1. The Fourth Flea!

Comment #26673 by Flamula on March 21, 2007 at 4:29 am

dawkins could easily write a book in response to these responses, it is after all only fair, and he could do it in the same fashion, perhaps "'the god defusion' a celestial teapot's response", and he could pretend to be writing from the point of view of the teapot, with just as much authority and probably more logic than these bunch of self righteous simpletons could ever muster. what a terrible waste of good trees.

2. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #25613 by Flamula on March 14, 2007 at 10:25 am

I see – atheism is just a negative lack of something which has no consequences, evidence or implications? It would not impact your teaching of science, history, philosophy, religious and moral education? And if you believe that one you will believe in flying pigs and universes inhabited by women with green moustaches!

The concept of religion is wholly unneccesary, how could it have any negative consequences? It reduces your sphere of influence for a start - there's one positive straight away.

We're clearly not on about removing it from history books (it has great historical significance and serves as an excellent illustration of it's political potential through obstructing scientific advancement, population control and pursuing military conquest through the ages), but it is surely irrelevant to any science subject, and the case for morals without religious influence is quite comprehensive. If anything religion provides you with a list of predjudices which hugely outweigh it's good points. Dawkins himself has even theorised the possibility of a genetic basis for morality (as a consequence of the survival instinct, something the recent findings about neanderthal man's lack of trade interaction and subsequent extinction fit in nicely with.)

Children are very vulnerable to misinformation and should not have their heads filled with any dogma until they get to an age where they have grown some common sense and can make up their own minds about it. Basically the time is better spent learning to cross the road or wire a plug. But I'm stating the obvious.

I'll be unlikely to continue this insensible discussion much longer as i'm busy seeing my publisher about releasing this very thread as a book. I'll probably call it something like 'The Dawkins Confusion' which my close circle of friends will find terribly witty but which is actually tired, pretentious and derivative, then I might put an apostrophe after "Dawkins'", to illustrate his omnipotence as a kind of 'in' joke for the astute non-believer. But seriously, isn't it about time you shook the dust from your sandals and went off to pedal that quaint occult ideology of yours somewhere else...

3. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #25439 by Flamula on March 13, 2007 at 6:17 am

RE: the wee flea.

Are you suggesting that I did not come to my conclusions independently?

Yes. Otherwise it would appear you invented the Christian religion by yourself. Any atheist in england has grown up at least on the periphery of Christian tenets and can decide whether to go along with it all or question it, and his motives for doing so. Sheep and goats you might analogize.

Are only atheists capable of independent thought?

No, but because you are capable doesn't mean you use that capability.

Secondly if atheism is the de facto position that people will come to anyway why then did Dawkins write TGD and why do you want it to be placed in the hands of as many people as possible?

A lot of people consider themselves Christian/Muslim/etc simply from the basis of not being exposed to anything else, writing a book about it is a tried and tested method of spreading the 'good word' as you well know. Clearly the reason we want it spread is because of the well documented position we have on religion being downright unfounded, dishonest and subsequently very dangerous.

"It is based on logic and backed up by overwhelming up to date information concerning the nature of existence. No amount of ancient scriptures, communal indoctrination or peer pressure influenced our direction."

-There you go again. The same old arrogance. You are the only people who look at evidence, think clearly, avoid indoctrination etc. (The fact that you want to use the State school system to teach our children atheist presuppostions is of course not indoctrination, it's just teaching the truth!).

We don't so much want to teach kids your atheist 'presuppositions' at school as much as not teach them religious presuppositions, put it this way - if we were anti "dance lessons", you wouldn't find a comparable lesson in NOT dancing: get it? It is the default situation, no need to try and misrepresent us with your "atheism is a religion" quackery.

"You will also find that we try never to discount any possibilities in our correspondence, i'll cite the "Why there almost certainly is no god" statement as a prime example. "

Please, please, please read what has gone before. For the umpteenth time I will tell you that the phrase 'Why there almost certainly is no god" is a rhetorical device not an expression of open-mindedness.

It is an admission of a possibility, nothing more nothing less. The christian religion would have a lot more credence among us if the bible said things like 'in the beginning, there was nothing (but there just might not have been, no matter how slight the possibility).'

"The onus of this thread was (I hoped) becoming a platform for you to present a coherent argument for God."

Actually the onus of this thread was to allow atheists to mock those of us who have had the temerity to write questioning TGD, and to imply that we are only after the mighty dollar. It is fairly typical of the skewed, bitter and self-righteous tone of much of this site.

Well, no, not really, and I never personally attributed you as being in it for the money, there are easier ways for a preacher to get rich, faith healing for instance. When you first interjected I was hoping for the possibilty of a nice sensible debate, but then it became apparent you were here as a internet missionary to show the 'truth' to the unsaved fools, racking up your spiritual brownie points so you can be God's best friend when you get to heaven.

"You have not yet done so to any degree of satisfaction in my eyes,"

Of course not. How can a willfully blind man see?

Well quite, after all seeing IS believing;- it is most fortunate then that religion has a particularly distinctive bovine odour.

4. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #25274 by Flamula on March 11, 2007 at 3:06 pm

I would like to make some further observations that will hopefully diffuse the possibility of further unproductive posts.

The way you see atheism as it's own religion is incorrect. You need to redefine your definition to the dictionary one, and then do us the courtesy of not referring to us as 'followers' and to our theory on the none existence of god as a 'belief'. Also note that we all came to our conclusions independently of anyone else. we didn't read it in a book or hear it from a preacher. It is based on logic and backed up by overwhelming up to date information concerning the nature of existence. No amount of ancient scriptures, communal indoctrination or peer pressure influenced our direction.

You will also find that we try never to discount any possibilities in our correspondence, i'll cite the "Why there almost certainly is no god" statement as a prime example. Yet you frequently state your beliefs with no pretext to illustrate the allowance made for an error in judgement. Whether deliberate or not this is incredibly condescending and damaging to your 'open minded' status.

Knitpicking about what is in the Bible or what Hitler said seems misguided. The onus of this thread was (I hoped) becoming a platform for you to present a coherent argument for God. You have not yet done so to any degree of satisfaction in my eyes, and have infact added to my awareness of the irrationality of religious people by falling back into the dogma again which very literally is it's own judge, jury and, pivotally for us - executioner.

5. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24326 by Flamula on March 6, 2007 at 2:50 am

Once again the atheist demographic is confronted with the fact that people are so comfortable in their traditions to ever consider that they might just be completely without substance. Moreover that the very thought is abhorrent to some because they have devoted their lives to the cause and thusly they will go so far as to attempt to discredit it, falling back on their dogma. There is no real point in continuing this discussion. We are unwilling to concede the existence of supernatural forces up to the point you actually have something conclusive to bring to the table; and you are unwilling to bend on the possibility that you might be wrong in the face of any odds whatsoever. If hypothetically a God made an appearance on earth, and proved beyond any doubt he had created it all, and his name was Xenu or Allah or any God other than yours. Would you accede? We sure would, even if it was yours. And all the while you'd think for a moment and then see it as your 'real' God testing the faithful. Nothing will discourage you from your train of thought. Nothing at all. You sir are allegorically as black a pot as they come.

6. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24211 by Flamula on March 5, 2007 at 9:53 am

re: 64. Comment #24195 by The Wee Flea on March 5, 2007 at 8:08 am

I will accept that 'faith' is considered an ambiguous enough term and while an atheist will take it to mean belief without proof, a religious person will have a much wider definition in accordance with his own preference.

Indeed TGD is not a science book, but the conclusions drawn therein are as a result of logical philosophical steps, there is no whimsical feeling where actual conclusions are made. To argue against them with a list of alternative philosophies is fruitless, they must be refuted logically one by one...

"But you see that is the trouble. You ask for empirical scientific absolute proof of a material God - and use that to discount the possibility of a non material God. Your presuppostitions will not allow any evidence that has not already been pre-determined by you. "

We almost see eye to eye here; although it is a given that our presuppositions discount the possibility of a non material anything, there's no bias against God.

We don't predetermine to believe anything, we weigh up the evidence and stick with the best course of action until more evidence shows up at which point we reconsider and continue forward ad infinitum. There is no fairer, cleaner cut system than the scientific method. But let us say that if we for example were to accept that God was the exception to science - Then you are faced with the problem that if you make an exception for one God, you must make one for them all.

7. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24173 by Flamula on March 5, 2007 at 6:17 am

Any counter-arguments brought forward by religious people (including your good self Mr Robertson) are of a faith based nature - when crucially the hub of the argument rests on the validity of faith itself.

I would say if you are going to write a book/letter in response to something, it is only polite to approach it on equal terms. You are more than welcome to contradict the arguments if you can, but by all means use the same degree of scientific reasoning used to make them.

The main point is that whilst open to any evidence to the contrary - at present we atheists can say factually that beyond all reasonable doubt there is no justification for belief in a god. We are still waiting for your side of the argument to be presented in the logical methods we subscribe to.

Furthermore overt defensiveness does not seem to tally with the laissez-faire message which you theoretically endorse.

Thank you for you kind interaction so far.