Why then did you start a thread on this subject? What purpose does it serve to talk about things that do not exist?
Well mainly because I am intested to know why people believe what they do. Atheists and theists do both exist so from a human interest point of view they are worth talking about. The thread was about people's opinions and beliefs not directly about the existence of god or gods (although given the topic that is bound to come up indirectly at least)
And they prod others to affirm or disaffirm their beliefs.
Well to the extent that I am hoping to make myself think about why I believe what I do in a bit more depth. Surely that is to be comended rather than dismissed?
Okay, so why even waste your time on every key stroke given the brevity of this life?
It serves to keep me out of mischeif while my baby boy naps
What purpose does it serve Richard Dawkins to spend grossly inordinate amounts of time on something he alleges doesn't even exist?
Religion and faith exist regardless of whether or not God does. If one believes, as Dawkins does, that religion does immeasurable harm to the world then it is only to be expected that he tackle the subject and related issues. The main related issue quite obviously being the varacity of the religious teachings at hand.
Even in the event that there is no God, its undeniable that human beings are drawn to the topic. If that's so, perhaps the more applicable question is why this is so. Why claim that theists are irrational people when it pervades all of humanity? If biology is all that we have, then surely there is a perfectly natural, perfectly logical, and perfectly excusable reason why theists find the compulsion to believe as they do.
Good question. My pet theory is that human intelligence, consciousness and mortality combined require us to ask questions that we are too ignorant to answer and too proud to admit ignorance of. The result is religion and belief in the supernatural. However evolutionary psychology may well one day have a properly formulated theory rather than my own ill thought out ad-hoc little suggestion.
But what difference does it make, especially in a universe that has no purpose or meaning? Why waste your breath?
My life and that of my son (for example) are no less meaningful to me than your life and that of those you love are to you.
What possible reason is there for you assuming otherwise???????
Do you know that humans have been to the moon? Do you truly know that?
I know nothing for absolute certain in the sense you mean but I strongly doubt the moon landing conspiracy theories.
Similarly, your belief in evolution is based on genetic and/or morphological similarities. But you could not know whether God designed as such or if its simply a series of happenstances, like a leaf being tossed about in the wind. So I ask, what do you really know, and what do you really believe?
My confidence in evolutionary theory is based on reasonably comprehensive if not scientifically specialist examination of the theory and the body of evidence that there is for it. In addition a trust in the methods that have been used to formualate the theory and verify it's accuracy (methods that I have personal experience of in another arena) as well as a genuine wonder at just how powerful an all encompassing explanatory theory of new evidence it has proved to be in comparison to the rather ad-hoc non predictive alterantive assertions that make up the rival 'theories' (if they can even be called that).
Tell me the difference between agnosticism and atheism. I can't answer this until you clarify a few points for me.
This my personal view so it will almost certainly contradict some formal definition somewhere but anyway -
An atheist is someone who has actually considered the question of gods existence and concluded that there are no gods. They have consciously rejected the hypothesis that god exists.
An agnostic, in my view, can have examined the evidence and decided they genuinely have no opinion either way, or they don't care either way, or have never considered the question, or don't even know that the question even exists etc. In other words they have not consciously decided either way through ignorance, apathy, uncertainty or any other reason.
This is just my gut feeling and Crash for one would disagree that a distinction is even useful or necessary (see our conversation above for some atheist infighting)- but you asked what I thought so I answered as honestly as I could in the spirit of the thread as I intended it (i.e. in terms of imperfect personal views over formal definitions)
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2