Behaviour report by the London school of economics

The_White_Horse

i'm not religious - in fact i am not sure i believe in anything at all.

however, every atheist i know, when their parent or child is having an operation or something like that starts praying they will be ok.

strange

wigglebeena

Malcolm. wrote: »

I would have thought agnostics would be more intelligent than atheists.
It's stupid to dicsount the possibility of a god without sufficent evidence.

I think everyone could do with a guide in life, whether it's parents, friends, loved ones or written words in a book.

How extremely true. Atheism is just another belief unsupported by evidence, and the proponents are often more irritating than god-botherers.

wigglebeena

chewmylegoff wrote: »

i believe the term you are looking for is "flying spaghetti monster" .

dawkins is a bit of a retard. they took the p!ss out of him quite well in south park, i thought. i read a couple of his books, the selfish gene was ok at least it was about science, i.e. his subject. the god delusion was just an angry rant, it was all over the place, lacked cohesion and just make him sound like a petty little sod.

I feel obliged to LOL a bit at this point, not something I usually stoop to. Seconded.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

wigglebeena wrote: »

How extremely true. Atheism is just another belief unsupported by evidence, and the proponents are often more irritating than god-botherers.

I am an athiest.

And I agree.

Dawkins and his ilk are just as annoying as the happy clappers.

ninky_2

as someone who has enjoyed posting on the richard dawkins forums i'm enjoying this thread. dawkins threw all his toys out his pram last week and closed the forum (because people had been calling him rude things on other forums...). he threatened to delete the entire forum after 30 days. pretty shocking as it's not just house price rants over there. a lot of serious scientists have had debates, linked to serious scientific research etc. it's literally hours (possibly days) of some people's work.

he's had to take a step back and agree the forum will still stay available in read only format. a new forum is going to start up but all threads will have to be approved before going live.

so we should behave ourselves before martin follows suit.

lostinrates

Really2 wrote: »

Interesting but does the early belief in religion mean you will not persue science which then means you hinder your own IQ?

We had, at school, teachers who were nuns. In sciences. Robert Winston is possibly the most public example of one who has faith yet is a famous scientist. And strikes me as a very decent person too.

edit: I could counter with some opinions of others cited in this thread, but I shan't

lostinrates

I find the religion of science as terrifying as any other religious extreme: and is ''proven'' to be fallible!

lostinrates

Malcolm. wrote: »

If it serves a beneficial purpose, happiness, comforting, social network e.t.c.
I would consider it neither dumb nor stupid..

I would further add we have things that are not centered round ''God/s'' that are similarly followed...and can fulfil the same function, which is fine too.

Its my conviction there is a huge chance I am totally wrong about everything, but so could the next guy that makes me fear liberal facism so much
.

lostinrates

Cleaver wrote: »

Before I go to bed, let's just wheel out the classic, cliched atheist question...

...ahem...

If God made the stuff that started the universe, then who created God? And once you've found who / what created God, who created them? And if you find who / what created the thing that created God, who / what was it who created the thing that created the thing that created God who created the universe? And whilst we're thinking about that, shoudn't we really debate who / what created the thing who created the thing, who created thing, who created the thing that created God who created the universe? And who / what created that?
..

But this question follows only the stereotipical idea of ''god'' in main stream religions. I can't answer this because I don't believe in the premise of what you are arguing against: and yet I am not atheist.

lostinrates

ninky wrote: »

as someone who has enjoyed posting on the richard dawkins forums i'm enjoying this thread. dawkins threw all his toys out his pram last week and closed the forum (because people had been calling him rude things on other forums...). he threatened to delete the entire forum after 30 days. pretty shocking as it's not just house price rants over there. a lot of serious scientists have had debates, linked to serious scientific research etc. it's literally hours (possibly days) of some people's work.

he's had to take a step back and agree the forum will still stay available in read only format. a new forum is going to start up but all threads will have to be approved before going live.

so we should behave ourselves before martin follows suit.

I'm wondering if anyone here has ever met him in person?