As a staunch materialist I contend that whatever objective phenomena we observe, includuing our own self-awareness, is an emergent property of physical reactions. This is not a religious point of view, but one that is supported by all of the empirical data available to date.

My friend, on the other hand, maintains that we are all made of potato, but then he's a starch materialist.

There are no empirical data to support the theory that the empirical world is all there is. That's the point. Empirical science appeals for evidential support to the very mode of observation that is in question. In a nutshell, science disappears up its own backside.



Yes,I am familiar with the position, but it always seemed rather rigid to me.

On the contrary, all of the empirical data support the theory that there is only the empirical world and if we were to collect empirical data to show there were were a non-empirical world the act of collecting the data would make it empirical.

Damn, where's that philosophy section when you need it?

You are quite wrong about that, sir, but for want of the appropriate space to explain you are not going to read why.

......

.......

I can wait all day.

We could perhaps include wider margins.

Adequate and appropriate are two different things, Neil.

Still waiting ...

I do believe there is some sort of god or exsistance after life otherwise whats the point in living . I cant prove it or can anyone disprove it . Getting back to Ricky Gervais i used to like him but find him a pain in the asre since he started hob nobbing it with the hollywood a list set . His head is so big i am surprised he can make it through door ways .

Why does there have to be a point?



I think that green unicorns live on Neptune. I can't prove it and you can't disprove it, but that doesn't make it a 50/50 proposition.

The point of living is to make your point or your mark, you can interpret that in any number of ways, it's what 'you' think that really matters, not what anyone else does ...... no matter how loud they may shout.

Just try to aid your quest by trying to be informed or learn'ed'

Little bit off topic . Not a very good comparison .Come on you can do better .

you dont really get a choice to be alive though do you?its not like you could have stopped your parents conscieving you is it?obviously you can stop yourself being alive quite easily but whats the point in that?
i think the point in living is to make the best of what you have and what you do

It's a fine comparison - the belief that there might be green unicorns out there is no less rational than the belief that there's an invisible part of you that carries on living after you die. The only reason you acredit any rationality to it is that you've seen other people declaring it's true your whole life, whereas the green unicorns probably came as a bit of a shock.

C'mon guys; the real and *only* point to the universe is to allow me to play tourist in it.

It was created on March 1st 1960 and will end sometime this century. Anything you may believe in previous to 1960 is merely a fiction designed to keep you happy. Come to think of it, I might make the speed of light a bit higher next time I think a universe up.

Solipsism is the only rational philospophy!

Helloooo???

Are you, like, weird|?

March 1st 1960 - let's see: Ah yes, the day after the Agadir earthquake - which killed 15,000 people in Morocco.

On a more personal note, it was the time when I fell in love with Sally - a 9yo Miss Whiplash in my class (I actually proposed to her; she needed to check her diary and get back to me), and my parents were booking a family coach trip to Lyme Regis for the day.

I remember the coach trip, and I remember that it rained all day.

ITYF Enforcer that you can not prove to Barnacle that your experience took place.

I, OTOH, am a solipsist by proxy - I refuse to believe that anything happened prior to 1st May 2000, when my daughter was born. True, I have memories of days when I didn't have much to do and could relax or take the bike out for a spin, but they are as fleeting as dreams and easily written off as false images.

This might have been true, Andrew, had you been the one who actually exists. Even then, it is taking me a while to accept what it seems to be telling us about your daughter.

Basically you're a figment of her imagination.

So am I, but a better dressed and cleverer figment.

So it is she, rather than you, who exists?

Even then, how was she conceived?

Your delusion regarding the process by which children are generated is also a figment of her imagination. She is perfectly well aware that god used a stork to leave her behind a gooseberry bush.

Ah, the old debate.
I see a worrying trend amongst Atheists. Before I go on I should mention that I am an Atheist.

Now, If people want to believe in god, that is up to them. It doesn't affect me, and it is certainly none of My business.
People need to understand that the belief in god requires faith. Faith that there is such being when there is no proof. If there was any evidence of the existance of god, it would cease immediatly to be a religion and would in fact become a science.
I see lots of people these days who seem to be members of "the church of Atheism". They hold regular clubs and meetings and even organise funds to pay for advertising promoting Atheism at Christmas.

I was unfortunate enough to find myself in a hotel in Frankfurt last year that had an Atheist convention. Since I am an Atheist I went down to dinner and introduced myself to see what was going on. To say that the whole event was spine chillingly creepy and cult like would be to understate it massively. These people are very religious and Hitchens and Dawkins are their deities (two more contemptible men you'd be hard to find, excepting of course when Dawkins writes about biology).

I sat through a lecture by Hitchens and Dawkins and watched in horror as the mindless drones of people sat in awe of their puppet masters. The lecture cost about 150 euros and was packed out with some of the most scared and frightened people in society. They even discussed raising money to set up a fund that puts adverts up at Christmas. There was so much group-think going on, that it was hard to find anybody who could think for themselves. I left that conference feeling like part of my brain has been switched off.

Beware the church of Atheism, your beliefs are yours and yours alone. If people want to believe in the god of the sea or the goddess of the cake..let them. It has nothing whatsoever to do with anyone else...ever.

Well, except when the believers of one prophet of God decide to kill the followers of a different prophet of the same God, causing centuries of misery. Then it kind of becomes a lot of people's business.

I read an interesting statistic somewhere* that 95% of murders carried out in the USA were commited by self confessed "God believing and fearing" people, and less than 5% by atheists. That's not to say some atheists aren't over zealous, but when you're faced with a crisis like that in the most powerful country in the world, where the very word atheist is dirty, then it's hard for some not to be.

* I can't find the source right now, but I'll look into it.

ETA: It was probably in the original link, now I think about it...

Well, the USA is a special place Brewster. They see no difference between being a socialist and being a commie.

And what about the Middle East? Is that a special place too? As far as I'm concerned, anywhere there are large collections of people so convinced in the existence of some devine gas/teapot/Thor that they are willing to commit murder on their behalf then I think it's a special place.

Unfortunately for people like me that's most of the inhabitable planet.

Brewster, how could you be so wrong?

That's '*fewer* than five percent.'

Tsk!




I too can believe in six impossible things before breakfast. Just not these.

Oh, and I don't buy the argument that suicide bombers are the result of religion.
Bad people do bad things, they may hide behind religion to give their cause some credibility, but to think that these lunatics somehow are indicative of the religion they are purported to follow is a bit silly really.
The IRA were obviously religious were they? So which part of the Commandment "thou shalt not kill" were they were following.
Look, people do all sorts of things in the name of religion. Just get off your high horse and drop your (holier than thou*) attitude towards the people of faith and everybody will get along fine. Because if you don't, and you start to actively persecute people of faith, you are ipso facto part of the church of atheism.
Why atheists get hot under the collar about religion is just beyond me.
I don't believe in god, and it is not my mission to educate others. Why people think that it is their business continues to baffle me.
I can only think that being an atheist is fashionable these days.

*couldn't resist.

Gareth, you're obviously writing from some distant future where religion is a personal and private thing.

Back here in 2011 the state of play is:

1. While the UK is in recession and raising VAT and cutting NHS budgets to make ends meet religious institutions are granted a tax exempt status.

2. Foundation schools, which teach creationism as a science (i.e. willfully lie to children), are funded by the government and granted exemptions from the national curriculum.

3. Unelected religious officials in this country continue to seek public debates on subjects ranging from education, to foreign policy, to crime and punishment to scientific research.

These are not private issues, they are matters which effect everybody living in this country, in addition to many more minor issues (like not being able to shop 24 hours on a Sunday, because it's a day of rest).

I think that most atheists don't care how people choose to delude themselves in private, but there is a need for militant atheism to counter the continual encroachment of religion into public life.

Supporting this cause isn't a religion and being an atheist isn't a belief system. Somebody who's Christian wouldn't define themselves as a not-Hindu, so why define atheists by what they are not?

Oh, and I saw Richard Dawkins speak last year and it was free.

Edited to add: As a minor correction, the bible does not say, "Thou shalt not kill" - it says, "Thou shalt not murder". If you actually read it you will see there are hundreds of places where god sanctions killing ones enemies, or using capital punishment.

I agree that churches should not be tax expempt. There should be pressure applied to stop this tax exemption, but pressure applied to the church or to the government only, leave individuals out of the line of fire.


This is just silly. ALL schools should follow a curriculum. there should be no room for deviation from that curriculum. Faith schools should be allowed to conduct the faith side of the education out of school hours.

Hmm, tough one. whats wrong with public debate? They can debate publically as much as they like, or at least they should be no law that stops them.
I believe that if you allow people to speak, it will be evident who knows what , and who is talking about subjects they really aren't qualified to talk about.

Well, put pressure on the government then. The churches don't decide when the shops close.

I state it becuase it seems that atheists are not happy to be individuals who had the sense to opt out anymore. They form societies and clubs and its all very laughable.

I don't mind Dawkins when he talks about Biology and evolotion, otherwise he is a first class cock.

I stand corrected, although I can't see how it makes any difference to my use of it above.

How many suicide bombers have you seen who have not professed one or another religion?

Government: Do what we tell you, or we'll slap you in jail.
Royalty: Do what we tell you, because our dad had a bigger sword than your dad, and we'll stick it in you.
Religion: Do what we tell you, even if it kills you, and you'll get a reward once you're dead.

Hmmm.

It's all power games, but of the three, religion is by far the most odious.

Easy one first - the kill/murder point. Because god tells the Israelites they are forbidden to murder, but then instructs them to kill their enemies (including killing wounded soldiers, women and children at times) the clear implication is that killing ones enemies isn't murder.

This is how a terrorist justifies killing innocent people - they are the enemy and by killing them they do god's work.

As for the rest ... I agree, it's the government that needs to be pressured, but to do that atheists must unite. Religious groups have extremely well-established and influential pressure groups, whereas organised secularism is newer and weaker.

If you like a recruitment drive is needed. A lot of people still don't realise that atheism is an option. They go to school, get a light dose of religion at Christmas and Easter and then go through life without questioning that they're CoE, just the kind of CoE who never goes to church.

A friend of mine has a son a similar age to mine and we took them to a Saturday morning session at a local children's centre. They gave us a form to fill in and, after a while my friend asked me, "What religion are we?". "I'm an athesit," I replied. He gave me a genuinely shocked look and said, "That's a bit strong, isn't it?"

He then phoned his wife to find out what religion he was.

Hence the need for posters on buses and stuff. Atheism exists in this country. It's acceptable. Question what you believe. To do otherwise risks us becoming a 'secular' society like America - where you can be as secular as you like, so long as you believe in god