Mickey Mouse thinks religious belief is.............

by wobble 128 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  PSacramento

  PSacramento - No I haven't read the book but I have heard Dinesh debating it. The evidence for NDE is dreadful. Susan Blackmore more a career out of trying to find good evidence for it and finally gave up.

  It's an interesting read, if nothing else.

  I know its not a reason to dismiss the content of what he writes but I find D'Souza to be thoroughly obnoxious, he waffles about pseudo-scientific stuff he doesn't understand. His favourite word recently seems to be "quantum" as if it gives him credibility.

  Funny, I have the same view of Dawkins and Harris ( substitute pseudo-scientific to pseudo-theological) and still read them too because they challenge me.

  Much like you do my friend :)

  This life is all we get - but since we are here at all we are one of the lucky ones.

  I agree that we are very lucky and that this life is the only life we get, but I would add that this is the only life we get of THIS type.
• 

  cantleave

  Someone posted this on FB - I thought it was appropriate for this thread.

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ez0g-dQZ518#!
• 

  cedars

  Thanks cantleave, I'll check that out some time soon.

  I hope you're still ok with me, and understand where I'm coming from.

  Cedars
• 

  cantleave

  Cedars - You know we'll always be good. I love debate, even though it's hard being right all time .

  Listen my friend, the fact we can debate these issues, either on this board or over a beer down the pub (), means we are free of cult menatlity. I have made some great friends since leaving, we don't agree on everything, but the fact we can disagree and still be friends, means there are no conditions on our friendship.

  Don't worry about arguing your corner, everyone has that right, noone should be hurt by their views being challenged. I certainly never am. I even laugh when twats call me an idiot!

  BTW - I will get round to posting your copy of "you know what" soon - just been really ill and busy the last few weeks.
• 

  Mickey mouse

  Cedars said:

  I hope you understand that my whole argument in this thread is not that creationism is right, or that atheism is right, but that dogmatism in the absence of certainty is wrong.

  And:

  It is the issue of dogmatism that drew me to this thread. Threads that simply argue for or against atheism don't normally interest me, because it's simply one person's opinion versus another, and I don't consider myself sufficiently informed on the subject to make meaningful contributions on either side.

  This sums it up for me. It is also the reason I rarely get involved in believer/atheist threads.
• 

  cedars

  Mickey mouse - thanks for that, I assumed that was how you felt too.

  Cantleave - you're a star! I don't know you as well as I would like to, but I'm relieved that you have the kind of qualities I look for in a friend.

  Cedars
• 

  sizemik

  With this in mind, how can anybody categorically say that belief in an intelligent beginning to, say, the universe is an irrational or unintelligent hypothesis?

  You may have inadvertently split the critical hair in the equation cedars . . .

  Your statement is contigent upon the interchangeable use of two words . . . "belief" and "hypothesis"

  A hypothesis for which there exists limited or no evidence can still be rational and intelligent . . . but relies on future discovery to survive beyond the hypothetical. To engage the mind to the point of belief based on such a hypothesis is neither rational nor intelligent. Hypothesis by nature is the subject of test and question.

  It appears to me that religious hypothesis easily becomes belief. Once it has achieved that status, the hypothesis undergoes change to accommodate the evidence. We get to the point where thinking believers (they do exist), modify previously held beliefs to retain the hypothesis. Accommodating evolution and the existence of an intelligent creator is but one example. Ditching the infallible status of the Bible is another. Thinking non-believers simply confront the hypothesis itself, based on current evidence. This is something believers (and I believe this and recent threads prove it) are unable/unwilling to do. I fail to see how this is either intelligent or rational. It is pure dogmatism.

  I even laugh when twats call me an idiot! . . . cantleave

  LOL cantleave . . . I even laugh when idiots call me a twat. No hard feelings bro.
• 

  tec

  We get to the point where thinking believers (they do exist), modify previously held beliefs to retain the hypothesis. Accommodating evolution and the existence of an intelligent creator is but one example.

  What about believers who didn't have previously held beliefs TO modify? What if they followed the evidence and the evidence led them to faith?

  Thinking non-believers simply confront the hypothesis itself based on current evidence. This is something believers (and I believe this and recent threads prove it) are unable/unwilling to do.

  Could you give me an e x ample to help illustrate your point? I'm not sure what you mean.

  Peace,

  Tammy
• 

  sizemik

  What about believers who didn't have previously held beliefs TO modify?

  It's a moot point . . . such a person does not exist.

  Were in the realm of semantics again . . . "evidence" to some amounts to a personal supernatural experience, to others it refers to that which is demonstrable and evident to all. The former is irrelevant to anybody apart from the one undergoing the supernatural experience, and cannot be challenged with counter evidence . . . so what's the point?
• 

  Twitch

  The above cut and paste has been brought to you by James Lett in the Winter 1990 issue of Skeptical Enquirer

  Thanks for that.