J Hubner wrote:
I see it as community groups, you know , the same way agoraphopbes gather togheter and talk about their fears etc.

You mean just like a church?

J Hubner wrote:This atheist temple can only have beneficial effects, I approve and encourage.

I can't think of a more damning criticism.

I can't think of a more damning criticism.

I rest my case.

You had a case?

rainbow wrote:

rainbow wrote:

trubble76 wrote:

rainbow wrote:
You can remain unsure, since this isn't what I've said.

Because if you don't believe something - it is itself a Faith Position, unless you have proof of that the Faith Position held by the other is False.

You have the choice.
Admit to a Faith Position.
OR
Accept the Burden of Proof.

It is that easy.

It does sound easy when you put it like that. So in that case the reasonable position to take is that all the religions that have provided a falsifiable god (that has been falsified, ie all of them) can be dismissed as false, and the ones that don't must be dismissed on faith alone. Funnily enough, that's quite close to my position.

I'm not sure what you are claiming here. Is it that all gods of all religions have been proved false?

Scot Dutchy wrote:

rainbow wrote:

rainbow wrote:

rainbow wrote:
I'm not sure what you are claiming here. Is it that all gods of all religions have been proved false?

J Hubner wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

J Hubner wrote:
I see it as community groups, you know , the same way agoraphopbes gather togheter and talk about their fears etc.

You mean just like a church?

J Hubner wrote:This atheist temple can only have beneficial effects, I approve and encourage.

I can't think of a more damning criticism.

I rest my case.

What an interesting response, thanks so much for sharing it with us.

Clearly used his posting break very carefully to come up with that after only a week.

Got me thinking though.

What hymns would one sing in the Atheist Temple?

"All things dull and ugly..."

So.......he's also going with the idea, popular amongst Theists, that Dawkins is agressive and nasty to religions, rather than the mild mannered and focused way that he actually goes about his business.....

Alain De Botton wrote on Twitter:

Dawkins's lasting contribution: to show how the best ideas can be ruined by manner in which one holds them.

He also tries the no true scotsman too:

A real scientist knows not to use the prestige of science to bolster non-scientific notions.

and as if it weren't clear enough, but it would seem he doesn't like Dawkins one bit:

Dawkins next to Hume: both disbelieve; only one is tolerant, subtle, sceptical and (vitally) humorous.

Dawkins: misses vast difference between saying Belief is false, and implying it is ridiculous.

and he wonders why his shows are not sold out.....

I'm in Brisbane on 24th of Feb, next friday. Still tickets left, please come to say hi

What a fucking tool this guy is. I dislike what he says, the way he says it and what he is about. Finally, he decides to pander to Eastern V Western phillosophy, yet tars all us westerners with the same brush.

To relax the ego's grip, the East proposes meditation, the West (a little less subtly and effectively), sunbathing.

Alain De Botton - please would you just take your pathetic little ideas and FUCK OFF

I don't know if this has been posted on this thread, but I just listened to Alain de Botton's TED talk. I suspect I'm going to be very unpopular for saying this, but I thought he made a lot of sense. But let me add (for those of you who don't already know this about me) I think there is fertile common ground that transcends the religious/non-religious divide. I'm not for smashing/demonising religion. So it's not surprising that I find more in common with de Botton than with Dawkins.

rainbow wrote:

trubble76 wrote:

rainbow wrote:

trubble76 wrote:I'm still unsure as to why you think people with a general disdain for faith positions should adopt a faith position in order to respect other faith positions that they disagree with?

You can remain unsure, since this isn't what I've said.

We don't believe you, why should we be forced into a faith position in order to continue not believing you?

Because if you don't believe something - it is itself a Faith Position, unless you have proof of that the Faith Position held by the other is False.

You have the choice.
Admit to a Faith Position.
OR
Accept the Burden of Proof.

It is that easy.

It does sound easy when you put it like that. So in that case the reasonable position to take is that all the religions that have provided a falsifiable god (that has been falsified, ie all of them) can be dismissed as false, and the ones that don't must be dismissed on faith alone. Funnily enough, that's quite close to my position.

I'm not sure what you are claiming here. Is it that all gods of all religions have been proved false?

No, just the ones that make claims about their god that can be tested.

trubble76 wrote:

rainbow wrote:

trubble76 wrote:

rainbow wrote:
You can remain unsure, since this isn't what I've said.

Because if you don't believe something - it is itself a Faith Position, unless you have proof of that the Faith Position held by the other is False.

You have the choice.
Admit to a Faith Position.
OR
Accept the Burden of Proof.

It is that easy.

It does sound easy when you put it like that. So in that case the reasonable position to take is that all the religions that have provided a falsifiable god (that has been falsified, ie all of them) can be dismissed as false, and the ones that don't must be dismissed on faith alone. Funnily enough, that's quite close to my position.

I'm not sure what you are claiming here. Is it that all gods of all religions have been proved false?

No, just the ones that make claims about their god that can be tested.

rainbow wrote:

trubble76 wrote:

rainbow wrote:

trubble76 wrote:

It does sound easy when you put it like that. So in that case the reasonable position to take is that all the religions that have provided a falsifiable god (that has been falsified, ie all of them) can be dismissed as false, and the ones that don't must be dismissed on faith alone. Funnily enough, that's quite close to my position.

I'm not sure what you are claiming here. Is it that all gods of all religions have been proved false?

No, just the ones that make claims about their god that can be tested.

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

trubble76 wrote:

rainbow wrote:

trubble76 wrote:

rainbow wrote:
I'm not sure what you are claiming here. Is it that all gods of all religions have been proved false?

No, just the ones that make claims about their god that can be tested.

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

The pleasure is all mine.
However, it was good to establish that religions based on faith have not been proved false.

rainbow wrote:

trubble76 wrote:

rainbow wrote:

trubble76 wrote:

No, just the ones that make claims about their god that can be tested.

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

The pleasure is all mine.
However, it was good to establish that religions based on faith have not been proved false.

Ah there we go, some words that I can read and respond to, it must be my birthday.

As for the comment itself, you are half way there. Religions based purely on faith have not been proved false because there is nothing to prove false (or at least nothing testable right now), but many religions say they are based on faith but that is not the whole story. For example Christianity claims to be based on faith, but is in fact based on many testable claims such as miracles, creation etc. Clearly it fails all of those tests and so can be dismissed as unture.