Archbishop Rowan Williams

that was a bit of poor sentence true.

Ok maybe Im not explaining my self right. I dont really care what other people think. Which is what alot of you seem to be interested in.

What Im actually interested in which approach to have myself thesist,athesist or agnostic. My vote is up for sale !

The little Q&A session above is more likely to be me putting myself in all three mind frames rather than another person.

No matter how I look at it all three approaches appear similar to me and there is no difference between them no approach is better than the other.

There do appear to be minor plus minus to each approach,

Thesist Disadvantage : no sex before marriage, advanatage : get to sing in nice building + traditional weddings + ready built community

Athesist Advantage : Sex before marriage, fit in on singletrack world : disadvantage : have to be an annoying git who tells everyone else what they believe is wrong

Here’s a question for you then:

Can we ever know if God exists?

PS Have you ever considered calling yourself a pluralist? It annoys people 🙂

I’ve corrected this:

If god existed he would never letwouldn’t give a shit these debates happen.

Definition of a Thesist : Believes they are right about everything
Definition of an Athesist : Believe everyone else is wrong about everything

mcboo – Member

This guy believes in fairies at the bottom of the garden.

Does he ? …………well he’s kept quiet about that !

Still you can’t blame him though, he’s probably lose his job.

Definition of an Athesist : Believe everyone else is wrong about everything

Not at all. Atheism accepts that there may be a god. However, without evidence, it’s just noise. The probability that there is a god is so infinitesimally small that it’s as near to zero as makes no difference.

But, heck – all you have to do is demonstrate it…

Atheism accepts that there may be a god

You’re thinking of agnosticism I think. Atheism means “No God”

But, heck – all you have to do is demonstrate it…

No, you don’t 🙂

Not at all. Atheism accepts that there may be a god. However, without evidence, it’s just noise. The probability that there is a god is so infinitesimally small that it’s as near to zero as makes no difference.

But, heck – all you have to do is demonstrate it…

Well surely god is an infinitely complex creation. If you were to believe there was more than 1 universe/parallel universes or reapeting universes we basically have infinite time. As complexity can self develop from simple components though repeating actions surely given infinite time god is sure to exist.

He’d probably then create a new universe to start things going again maybe to eventually make a new god as he’s lonely.

Thesist Disadvantage : no sex before marriage, advanatage : get to sing in nice building + traditional weddings + ready built community

you missed out a fair bit

hating gays
discriminating against women
covering up child abuse…..
etc etc etc

One of the golden rules of childhood applies- ‘never trust a man with a beard’.

Well surely god is an infinitely complex creation

There being no evidence that a god exists, no.

you missed out a fair bit

hating gays
discriminating against women
covering up child abuse…..
etc etc etc

None of those things are unique to theists.

There being no evidence that a god exists, no.

So are you saying that without evidence of something, it doesn’t exist?

So are you saying that without evidence of something, it doesn’t exist?

Probably more like without evidence the assumption that something does exist is wrong.

Probably more like without evidence the assumption that something does exist is wrong.

So it depends on if you are a pessimist or an optimist, as there is a hell of a difference between *might* and *doesn’t*

One of the golden rules of childhood applies- ‘never trust a man with a beard’.

Specially that bearded git in a red suit……….he knew all I wanted was a Scalextric that Christmas, the tight-fisted arsehole.

So it depends on if you are a pessimist or an optimist, as there is a hell of a difference between *might* and *doesn’t*

Not really. The burden of proof lies with those making the claim, not with those who doubt it. Thiests claim that there is a god and it is for them to provide the evidence to back up their claim, not for athiest to prove it incorrect especially as thiestic claims are generally non-falsifiable.

So back to the ‘Prove it’ argument.

Probably more like without evidence the assumption that something does exist is wrong

Well I do have evidence us. Given enough time the process of the known universe seems to assemble creations that are sufficiently complex to start to understand the universe around them and how it works.

I suspect given infinite time (which may be a stumbling block or may not) these creations would become infinitely complex to the extent they will be able to create new universes in the same way the original universe was created.

They will be God to that universe. Im just extrapolating what I see.
This may already have happened and God may have created the universe in such a way that the sentient beings in the universe are pre disposed to believe in God.

So anyway, after we’ve argued ourselves to death on whether or not there is a God, (kind of inevitable that any thread with an archbishop in it ends up this way really 😆 ) how do we feel about

-the Archbishop sticking his oar in again?

-does he really have a political agenda like Cameron, Osborne and Streeter (huuuugely serious comitted Christian by the way) have all insisted today?

-if he does have a political agenda, why is he so mean to NuLab too?

AND no one has answered my (OP) initial question; What Would Jesus Vote?

(FWIW if he existed and had a uk vote, I think he’d go for ‘pre-coalition-sellout’ LibDem)

The problem with saying just prove it, is some things cant be proven.

Godel incompleteness theorems

So back to the ‘Prove it’ argument.

Well yes but as I said before in this context it is entirely appropriate. If you make a factual claim then you should be able to back it up. Why is that such a problem? If you say that it’s a belief of yours but you can’t back up it up with any proof then that’s fair enough as far as I’m concerned (I can’t speak for Mr Woppit) as it is not longer a statement of fact.

Not really. The burden of proof lies with those making the claim

Only if they are trying to convince you that there is a God. That’s not the point of this thread though.

I am sticking up for religionists because you lot are accusing them of being stupid. Of course, terribly ironic – you think they’re stupid because YOU don’t get it 🙂

Well yes but as I said before in this context it is entirely appropriate. If you make a factual claim then you should be able to back it up. Why is that such a problem? If you say that it’s a belief of yours but you can’t back up it up with any proof then that’s fair enough as far as I’m concerned (I can’t speak for Mr Woppit) as it is not longer a statement of fact

Whats wrong with my argument above that the universe seems to construct more and more complex beings ?

What more do you want ? Surely its a possibility ?

I might be right I might be wrong.

This may already have happened and God may have created the universe in such a way that the sentient beings in the universe are pre disposed to believe in God.

You seem to be starting with the assumption that there is a god, and presenting a circular argument.

The problem with saying just prove it, is some things cant be proven.

Well this seems like a rather convenient get out as by framing the argument in a non-falsifiable way you get to just say “god did it” which just looks closed minded.

I am sticking up for religionists because you lot are accusing them of being stupid.

I haven’t accused anyone of being stupid for being a thiest. I have criticised rather stupid arguments and an abundance of logical fallacies but that is something else entirely.

I guess my hang up on that argument is, I can make a statement based on belief, without evidence, but it can still be a fact. As evidence doesn’t determine reality, it merely confirms it.

For example; I believe that we will find new species on earth. I cannot back this up with evidence as they haven’t been found yet, however my belief is a reality, just without the evidence to confirm it.

For example; I believe that we will find new species on earth. I cannot back this up with evidence as they haven’t been found yet, however my belief is a reality, just without the evidence to confirm it.

Your belief that we will find new species of life on earth is simply that a belief, albeit one that is based on previous experience of the rate at which we humans have discovered new species. It will only become a fact once said species is discovered and will be based on the rock solid evidence of someone saying “look at that, that’s a previusly undiscovered species of whatever”.

I haven’t accused anyone of being stupid for being a thiest.

Someone else did up there ^

Then quote them, not me. 😉

Have a little faith, gf.

This may already have happened and God may have created the universe in such a way that the sentient beings in the universe are pre disposed to believe in God.
You seem to be starting with the assumption that there is a god, and presenting a circular argument

No Im not

If you actually read his editorial which is available on the New Statesman website you will find it is a much more wide ranging piece than an attack on the government policy. It certainly is critical of the state of politics, raises questions about the nature of political opposition, and also has some thoughts on what we should be aiming for in society. It is a very interesting piece,albeit in places quite academic. On this basis I am very comfortable with his invention although I don’t agree with everything he says. What certainly does come through is that he is a thoughtful and intelligent man.

Only if they are trying to convince you that there is a God. That’s not the point of this thread though.

If you are a Christian then you should be as evangelising is part of the deal 🙂

What certainly does come through is that he is a thoughtful and intelligent man

+1.

He certainly understands both sides of the debate much better than some on here.

Rowan Williams, being intelligent, earlier…

but maybe society does need a moderating force to encourage people to be less self-centred and materialistic, and more altruistic.

You’re starting to get it.

I’m not religious in any way (not against it, just not my cup of tea), but I have a lot of respect for Rowan Williams after reading his letter to a 6 year old child, Lulu, in The Times.
I couldn’t find the original letter, but this is the nearest thing I could find: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100084843/a-six-year-old-girl-writes-a-letter-to-god-and-the-archbishop-of-canterbury-answers/
I think he’s a good man, irrespective of any religious beliefs.

The problem with saying just prove it, is some things cant be proven. Godel incompleteness theorems

Oh for goodness sake, the relevance of Gödel to a discussion on religion vs atheism is what exactly? It’s an interesting bit of logic and I seem to remember he proves it in a rather elegant way, but to argue that it means anything to an argument about whether religion does more good than atheism is stupid.

And to use Gõdel to argue that demanding proof of things is a bad idea is ridiculous given he is most famous for proving things, not to mention how silly it is to say that formal logic means that people shouldn’t try and ask for evidence to support things you say.

Ps. Heisenberg would also be just as silly a thing to use to support your argument.

Mr Woppit – Member

Rowan Williams, being intelligent, earlier…

Ah, but his beard is a lot better these days. Shirley a good sign!

I’m am an atheist, scientist and believer in logical, rational thinking.

For this reason, this is hard to fault:

What certainly does come through is that he is a thoughtful and intelligent man.

Whatever your views on (his) religion, I believe that it is a good thing that we still have intelligent, thoughtful, people, whose public position is such that they have a platform – but not one that is corrupted by party politics or a corrosive media.

I don’t agree with Rowan Williams’ religious views, but I’m certainly prepared to listen to his views on society. I wish more would. That he has been lambasted is a sad reflection of our dumbed down and highly self interested, partisan, fragmented and dysfunctional country.