Kissing the Girls..Ok?

[GroobySteven]

I'm open-minded, but it's going to really have to be a smoking gun for me to change my mind. I mean, religion might be an easy target intellectually, but certainly not socially. I respected his candor and his ability to withstand the consequences of his words and actions, and (as if you didn't already know) I tend to emulate his truth-at-all-costs mentality. It's not popular, but it lends itself well to integrity.

And yes, he was an incredible debator. A masterdebator. Who loved the transladies.

OK, I made that last part up. :P

~BB~

I'm all for the truth-at-all-costs but when you go out looking to just cause trouble without a fixed agenda then you run the risk of just being pedantic and then becoming that characture. Christopher Hitchens would have an opposite opinion on anything, if it elevated his standing. Richard Dawkins is somebody whom I'd admire a lot more, he has his agenda, he researches it, counters criticism and doesn't need to resort to screaming and swearing. Hitchen's kinda jumped on the God bandwagon there.

[BellaBellucci]

I'm all for the truth-at-all-costs but when you go out looking to just cause trouble without a fixed agenda then you run the risk of just being pedantic and then becoming that characture. Christopher Hitchens would have an opposite opinion on anything, if it elevated his standing. Richard Dawkins is somebody whom I'd admire a lot more, he has his agenda, he researches it, counters criticism and doesn't need to resort to screaming and swearing. Hitchen's kinda jumped on the God bandwagon there.

That's a good point, but what's interesting to note is that Dawkins has been a bit more ambivalent about his beliefs (or professed lack thereof) in his older age. I suspect he'll be crying like a baby for some god's mercy when his time comes.

http://ncronline.org/news/richard-da...d-doesnt-exist

I mean this was a huge news story when it hit. Doubt is like a flood gate. Once you open pandora's box...

~BB~

[GroobySteven]

That's a good point, but what's interesting to note is that Dawkins has been a bit more ambivalent about his beliefs (or professed lack thereof) in his older age. I suspect he'll be crying like a baby for some god's mercy when his time comes.

http://ncronline.org/news/richard-da...d-doesnt-exist

I mean this was a huge news story when it hit. Doubt is like a flood gate. Once you open pandora's box...

~BB~

Nah - he's a scientist and they have to leave room for all probable outcomes. That's why most things are a theory and most research is on probability. I'm an atheist but can't categorically state that there isn't a Big Bloke in the sky controlling anything, I can just state that I don't believe it.

[BellaBellucci]

Nah - he's a scientist and they have to leave room for all probable outcomes. That's why most things are a theory and most research is on probability. I'm an atheist but can't categorically state that there isn't a Big Bloke in the sky controlling anything, I can just state that I don't believe it.

I feel the same way, but doesn't that make us agnostic by definition? I mean, I for one believe that the basis of spirituality will one day be explained scientifically, but I also don't believe that such a natural system is sentient or has a will of its own.

~BB~

[BellaBellucci]

By the way, we're WAAAAY off-topic. All of us.



~BB~

[sucka4chix]

As nasty as the word is, you sound like someone stuck in a victim mentality. What is this? The Oppression Olympics? It's not a competition. Bigotry is ugly all the way around.

'Fraid not. No victim here. Just a hater of bullshit and improprieties!

[GroobySteven]

I feel the same way, but doesn't that make us agnostic by definition? I mean, I for one believe that the basis of spirituality will one day be explained scientifically, but I also don't believe that such a natural system is sentient or has a will of its own.

~BB~

I don't think so, I think agnostic would be that we're waiting to find out. Given the evidence to the contrary, I choose to believe that there isn't a God. Again though, we get back to labeling and words ... agnostic/atheist ... does it matter.

Bed time!

[BellaBellucci]

'Fraid not. No victim here. Just a hater of bullshit and improprieties!

Fair enough.

I don't think so, I think agnostic would be that we're waiting to find out. Given the evidence to the contrary, I choose to believe that there isn't a God. Again though, we get back to labeling and words ... agnostic/atheist ... does it matter.

Bed time!

True. The labeling is confusing, but as such an outspoken critic of theism, I have to question Dawkins here. I'll keep the jury out though. Nite nite!

~BB~

[trish]

The agnostic says, "I don't believe God exists."
The atheist says, "I believe God doesn't exist."
Robert Ingersoll, when asked said that he was agnostic, but that there isn't much difference between the two. Except for the technical placement of a modal operator, I think he's pretty much right. I suspect Dawkins would claim that "God doesn't exist" is as certain as the measurement of an electron's charge; i.e. certain as science, but not as certain as mathematics. I really don't see him recanting on his death bed.

[BellaBellucci]

The agnostic says, "I don't believe God exists."
The atheist says, "I believe God doesn't exist."
Robert Ingersoll, when asked said that he was agnostic, but that there isn't much difference between the two. Except for the technical placement of a modal operator, I think he's pretty much right. I suspect Dawkins would claim that "God doesn't exist" is as certain as the measurement of an electron's charge; i.e. certain as science, but not as certain as mathematics. I really don't see him recanting on his death bed.

Well said. I still disagree, though. It's hard to argue scientifically that there is any evidence whatsoever of a divine being or creator. I also don't think Dawkins has Hitchens' backbone. We shall see.

~BB~