Quote from: beejazzknow this has nothing to do with religion, but weren't other gates coming into Narnia mentioned? I specifically remember an entire human kingdom descended from pirates.

Yep, the Telmarians, one of the evil white races I mentioned earlier.  Conquered Narnia a generation or so before the events in "Prince Caspian".

Quote from: Mr. Analytical[Xena and Buffy are] PR spin aimed at dispelling the idea that fantasy's only for guys.

Oddly enough, it's "dispelling" the myth by catering to it with scantilly clad women, flashing their sensuality and sexuality all over the screen.

Yeah, baby, dispel the idea some more!  HARDER!  

Anyone who tells you his strong atheism is not a faith doesn't understand his own belief system. It's akin to saying that before 1932 Neutrons didn't exist because there was no proof that they existed. You cannot prove the absence of a being that is all powerful (or close to it) and doesn't want to be found. Hence, if you believe he does not exist, you are working on faith.

Oops, I thought I'd already posted this reply from way back in the thread, but just saw it in a still open notepad window:

Quote"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
-- Steven Weinberg

Or patriotism. Or false information. Or having had enough BS and looking to strike back. Or any of a number of other reasons. The quote sounds nice, and it makes rabid fundamentalist atheists want to wet themselves with glee, but it only tells a fraction of the story.

Many of the reasons under James's quote could be viewed as a religion, including, for the record, Rapid Fundamentalist Atheists... Or Rabid ones for that matter...

Anyway, he's a comedian. In the same way that judging religion on whether it is literally true is missing the point of religion altogether, the same goes for comedy.

Comedy must bear a passing resemblance to reality, but its value lies more in the intentional irony and hyperbole. In other words, it's an elaborate falsehood that illuminates the truth rather than being the truth itself. The best part is that it can appear true to people with opposite views of the truth.

Religion = "My invisible magic giant's better than your invisible magic giant, he told me so!" + "My invisible magic giant says if you don't stop worshipping your invisible magic giant and start worksipping my invisible magic giant I'll have to kill you, your family and your dogs, then take your land and stuff."

Quote from: James McMurrayAnyone who tells you his strong atheism is not a faith doesn't understand his own belief system. It's akin to saying that before 1932 Neutrons didn't exist because there was no proof that they existed. You cannot prove the absence of a being that is all powerful (or close to it) and doesn't want to be found. Hence, if you believe he does not exist, you are working on faith.

No you festering twatmonkey. You're working on evidence.
Another advantage of the scientific viewpoint over the irrational religious viewpoint is that it is far more capable of incorporating and adapting to new evidence. You go with what is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. This, of course, opens the door for the irrationally religious to go 'aha! so we just need to prove god!' - go ahead.

Quote from: James McMurrayOr patriotism. Or false information. Or having had enough BS and looking to strike back. Or any of a number of other reasons. The quote sounds nice, and it makes rabid fundamentalist atheists want to wet themselves with glee, but it only tells a fraction of the story.

All faith. I don't limit my loathing of faith to religion.

Right, brief interlude over, back to work.

Quote from: Dominus NoxReligion = "My invisible magic giant's better than your invisible magic giant, he told me so!" + "My invisible magic giant says if you don't stop worshipping your invisible magic giant and start worksipping my invisible magic giant I'll have to kill you, your family and your dogs, then take your land and stuff."

No.

Quote from: GRIMNo you festering twatmonkey.

No need for the insults, and it won't further your cause. You won't get off easily thinking you can turn a discussion into an insult war when your postiion starts to flounder.

QuoteYou're working on evidence.

I'm assuming this means evidence that strong atheism (the belief that there is no god) is true and not just a belief. So then, where is your proof that there is no God?

QuoteAnother advantage of the scientific viewpoint over the irrational religious viewpoint is that it is far more capable of incorporating and adapting to new evidence.

Again you mention evidence. Where is it? You are correct in that science generally accepts change faster than faith, but by espousing a viewpoint with no proof you've stepped outside the realm of science.

QuoteYou go with what is 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

Courts go with "beyond reasonable doubt." Science goes with proof. When a court says "We believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Joe robbed Steve" we take it on faith that they're correct. However, history gives ample proof of countless times that "beyond reasonable doubt" is wrong.

Quoteof course, opens the door for the irrationally religious to go 'aha! so we just need to prove god!' - go ahead.

I'd love to see them prove it. I'd love to see you disprove it. But until there's proof anyone who lands themselves firmly on either side is act not on knowledge, but on faith.

Quote from: James McMurrayI'm assuming this means evidence that strong atheism (the belief that there is no god) is true and not just a belief. So then, where is your proof that there is no God?

I'd love to see them prove it. I'd love to see you disprove it. But until there's proof anyone who lands themselves firmly on either side is act not on knowledge, but on faith.

Two points:

One, proving a negative is an impossibility. Maybe I should say PROVING a negative, but you should get my point. You don't prove nothing, you prove something. If there is no evidance that I killed Joe, it doesn't mean I didn't, only that there is no evidence. Now, we can prove I killed Joe, as there is evidence to be found, see?

If Doug exists we can prove it.  If Doug, however, does not exist, than there is no proof.



That said let me address the second part of the quoted text.  If God were proven, faith would not exist. The very term, as religions define it, would become meaningless.  Beware the righteous man who KNOWS God exists, for he has no faith at all. Too many religious types forget that, and that just gives fuel to the rabid atheists like Grim.

You are 100% correct that you cannot prove a negative. That's what makes atheism a faith. It's even a faith that some fundamentalists feel the need to proselytize to the masses, all the time not realizing they're taking part in what they think they're railing against. It's really kinda funny.

QuoteIf Doug exists we can prove it. If Doug, however, does not exist, than there is no proof.

Very true. Of course, this presupposes two things:

1) We are capable of detecting the things that would count as proof. This may or may not be true, and may or may not be possible with our current level of technology.

2) Doug, an omnipotent being, wants us to prove he exists. Since many religions have their Dougs (I prefer Hanks) wanting to stay hidden, the inability to prove their existence doesn't mean a thing.

I disagree that with proof faith would go away. Proof doesn't matter to the deeply religious, and they will discount or ignore it. Likewise proof doesn't matter to those using religion as a tool, they too will ignore or discount it.

Quote from: James McMurrayI disagree that with proof faith would go away. Proof doesn't matter to the deeply religious, and they will discount or ignore it. Likewise proof doesn't matter to those using religion as a tool, they too will ignore or discount it.

Faith is belief in the abscence of proof. If something is proven you don't have faith that it exists, you have knowledge.

That is something that scares me about fundamentalists. They generally don't ask if you believe something, they ask if you 'know God' or whatever.

If I KNOW something, than I don't have to doubt the correctness of my actions.  If I KNOW that Doug exists, and He tells me that Hank worshippers are deluded psychotics, then I have no qualms doing anything I want to 'correct' the Hank Worshippers. Murder, torture... sending them all to mental instituitions... :rolleyes:

What I'm saying is that the groups of people that either a) believe in the god that was disproven or b) believe in a different god, will continue their faith. So, if Doug is proven to exist, faith in Doug goes away, but faith in anything but Doug (including "there is no Doug") will not go away.