http://www.tvtonight.com.au/2012/04/q-a-pell-vs-dawkins.html

Let's see if we can't get a few of these agnostics to get a firmer backbone by the end of the evening.

Dawkins is an Atheist, he self describes as an atheist. As a scientist he admits that he cannot be 100% certain there's no god. In fact as a scientist he cannot admit 100% certainty of anything. Science deals in probability not certainty.

All possible explanations for 'first cause' are equal. A rainbow serpent creator is just as likely as Almighty God. About as likely as a jelly snake turning into a Tyranosaurus rex.  Offer me $50 against my life that you can turn a jelly snake into a living dinosaur and i'll take your money. That's what I mean by saying agnosticism is gutless idiocy.

Quote:


If you believe that an ingot that's 99.99999999999% gold with an almost infinitely small possibility of being 0.000000000001% tin is tin.



Quote:


That lead to conclusions about some things being proved useful to believe, on the balance of probabilities.


Edited:


Atheism hasn't reached a conclusion about the origins of the Universe. It's just reached a conclusion that one of the many hypothesis is wrong, in all probability. If I told you you were going to die tomorrow unless you gave me $10, would you give me $10 to be on the safe side? 

nairbe wrote on Apr 10^th, 2012 at 7:40am:

True. The association of science with atheism is not a necessary precondition for either. However they do, I believe, share something fundamental in common which has its roots largely in 20th century American culture.

American religiosity transformed atheism into a form of "Satanism" largely as a result of the American hysterical fear of communism.

Science (prior to WW2) was perceived almost exclusively as a force for good... Post WW2, science (with its engine firmly planted within American culture and crystallised by the development of nuclear weapons) was perceived as a potential evil... I think it was and is still only a small step for those infected with American hyper-religiosity to associate atheist scientists with evil incarnate.

I'm pretty sure most atheists would not also be scientists.

Why the heck are there so many trheads for this 1 topic?

Check the other ones for what I think I am not typing it all out again.

SOB

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 9^th, 2012 at 11:21pm:


Not all gods are designated as "Creator gods" . Therefore agnosticism in its broadest sense takes no position on the origins of the universe.  Can you follow the logic?

Quote:


What if you were wrongly accused of something and as a result, sentenced to death - or imprisonment? Let's say that random chance put you in a position where a reasonable person would find you guily, but the causation of that evidence was a result of a series of random events? Let's say you were caught with a heavy object in your hand just as it ploughed through somebody's skull (You were framed by a series of random events)

Would you believe that to be be evil? 

As a trivial example, I was at a shopping centre on the weekend and an empty trolley came flying past me (I'm not sure where it came from) . I grabbed on to that trolley and caught it just before it came into contact with a passing car, causing a dent. If I hadn't caught it, the damage would have been worse.

The driver got out of the car irately, and what do you think she said?

- Look what you've done to my car! 

It got me thinking 

muso wrote on Apr 10^th, 2012 at 2:15pm:



muso,

What is that saying ?

"Sh!t happens."

And my other favourite....

"Life is a b!tch,  ....and then ya die!"

Is it evil, if i got blamed, and punished, for something [particularly some crime] that i didn't do [...or was innocent of] ?

For me that would depend upon who 'judged' the charges against me, and how the evidence against me was presented.

If the evidence against me was true and fair, and was presented fairly,    ....then if i was convicted, then ['intellectually'] i would find no fault with the judge [....even though i knew absolutely, that i was innocent].

[But i suspect that in the 'real world', if this happened to me, yes, i would be upset and depressed about it all.]




But muso,

Saying that, above, i don't 'believe in' this world, in the same way as people like you, do.

For me [and for people like me], this life is just a journey to God.

For me, this life [for each of us], is the 'wilderness journey', of God's people [...which is spoken of throughout the bible].
'Can you follow that logic?'

And, i understand that i will be put through trials.  [....to see how i will respond to those trials]

....as per my verses below;




[unable to watch the YT ]






Daniel 12:10
Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.

Isaiah 48:10
Behold, I have refined thee, but not with silver; I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction.

Revelation 21:7
He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
8  But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Grey wrote on Apr 10^th, 2012 at 7:26pm:


ease up on the cats Grey.  I thought the thread was about Dawkins V Pell not Atheists V the universe. My point is that Dawkins uses Atheism to support his scientific argument with religion. This is not required and draws Atheists into an argument they don't need to be in, this is a scientific argument that Dawkins is having. Atheists don't need to tell believers their god is a fantasy, this can only be discovered by the individual who is prepared to question and will not happen if they are having it rammed down their throat. Or do you suggest that Atheists prey on the disadvantaged and vulnerable like religions do.