The God Delusion

[YummyHoney]

In thinking that Richard Dawkin's The God Delusion should be compulsory reading for all secondary school children?

Not only would it put paid to all the religious nonsense some parents spout, it would also put an end to a lot of wars and violence in the world.

Science, science, science... yep

No just reality.

So my original point stands.

Cocoflower

No it doesn't.

I believe I have a cup of tea in front of me. I don't need a scientist to check for me - I can taste it.

I believe my husband loves me. I don't need to probe his brain to find a neuron spelling it out, I am judging by what he says and does (of course I could be wrong)

If my dead granny walked through the wall, I would probably doubt what I was seeing, but if she did some convincing ghostly things, and other people saw them too, then i'd have to revise my view on ghosts-- that they may not be make believe, but could be real actual, natural phenomena.

I take it you believe there is evidence of the supernatural, but it is being overlooked by sad, grey people?

I'm never ceased to be amazed by the drivel that people believe with regards to Religion.

The Bible and the Koran being way up there on top of my list.

One does not have to be amoral, just because they don't believe in all that bollocks.

I'm even more staggered that we have people working as lecturers, doctors, chemists, who, in the year 2011 believe all that twaddle! Seriously - you know who you are - get real. Wake up. Smell the coffee.

Also, there is no God up in the heavens handing out virgins, (whilst tut-tutting at immodestly dressed ladies) as rewards to nutters who blow people up.

You "believers" are doing yourselves, and the rest of the world a great dis-service in perpetuating your daft beliefs, and the world would be a far better place if there were more people brave enough to speak out, like Richard Dawkins, in it.

Read your post back to yourself and your answer is in there.

deep

yummy, really sorry, but you're not acting the part of the poster child of reason too well. Just abuse words - 'daft', 'bollocks', 'twaddle' - and assertions - 'there is no - ' and assertions of your position - 'my list' 'amaze me' me me me - do not an argument make. Why not try to show WHY you don't believe it? We all get that you don't, but just now nobody is likely to change their minds because of anything you've said.

I don't think the information contained in the link I have given is very far removed from rationality sieglinde but I do think that the Pope, the Vatican, and the dogma the Catholic Church, are very far removed from the teachings of Jesus Christ.

As for the obelisks, I'm curious as to why the Jesuits chose to adopt a structure that is associated with the Egyptian sun god than create a new structure to commemorate god's son.

It stands to reason that not all religions can be right. Therefore it's logical to conclude that none of them are.

Could we not just live and let live?

If only !

Im an atheist, i dont really understand why anyone would believe in God, but that is their choice.

I believe I have a cup of tea in front of me. I don't need a scientist to check for me - I can taste it

You drink, therefore you are :o

And Man invented God - science proved it :) - Link

A friend of mine who is religious said something similar to me, 'you dont see love, you feel it' implying that she didnt need evidence as to whether God existed, she feels it.

Some get comfort from believing that there is an all powerful, supreme being watching over them, i guess.

No proof either way

Perhaps not. However, the burden of proof generally lies with those who are making an assertion that something exists - especially as profing a negative in a matter such as this is virtually impossible whereas profing a positive should be dead easy given the assertion is correct.

If I were to claim that there are a couple of pink rabbits invisibly living in every human household and that they are not detectable by any machinery, does anybody seriously think we should assume the chances of this being true to be roughly 50% as there is no definite proof either way?

There is also the fact that there is zero evidence for a god. And that natural explanations have increasingly been found for things that used to be attributed to gods.

Also: you can perhaps not see love directly, as Claw's religious friend says. However, apparently a brain scan could be able to make it visible.

I think the point that she was trying to make was that she 'feels' there is a God, she doesnt need evidence. Mind you she also 'felt' lots of men beside her husband and always seemed to be seeking 'forgiveness' from God, a few hail Marys and all was right again in her mind!

Firstly, NotaDudeExactly I love your posts.

Secondly, I know I've not helped my case, but that's because I can't be bothered to debate with people who I believe are stupid. That is my belief and I cannot pretend otherwise, nor do I see why I should pretend that they are not stupid IMO.

As Dawkins says in the God Delusion - and I am paraphrasing - why do we have to tread carefully when it comes to religion. Why should we have respect for religious belief if we think it's nonsense? Why can't we pull people up about their beliefs?

The thing is, you're making this sound as though a believes x and b believes y and both x and y are equally likely.

Whereas in reality the situation is more like a believes x, b doesn't believe x and there is absolutely jo evidence for x.

Atheism is not a belief - it's in fact defined as a lack thereof. An atheist is a person who doesn't believe that a god exists. Now, note that some people will also actively belive that there is no god. However, this is not necessary to make someone an atheist and is, in fact, a belief that cannot be proven.

If people honestly believe that there is an equal burden of proof for those who do not believe in something, I am impatiently awaiting their essays on proofs that the classical goddess Ceres doesn't exist. If you're a pagan and have incorporated Ceres into your belief system, you are naturally exempted from this task.

Also, in terms of superiority and acceptance: as an atheist I have to accept people's religious beliefs in multiple contexts. FWIW, I am a dual national and cannot even sing one national anthem without it being full of references to the christian god ("Nobody save the queen", anyone?). Most of us have no issues with other people believing whatever the hell they want. It's just that as soon as you say that there is no god, someone will find it offensive or "sad". And then there is of course the fact that in the Abrahamic religions at least my lack of faith entitles me to a free spot at the eternal barbeque. I find that offensive, but to say it is full of shit would be insulting to someone's religion, right?

Most of us have no issues with other people believing whatever the hell they want.
And that is the way that it should be. A person's belief or lack thereof in god is their own business and does not diminish me or them. My problem is with people who believe that those who believe, or who believe differently are doing doing the world a great dis-service with their beliefs in bollocks and twaddle.

That way lies danger.

Im yet to meet anyone with a belief in the almighty "bollocks".

I think they would be an interesting character.

Oh just feck off would you. Nothing should be compulsory reading.

And why can't you just leave people who believe something different to you alone? We're not hurting anyone. (Well most of us aren't).

I have a faith; you don't. I really don't care and I have no interest in converting you. Stay out of my conscience.

.....well we do have ten years + of compulsory RE...