Donate SIGN UP

The Balance Of Probability

Avatar Image
Theland | 05:23 Mon 06th Aug 2018 | Religion & Spirituality
84 Answers
https://youtu.be/z4E_bT4ecgk

A hard nosed atheist might deny the results of their own logic and agree with Dawkins, who shows himself up as a clown in his pursuit of his God hatred.
Can you deny that the God theory has more credence than that put forward by this world renowned atheist?
Gravatar

Answers

1 to 20 of 84rss feed

1 2 3 4 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by Theland. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Good morning you little sunbeam, spreading peace, love and understanding wherever you land.
I take it you wouldn't like to live The, Douglas?
No point watching it... What ever he says has more credence than any god theory.
Question Author
Talbot - Dawkins does your thinking for you?
No, I have a wife for that.


Who does your thinking for you... Or have you actually seen this God chap?
Why would an aetheist 'deny the results of their own logic' when aetheism is totally logical and belief in a god is not?
Theland, on the balance of probability the chances that your impotent God created anything at all are infinitesimal.

Richard Dawkins isn’t a clown and he isn’t a God hater. He’s a realist.
I have no problem with people who say they don't believe in God, but I don't understand those (like Dawkins and the regulars on here) who say there is no God.
Why, as Rod Liddle says in his excellent YouTube, 'The problem with Atheism' don't they say, "There probably is no God", and leave it at that?
Khandro, //there is no God. //

I don't believe Dawkins or any other thinking atheist says that.

See the atheist bus.

https://humanism.org.uk/campaigns/successful-campaigns/atheist-bus-campaign/
Bottom line for everyone, "Prove it."
As far as I've seen, that only happens on one side of the fence.

http://tinyurl.com/ya382ykv
n. So ooh childish! Humanism and atheism are not the same, someone of the British atheists may have donated some funding to that stupidly offensive stunt, but was it a democratic decision to do so by the society as a whole? I think not.
It gets worse; the word 'probably' was not used for intellectual reasons but to avoid the rules of advertising.
I'm surprised you associate yourself with it.
If Sadiq Khan banned it, for once he'd be right.
Khandro, //n. So ooh childish! //

This is supposed to be an intelligent discussion and your persistent rudeness does you no favours whatsoever in that department. It never has.

Atheists say there is ‘probably’ no God because there is no evidence for the existence of such an entity. If only religionists would exhibit a similar common sense attitude. Your claim that you’re offended by the slogan is, for me at least, neither here nor there. So you’re offended. So what? I’m offended too – by people like you who object to free thought and make every effort to silence anything that doesn’t support their own narrow-minded world vision.
Khandro, one more observation.

//If Sadiq Khan banned it, for once he'd be right.//

Would he? Really? In his culture, heads have rolled for daring to question the existence of God. Be careful what you wish for.
n. I'm saying the bus campaign is childish, not you, wouldn't you agree?
n. I don't think the side of a bus is appropriate for either, having said that, Britain is still a Christian country, not atheist and not Muslim.

And your link says, "The campaign comes eight years after a controversial ‘atheist bus’ campaign by the British Humanist Association."

Not true, they did not initiate it, but (mistakenly, sez I) donated to it
// Can you deny that the God theory has more credence than that put forward by this world renowned atheist? //

Absolutely, but not because of what one more studious serious talking head says.
Khandro, //The Atheist Bus Campaign … was created by comedy writer Ariane Sherine and launched with official support from the British Humanist Association and Richard Dawkins.//

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist_Bus_Campaign

Why is it silly or a mistake to attempt to assuage irrational fear that has no foundation in reality, and yet often controls lives - to their detriment? That surely has to be far more commendable than preaching that disobedience heralds doom for all eternity? If an evil philosophy ever existed, it's that one. Repent what? Living life? How anyone can endorse that is utterly beyond me. Perhaps you can explain it.
"...the chances that your impotent God..."

Why impotent? I was just wondering what you meant by this. Presumably based on some Bible quotes eg Judges 1:19 -- any others I've overlooked?
n. what's all this "irrational fear" nonsense?

1 to 20 of 84rss feed

1 2 3 4 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

The Balance Of Probability

Answer Question >>