OT - The end of the world?

Eh? So what? To my knowledge Dawkins doesn't deny the possibility of a God. He just doesn't believe that one exists and he lives his life assuming there is none. He further, IIRC, thinks there is more evidence to show there isn't a God than evidence to show there is one, but apart from rhetoric he doesn't categorically deny the possibility of a 'higher being'.

There is a 7-point scale he sets out in the God Delusion from 1 (absolute knowledge that there is a God) through to 7 (absolute knowledge that there is no God) and he says he sits at point 6, NOT point 7. (I may have gotten the numbers mixed up but you get the point.) There is a logical possibility of plenty of things, that doesn't mean anyone does or should believe in them, or live their lives according to whatever is logically possible!

I've read the book, and he does make some very interesting and valid points. It's just I kinda like the idea that the world isn't just one big coincidence and there is a bit of meaning/purpose! ?

The world isn't a big coincidence, there are very defined and very clever mechanisms that have made the world as we know it. It's not accident, it's a destiny of sorts. But obviously I'm not going to buy the idea that destiny=supernatural. It's just chemistry. And a bit of physics. We and the world around are AMAZING - I am literally stunned on daily basis about how beautiful life can be - without any need for a higher purpose or meaning, isn't that enough?

https://www.eaec.org/bibleanswers/Harold-Camping-A-Man-With-No-Shame.htm - says it all

Yeah, I guess, it's enough for some people. I understand that there's patterns in nature and who knows if it's all ordered or planned. If you know what I mean by that. I think the idea of evolution is amazing, creation or not. And to be fair, it doesn't matter at the end of the day. Unless you're one of these fanatics who think that their way is THE way; that's what I hate about religion. I'd just like to think that my Dad's up there watching over me, rather than just being er... not there. But that could just be comforting fluff ❤️ Sometimes in my job I do question things though, for scientific and emotional reasons. I thought it was tempting fate for the paramedic I was working with on Fri to say "paramedic 1 - God 0" after we'd (together with Papworth Hospital) literally fixed someone's heart after a heart attack ?

Nobody does. He doesn't provide answers. What answers can he provide?

Historically yes, however like many things in science - over time theories get tried and tested to the point where scientists and everyone else accepts it as given, Its just the people who dont believe the huge mass of evidence and experimentation that cling to semantics in the original phrasing of "theory of..."

Ironically, if it wasn't for the church basically persecuting "non view" science for centuries, we would all have collectively have accepted the obvious generations ago,

The bible - LOL

Lets think about the book Books. This collection of books isnt the word of god, it is the collection of texts put together in the fourth century. (cast your mind back 300 odd years - could you put together a series of books to document events that long ago?) So for the bible literalists - what about the books that were left out? I am sure the RCC really miss the Gospel of Mary...

What is the bible? - it is a hotchpotch of documents thrown together 4 centuries after the "birth of Christ" by committee. It was written in multiple ancient languages, and has numerous translations into English. The translators dont even agree the content

Why anyone actually bases anything in thier modern life on such a littery mess is beyond me. You may as well read Plato or Shakesphere

It might be easier for you both to explain what you (or dont) believe in your own words, rather than using "very clever people arguing about semantics along with the issue" as your champions

Did you mean literary? And I do believe the renowned playwright is Shakespeare (unless you are referring to an Elizabethan tribute act).

?

Aad hominem

Why not just join in the debate?

You and me both Tricks!

??

Simple - some cranky religious guy in the USA has been predicting "World changing Biblical events" for many years now, and so far, he has been wrong every single time

Meanwhile followers are changing their lives or not paying bills or not getting treatment done, because they have been convinced that “the world is going to end”

Incidentally in the process the cranky religious guy has made a fortune (mainly a radio network that is worth just under 100 million USD)

The rest of the debate is about "Is the bible a valid basis for belief" and "what is and isn't Athiesm" , and the final bit is about spelling and attacking the person not the argument

FFS was just trying to lighten the debate up. I shall not add my input into this debate, as A) I can't be bothered and B) I think there are enough voices involved in this discussion as it is. That is all.

Religious debate really gets the juices flowing doesn't it? I followed the Atheist Census Campaign and wrote on my FB status "If you are not religious for Gods Sake SAY SO". One of my friends who is a Christian took real offence to that and I still have no idea why. She took from that statement that I hate religious people?

I'm not sure if this is the point that the others were on about. I understand what FTLOMB was saying but have no idea about the counter-argument. Something about science being as un-provable as religion, which personally I can't see how that can be so. Maybe I'm missing the point

At school I found the most boring subjects to be Religious Studies and Science* so I'm out...

*PE would have been included but it was a good excuse to look at the boys legs...

I am inclined to agree with you

Just like in the creation/evolution debate - where there is a massive stack of evidence backing up evolution, and hardly a shred of evidence - to back up the creationist theory. The religious side look at the very small flaws in the opposing theory whilst totally ignoring the fundamental issues with their own

What some religious people don’t grasp is that science is a process. The process where some scientist does some research – is published, it is then rigorously challenged, and then as time passes, if the theory stands up, it stands up and then eventually is accepted as true

Most scientists start off being sceptical about their own findings, and once they prove it to them selves open the ideas up to peer review. I doubt if one would find a serious scientist that would say that “this is 100% true” but what you will find is a community that relentlessly continues to test and probe and understand. This is the direct opposite of religion, where essentially, people have “faith” that something is true. Often this “faith” blinkers them to the blindingly obvious, and creates a mindset where believers “know something is 100% true”

That is the irony. Whilst clever scholars can debate the semantics of “how could you know”, using clever word games, ultimately it all boils down to one thing. Either you have “faith” or you don’t

The secondary debate is where things get nasty. Essentially for some, that boils down to “I have faith” so you are wrong. Unfortunately, it seems that the "blinkered faithful" tend to be the most political and vocal, and have a disproportionate effect on the rest of society

I agree! Although i was enjoying seeing people tie themselves in knots and saying silly things ?

If the world does end in 2012, I hope it's better than the film 2012...

I didn't see it. Did that involve gods?

I don't think so, just crap special effects...

Did you see that one with Nicholas Cage where at the end his son is whisked off by aliens...? Also very terrible. Special effects were pretty good though.

Actually, I was querying your premise that "science" is as flimsy (still not sure what you mean by "science" in this context) as "religion" when it comes to answering fundamental questions. What fundamental questions are you thinking of? I pointed out that science has offered a lot more to your physical existence than religion. If you are looking for answers to "Why?" and "What's the meaning of life?", the scientific method simply cannot be applied. I don't see how this makes "science" flimsy - it's not a tool or process that can be used to answer these things. This does not mean it is similarly useless in pretty much every other aspect of life on this earth.

ETA; Oh, and what Wedding Photographer said.

Armageddon is amazing and Bruce Willis just about has the right amount of hair in it...

Scientific nonsense mind.....

We have all got to go one day, until then I am going to enjoy every day until the day comes that I don't wake up!

Everytime I watch it I think the same thing:

If I was there and I had no family (kids, wife etc) on earth, I would stay behind. Why did no one offer? Why did it get left to AJ? Why did Harry have to die? Poor Gracie...

I wouldn't mind getting scientific with Bruce...