Quotes from Prof Dawkins

[Gob]

nothing at all....


It's all wooo

[Gob]

[Crackpot]

nothing at all....


It's all wooo

So fuck all with gravity then.

http://machineslikeus.com/articles/Warn ... ityIs.html

[Crackpot]

Note I have yet to properly vet the article It contains some watchword that leads me to believe it may be "creation science" crap.


ETA
Actually quite the opposite Still worried about the "catch phrases" tho.

[Gob]

It is the opposite, a very nice parody of the pseudo science used by creationists..

[Crackpot]

It is quite the sloppy conspiratorial bit of work isn't it?

[Crackpot]

Back to the point there is a flaw in the belief that trust in science and faith in a god are mutually exclusive. Especially when you consider that Science is mute on what is religions primary function : Morality.

[The Hen]

He ignores it.

Apart from the imps he saw at my old family home. He can't explain those at all.


Second thoughts: He still ignores them.

Don't you dear. Explain those little babies away, eh?

[Gob]

Back to the point there is a flaw in the belief that trust in science and faith in a god are mutually exclusive. Especially when you consider that Science is mute on what is religions primary function : Morality.

No one's claiming they are mutualy exculsive, it's just that one exists, and the other doesn't. It's not the job of science to define morality, it's the job of philosophy.

And any morality which is based on "because the flying spaggetti monster says so", isn't worth spit.

[The Hen]

A-ha!

Ignoring it as usual.

[Crackpot]

And any morality which is based on "because the flying spaggetti monster says so", isn't worth spit.

If not a God what defines morality then?

[Crackpot]

A-ha!

Ignoring it as usual.

He does that alot.

If I recall correctly he's a couple posts away from doing the same with me

[Andrew D]

And any morality which is based on "because the flying spaggetti monster says so", isn't worth spit.

If not a God what defines morality then?

We do. Just as we define God.

[Gob]

What he said.

[BoSoxGal]

Crackpot, the principle of reciprocity that underlies the Golden Rule present in most religious theology is also present in ethics, social and political philosophy. Evolutionists and social anthropologists argue that it arises within human social groups as a matter of self-preservation, if nothing more.

Attaching 'meaning' to reciprocity is an entirely human construct, whatever way you look at it. Anyone who has ever studied the Bible as literature comparatively with other religious texts from across the ages can't help but question, IMHO.

Whether there is an actual Creator of a supernatural sense is something about which I haven't resolved my feelings - thus I consider myself an agnostic. But I am an agnostic with serious athiest sympathies; my experience of life thus far allows me to grasp the existence of a cruel randomness that I can't explain or justify through faith or religious doctrine. While I mean no disrespect to any of the members of practicing faith, I do feel from my own experience that religion provided a simple answer to complicated questions at times in my life when I was not capable of grasping and accepting a universe ruled by such randomness.

I think it was @w who posted elsewhere that religion is for those unable [or unwilling - more oft, IMHO] to think past it. There is great comfort to be found in religion; it provides solace to many in terrible times. However, one can't overlook that the price of that great religious comfort is also great religious intolerance and persecution.

[Crackpot]

And any morality which is based on "because the flying spaggetti monster says so", isn't worth spit.

If not a God what defines morality then?

We do. Just as we define God.

So Morality is nothing more than what the masses deem it to be and is therefore entirely subject to what the majority say?

[BoSoxGal]

Isn't that, in fact, what is true of most religious doctrine?

[Crackpot]

Isn't that, in fact, what is true of most religious doctrine?

What would give you that idea?

[BoSoxGal]

Have you studied the origins of Biblical text? A majority decided what got in, what stayed out.

A majority shapes the message in contemporary times, too - just look at the on-going divisions within the established churches that comprise the Christian fellowship

[Crackpot]

You referring to the various biblical councils? That is red herring when it comes to this argument not only because the the purpose of then is misrepresented by those with a religious/political ax to grind but more to the point none of them question that it is God that is the lawgiver and supreme Arbiter of morality. Nor is this idea the sole providence of christianity or Judeo-Christian religions.

The Simple question is this

Is Morality something that relies on solely the whim of man?

If your answer is yes Atheism is fine.

If no it begs some sort of theism.

The question seems simple but the ramifications of either answer are great.

For myself I find that I simply can not accept that morality is the sum total of what society says it is at any given time. There are some things which are and would be wrong regardless if the majority says so or not. Therefore there must be something that decides it so be it God or a Flying Spaghetti Monster.