Richard Dawkins

I agree. It's unfortunate that there are people who claim to be Christian yet who insist on centreing their theology on early books of the Torah that predate the time in which Jesus of Nazareth is supposed to have preached by countless generations. There is nothing in the Christian New Testament that portrays the Nazarene as an Orthodox Jew, therefore adherence by Christians to the Written Law of Judaism maakes no sense, regardless of whether he was who they believe him to be or not.

The problem with a conflict between science and religion is that it's a war that cannot be fought. Science cannot absolutely disprove the existence of a god or gods nor can religion prove such an existence, therefore they can never meet in the field and do battle without it ending in stalemate -and what's the point of that?

Therefore science and religion should leave each other alone. It's a waste of energy.

I don't believe in the fundamental proposition of religion: that there is a god, or that there are gods. Therefore I am an atheist. But I can no more prove my belief fact than can someone who believes in religion. That it seems to me is the fundamental difference between the atheistic and agnostic position. An atheist espouses a belief that replaces religious belief. An agnostic believes in neither but accepts that either one proposition or the other is correct.

Then there's 'spirituality'. What's that when it's at home? Some time ago someone remarked that I was a 'very spiritual person' to which I wanted to reply 'I'm sorry to hear that you think so, I thought you actually used your intellect.' or 'Damn, that's a really good way to insult an atheist!' but I bit my tongue.

But returning to Dawkins home turf of evolution, science vs religion (or more correctly, critical thought vs. faith) is currently slugging it out over creationism vs evolution.

I have real issues with creationism. It's actually bigotry. It's wilful ignorance and a determined effort to bury science and indeed reality to protect a flawed world view

Hang on a second. It's perfectly possible to have faith and also have a rational brain! Just because someone thinks there might be a god in no way means that they agree with creationism!

It may be convenient for christian bashing to equate belief in a bloke around Palestine a couple of thousand years ago with an implicit belief in creationism but its not valid. Especially since major christian churches have supported evolution for a long time.

And this is a perfect example of the reasons that religion and politics are banned on ham radio.

Can I suggest that this thread be allowed to die in its current format ie. discussion of religion? There is absolutely no point in arguing with either an athiest or a religious person. Both are already convinced of the truth of their own arguments.

(NB - the rest of this post is from an athiest*)

On reincarnation however I would like to point out that the Catholic church (and the majority of Christian religions) denies it completely as do other religions such as Islam and Judaism. Which precludes those churches accepting the the 'soul' can come back. This is a major difference between the Abrahamic religions and other ones such as Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism (admittedly not a religion**), etc.

Reincarnation is a belief that life is not a closed circle - and I ain't talking about an afterlife in the Dante fashion. The 'soul' is a religious construct of the spirit but the 'spirit' is not necessarily so and for non-religious people like myself can possibly be a reality. And for non-religious people there is the possibility that there is a spirit which transcends us but is not reliant on a supreme being for its existence.


* Athiest yes as in I do not believe is a supreme being***. I don't necessarily agree with the rest of this post re: spirit and reincarnation but I'm not disbelieving either.

**Buddhism is a way of life or a philosophy rather than a religion. Athiests can and are Buddhist as a belief in a divine entity is not a prerequisite.

*** Gaia is the only possible exception.

I've always felt that a person who truly believes in the religion that they subscribe to never has the urge to enforce or impose it on anyone else, if you feel the need then maybe you need to sit back and do a little contemplating.
Anyway, this is an astronomy site, people have been civil in this discussion and that is great. I think people are just going to have to agree to disagree on subjects like this.

Anyway, this is an astronomy site, people have been civil in this discussion and that is great. I think people are just going to have to agree to disagree on subjects like this.

Agree,

Love Dawkins though.

Maybe continue on the www.atheist.ie which I find excellent.

I'm another atheist btw (of the fundamentalist kind whatever that may be :lol: )

I'm half way through it at the moment.

Good book.

"Full frontal assault" is the best way to describe it!

I think "9-11" caused a lot of people to cast a cold eye on "beliefs".

Peter.