Creationist religious nutjob on R4 "One to One 9.30am"

If God created the universe out of nothing why did he need a rib to create Eve?
Also, the forbidden fruit was in the tree of knowledge, what is the message there?

I dont see the harm in most religions (bar those extremists off all denominations) and have a few close friends and relatives who live as close to the book as possible (HK has a huge number of practicing Christians), I just dont like how religion gets a to play a prominent part in politics and education.

Religion has no place in state education just as facts have no place in organized religion (quote courtesy of the Simpsons).

stewartc – Member

Also, the forbidden fruit was in the tree of knowledge, what is the message there?

Be excellent to each other

Interesting post by one Penn Jilette…

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/01/22/is-atheism-a-religion/atheism-should-end-religion-not-replace-it

If God and the Devil were imaginary when you died then that would be it – nothing…but what if that wasn’t the case…?

What if you died and then met Zeus and Thor, with Pascal by their side?

Interesting post by one Penn Jilette…

I’m with Penn.

What if you died and then met Zeus and Thor, with Pascal by their side?

Lol. Would he be looking to collect on his wager?

If God and the Devil were imaginary when you died then that would be it – nothing…but what if that wasn’t the case…?

The above is Pascal’s Wager.

To quote A.J. Ayer on his near death experience: “It has slightly weakened my conviction that my genuine death will be the end of me, though I continue to hope that it will be”

And to quote me, the only thing worse than the thought that this is it is the the thought that this isn’t it.

From what I’ve read before molgrips likes to play devil’s* advocate on religious threads…
*but no he doesn’t exist either

I’m pretty sure that molgrips exists.

Is this still going on?

Have you resolved the issue yet?

Anyway….I can vouch that Molly definitely exists. Not just here, but on Facebook too. Actually… I’ve met him in real life as well (inplausable I know, but true, nonetheless)

So… furnished as we now are with that knowledge, who fancies starting a religion in his name? I feel it would provide us all with a degree of certainty that’s presently lacking

I’m up for that!

“GetaGripism”

?

who fancies starting a religion in his name?

Moletheism?

I’m atheist/agnostic and mrs peterfile is catholic. She’s probably more tolerant of my (non) beliefs than I am of hers.

Her family are super religious (one of her brothers is a monk, her dad is a dentist who goes on missions to help the poor in south america, her parents are leaders of their religious community). Believe it or not, the most educational, sensible and civil discussions I’ve ever had about religion have been with her dad. he’s so comfortable in his faith that he seems to enjoy the opportunity to present an alternative view to mine. they’ve never once been preachy and are remarkably subtle about their faith, despite it being an enormous part of their lives.

But, the one thing that ALWAYS gets me wound up, is the whole “you’ve got to believe in him” stuff. If God exists as they say, then I am one of his children, he ultimately created me. So if I live my life exactly how he would have wanted me to, but I don’t believe in him, I’m still at the back of the queue for heaven. But if I’m a relentless sinner who worships the ground he floats on then i’m OK, he forgives me.

If that’s true then it’s got less to do with being a good christian/person and more about worshipping him. Why would such an benevolent god want his children to worship him? It’s all a bit egotistic, he sounds like the kind of guy i wouldn’t want to have a beer with to be honest.

How many times do you religion debatists need it explaining to you, what you all are, like it or not.
You are, like me and everyone else, an Agnostic, since neither Atheism or Religious faith can be proven so the default is obvious.

The world is Agnostic if only it would admit it and become a better place.

[/thread]

I believe I’m an agnostic.

How many times do you religion debatists need it explaining to you, what you all are, like it or not.
You are, like me and everyone else, an Agnostic, since neither Atheism or Religious faith can be proven so the default is obvious.

The world is Agnostic if only it would admit it and become a better place.

Not true. One stance is belief in something with out proof, the other is not. And believers are also atheists, apart from one god.

One stance is belief in something with out proof, the other is not.

If this is the case (and I’m not disagreeing) then following scientific procedure one should come to the conclusion that Atheism is probably correct given the current information. However, should further/any subsequent evidence arise then that would be subject to scientific due process and any previous theories/hypotheses rejected as required?

In a roundabout kind of way then people following a scientific model should really be agnostic (because future evidence can never be discounted). Shouldn’t they?

I can’t quote it accurately without doing a search for it, but a previous post asked something like: “What if you died and discovered that you were in the afTer-life”.

Richard Dawkins was once asked “what if you died and met god”? He replied: “Well, I’m sure we could both sit down and have a nice discussion about how his existence fitted into our understanding of a quantum universe and, having settled the matter, I could move on to the next interesting thing”.

The reply, I thought, illustrated a complete lack of being “humble”, in the best sense.

In a roundabout kind of way then people following a scientific model should really be agnostic (because future evidence can never be discounted). Shouldn’t they?

I’m agnostic about god(s) in the same way I’m agnostic about Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. If there is evidence for any of them, I will change my stance.

miketually – Member
How many times do you religion debatists need it explaining to you, what you all are, like it or not.
You are, like me and everyone else, an Agnostic, since neither Atheism or Religious faith can be proven so the default is obvious.
The world is Agnostic if only it would admit it and become a better place.

Not true. One stance is belief in something with out proof, the other is not. And believers are also atheists, apart from one god.

They could both not be true, both stances are the same, neither has proof which kind of makes my point, they do not know, absolutely, even if they ‘believe’ there is or isn’t a deity. They are Agnostic they just don’t believe it, is all.

*A self proclaimed Atheist is just as stupid as a Religious Nutjob, in fact they are both nut jobs.

*First rule of Agnostic fundamentalism 😉

Anyway….I can vouch that Molly definitely exists.

pretty sure the asterisk was next to the big bad man’s name not molgrips

I’ve met him in real life as well

me too.

So… furnished as we now are with that knowledge, who fancies starting a religion in his name?

oh god damn!
please
please
please
please
please
please
[stop]

Also, the forbidden fruit was in the tree of knowledge, what is the message there?

I think it was the knowledge of good and evil, so,eating it maeant that evil was no longer abstract and outside of humanity.

Subservience goooood… Knowledge baaaaaad….

They could both not be true, both stances are the same, neither has proof which kind of makes my point, they do not know, absolutely, even if they ‘believe’ there is or isn’t a deity. They are Agnostic they just don’t believe it, is all.

Dawkins (or possibly someone he quotes) talks about a 7 point sliding scale.

At 1, you have someone who has absolute belief in their god and never wavers in that belief. At 7, you have someone who states as an absolute fact that gods do not exist.

Most religious believers would place themselves somewhere between 1.5 and 2.5 while most atheists would place themselves at around 6 to 6.5

Agnostics are fence-sitters. If you’re an agnostic, you’re probably slightly to one side or the other and so not really an agnostic.

That’s Richard. He puts himself at 6.9 recurring…

Mr Woppit – Member
Subservience goooood… Knowledge baaaaaad….

POSTED 4 MINUTES AGO # REPORT-POST

No, that’s not the point at all. Read above. In fact it’s not so much that they ate from that tree that they were banished, it was to stop them from eating from the tree of life,or summink

Nice discussion of “rude/aggressive/offensive” atheists:

No, that’s not the point at all.

I rather thought it was.

No, that’s not the point at all.
I rather thought it was.

I know, that’s why i thought it best to stop you before you made a fool of yourself.

Did I ask you to?

No, but I dont imagine you would want me tombe subservient to you.

I’ll alert the media.

Don’t! Right now, only the folks on here know what a fool you are. It’s our little STW secret

“If you think a post is a deliberate troll, abusive, offensive or otherwise a bit naughty then don’t hesitate to email us at moderator@singletrackworld.com and we’ll have a look. ”

Did I ask you to?

It started right here.

you two we got 12 pages now behave please

They could both not be true, both stances are the same, neither has proof which kind of makes my point, they do not know, absolutely, even if they ‘believe’ there is or isn’t a deity

Its sort of true but you cannot have proof of something not existing you just have no evidence of it existing. By this argument we can say the same about unicorns[ you can make up anything here just make sure its not actually real] either as they meet that same standard as your god test
Its obvious why we don’t do this and why we would view the they do exist as not being equal to the they don’t exist argument.
Its the lack of proof and th eonus is on the claimant to substantiate the things existence

Sorry to be a bore and all that, but

Woptit you practically call me a child abuser early in this thread.

But know you are getting all upset at being called …. wait for it …. a fool. 😆

I’ll tell you what, I’ll change the F in fool for a T.

And in your own words ….

“Comfortable with that?”

I honestly can’t understand (and never have been able to) why any discussion about the validity of any particular religion gets any further than a sentence of two.

You can believe what you like, but to get other people to take you beliefs seriously, when there is not one iota of peer reviewed court admissible hard evidence to support your beliefs is nothing short of ridiculous.

I learnt the other day that I (confirmed atheist since early childhood when I could differentiate between fact and fiction) have way more in common with Muslims than I would have thought. I believe in no gods. I think that’s about 7,000 gods last count. Muslim’s don’t believe in 6,999 gods. Who knew we had so much in common?

Ro5ey – Member

Sorry to be a bore and all that, but

Woptit you practically call me a child abuser early in this thread.

But know you are getting all upset at being called …. wait for it …. a fool.

I’ll tell you what, I’ll change the F in fool for a T.

And in your own words ….

“Comfortable with that?”

Yes, thank you.

Just to clarify – I was not accusing you of being a child abuser. I was introducing you to the concept of the indoctrination of young children into dogma, being likened to child abuse (note usage of quotation marks) and asking you (perhaps in a badly-worded way) what you might think of it.

Without the use of any personal insults, of course. I don’t do that.

Perhaps I should turn the other cheek…

You can believe what you like, but to get other people to take you beliefs seriously, when there is not one iota of peer reviewed court admissible hard evidence to support your beliefs is nothing short of ridiculous

Thing is, most of the believers, especially on here, aren’t particualrly expecting others to take their beliefs seriously. In fact, most of their arguments are pointing out the flaws or inaccuracies in the arguments of the non-believers, who are generally the once trying to convince the others to join them.