conclusion
Care to explain? Seems like a simple point. There are so many Gods that came out of different civilization. Is the scientific explanation apply to one of the Gods or to all of them?
Don't see the false premise here.
Looking at the world and the worlds history he's almost certainly a dick. Once you've worked out the creator is a massive dick implementing his seed here and there it all becomes self-explanatory. Even in his sacred scripture he's a dick in just about all of them. Apart from his son who was less dickish.
Because all the gods of the old world fused into a super-sayian to manifest the mighty God/Allah/Jehova/Yahweh.
I can't type out words because I was out. I play cricket on the weekends.
Right now Im sat in the office having just dealt with a complaint. I haven't eaten yet so will probably now look to order some food.
So yeah responding in detail isn't always a priority.
Think religions that didn't come out of the middle east may disagree.
Indra, shiva, odin and thor etc may have a bone to pick.
There weren't thousands of Gods that came out of the middle east.
Even during the years of idol worship the images were how people saw the main God.
The Greeks had a Pantheon of 12 God's
Even the Hindus don't have the amount of God's people assume.
The thousands of Gods is simply not true
Indians came to this realisation a while ago and decided to create dick shaped statues and put them in every temple. I remember the sudden realisation that throughout my childhood my family has made me go to temples and rub on massive black cocks.
He begets not nor is he begotten
Roane, you can't respond in detail because you're wrong. Dawkins isn't a creationist polytheist. Being out on the crease isn't the issue.
Seems like you are missing the point. Whether it is a thousand or a hundred, does every God come under what you called "has a scientific explanation"
He is a confused old man who rambles. He is more a polytheist or agnostic than atheist
I wish we had the biggest irony of the year award on this forum.
I refer you to the argument that all science is theory until we find out more.
Now apply that to models of God
Indians came to this realisation a while ago and decided to create dick shaped statues and put them in every temple. I remember the sudden realisation that throughout my childhood my family has made me go to temples and rub on massive black cocks.
Seriously Bhutan is full of holy dick statues. A friend my mine who grew up there is used to having a massive dick relic placed on his head. Its related a "enlightened" patron saint who fecked women in every village he came through and then told them it was all a lesson in impermanence.
I am sorry. Doesn't that contradict with your point on fairies that you don't believe in them because of no "blueprint".
Why don't fairies, Santa claus, lochness monster, big foot etc., come under the "all science is theory" argument?
Could you like share this youtube video? Like here?
In Hinduism it's generally related to Shiva which is quite prominent in countries like Nepal and Bhutan. I'd guess that Saint would be supposed to be an avatar or some other shit.
A lot of shiva followers get a boner everytime they see a dick shaped anything in nature and are like it's gotta be him!
Not really no.
There is no blue print for fairies. If likes of Dawkins want to use it as an argument then they need to research it.
Loch Ness monster was studied and found to be false.
We are the blueprint for a creator and all evidence points to it.
That could be the same for the theory that there is no God and Muhammad was lying to you
No. I could print his exact words. But am not doing that either right now.
In Hinduism it's generally related to Shiva which is quite prominent in countries like Nepal and Bhutan. I'd guess that Saint would be supposed to be an avatar or some other shit.
A lot of shiva followers get a boner everytime they see a dick shaped anything in nature and are like it's gotta be him!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drukpa_Kunley
I forgot his dick earned its name as the "Thunderbolt of flaming wisdom" and he would poke evil spirits in the eye with it to annihilate them.
Absolutely could yes. So I research it. As I do instead of weakening it gets stronger, hence my belief.
So, from your research you must have some proof of a god
I don't generally have the habit of following the instructions of internet trolls so no thanks.
For me personally yes. No doubt
Takes out my "do your own research" card and waves
Ok
You could do it like when you're not a work opposite to like right now.
Which is why it is called "faith" or "belief".
We can not deny faith completely, whether we are Muslim, Christian, atheist, scientist or whatever.
An element of faith is always something that exists.
But religion is not, or shouldn't be, any more reliable on faith as say science. There has to be a weight of evidence.
Scientific method is hypothesis to theory. Theory is an accepted and well substantiated explanation for an aspect of nature based on facts and validated through accepted scientific methodology.
Just saying he's a polythesist or agnostic (he's very famously on record regarding the latter: see the Dawkins Scale) doesn't make it so, not back your claims which are entirely contrary to everything I've read by Dawkins, or seen him say.
And vaguely waving your hand in the direction of YouTube?
Really does feel like you're taking the piss.