Richard Dawkins sums up religion

I wonder if Prof Richard Dawkins and his followers will celebrate 'CHRIST'-mas?.

Setting aside how ridiculous that argument is. Are we're going to use etymology to decide things now? because a lot of the names you find the Bible predate it and are from older religions it was adapted from... if you're religious I'd seriously stick to the faith card, you're not going to do well on anything else.
 
Last edited:
At the end of the day, neither religious or non religious can prove or disprove the existence of God. These 5 pages? A pseudo intellectual fart in the wind, to be stored in a database until a server is taken offline.

Congratulations.
 
fuxq.jpg
 
OK, so we're down to the science can't prove it doesn't exist so it's daft to assume it doesn't exist.

How many other things in life do you apply that reasoning to? Name something else which gets this "free pass" of maybe existing even though there's no evidence what-so-ever of it existing.

It's not daft to assume it doesn't exist in terms of your practical every day experience. It is daft to insist it doesn't exist. I don't spend a great deal of time in my every day life thinking about what I cannot perceive, so it's hard to provide more examples.

Like I said earlier. There's no difference between a god that doesn't exist and a god that exists but only exists outside of our reality which has no influence on our reality.

Well if said God created the universe in which we exist, then his existence is quite relevant. And who says he does no influence our reality? I don't know that he doesn't.
 
It's not daft to assume it doesn't exist in terms of your practical every day experience. It is daft to insist it doesn't exist. I don't spend a great deal of time in my every day life thinking about what I cannot perceive, so it's hard to provide more examples.

That's because there aren't any. It's only god that somehow get's this free-pass to maybe existing without any evidence. Weird logic isn't it?

Well if said God created the universe in which we exist, then his existence is quite relevant. And who says he does no influence our reality? I don't know that he doesn't.

Well first god created the Earth and our Sol which we found out later that wasn't the case. So now it gets pushed back to a place which we have still yet to understand. How fitting.

Also, if something has an influence on our reality then that influence could be measured.
 
I love the fact that Jesus Christ seems to be the one and only savior but then when you look at so other so called saviour's prior to and after Jesus being born they share a striking similarity to the J mans life story...

Off the top of my head Horus, Attis, Mithra, Krishna, Zarathustra and Dionysus were all born of a virgin, betrayed, executed and rose from the dead, all of them also had disciples and performed miracles.

There are possibly more but do we see a pattern here at all?
 
This is why Dawkins does what he does.

It's easy for people in the UK to look at what Dawkins does and think he's just attacking religious people, but you have to remember that the UK, for the most part, has grown out of religion, but there are still huge swathes of America where you'd be totally ostracised (or worse) for openly being a non-believer. Dawkins, for all his alleged stridency, is a tiny voice compared to that of the religious.
 
Show me the religion that can tackle the randomness of why Dinosaurs would roam the earth for millions of years only to be wiped out one afternoon by a passing space rock and I will listen.

The only religions that can tackle this kind of thing are the likes of Taoism & Pantheism and these are the only ones that have ever resonated with me.

We were born from the matter of the universe and so will always be the universe, there is something profound and comforting about this.....If only Christians, Jews and Muslims could realise this too.
 
That's because there aren't any. It's only god that somehow get's this free-pass to maybe existing without any evidence. Weird logic isn't it?

I don't think it's weird at all, I think you're just failing to understand the implications of what I said. Let me try to restate it a different way:

I live within the material universe, which can be examined through scientific method. What is contained within this material universe can therefore be rationalised scientifically. I do not know what (if anything) lies beyond this material universe however. Others have (through logic, experience and so forth) deduced the existence of a God and I am therefore aware of this concept. I am not aware of what might exist beyond that however.

Well first god created the Earth and our Sol which we found out later that wasn't the case. So now it gets pushed back to a place which we have still yet to understand. How fitting.

That is a subjective understanding of God and creation, so I see no sense in discussing that point further.

Also, if something has an influence on our reality then that influence could be measured.

Maybe it can be measured once you have the appropriate tools to do so.
 
but religion is science, you can't take out science from religion. most of the miracles found in all holy books are advance science.....ignorant ape like Richard.D can't and will not comprehend this knowledge.

his knowledge is based on apes...... after all he is a monkey.


lol - these threads always bring out the crazy people. :p
 
Pastafarianism.

Pastafarianism is NOTHING and will not stand the test of time unlike the truth that I and many Noodlecs firmly believe in fact I condem all Pah-stafarians to hell and I ask any interested readers to petition the government to remove the Pastafarian Bishops from their seats in the House of Lords, HOW COULD PASTA HAVE EXISTED BEFORE NOODLES???????? It's utter madness.
 
This popped up on my subs today.

These aren't random people on the street, these are people who have been elected/appointed to positions of great power and influence. The last one was even a presidential candidate (until he nearly called Obama the N word).

 
Pastafarianism is NOTHING and will not stand the test of time unlike the truth that I and many Noodlecs firmly believe in fact I condem all Pah-stafarians to hell and I ask any interested readers to petition the government to remove the Pastafarian Bishops from their seats in the House of Lords, HOW COULD PASTA HAVE EXISTED BEFORE NOODLES???????? It's utter madness.

FSM HAS ALWAYS EXISTED. HE IS THE ALPHA AND OMEGA. IF NOODLES EXIST IT IS BECAUSE HE, IN HIS DEVINE WISDOM, BROUGHT FORTH THEIR DOUGHY BEING.
 
FSM HAS ALWAYS EXISTED. HE IS THE ALPHA AND OMEGA. IF NOODLES EXIST IT IS BECAUSE HE, IN HIS DEVINE WISDOM, BROUGHT FORTH THEIR DOUGHY BEING.

FNS!!!! Are you from the USA or something?? Go get an education, pasta is a simple reworking of an ancient belief system going back beyond Babylon all based on the original Ur religion, Pasta was nothing more than a control system set up by the rulers of Babylon and Ting!
 
Back
Top Bottom