The Dew Drop Inn Virtual Rugby Pub

First topic message reminder :

Welcome to the Virtual Rugby Pub - a place where you can come in for a sly beverage and discuss whatever's on your mind, or just eavesdrop on the regulars if you fancy a break from all the rugby chat.

The only rule in this pub is one of mutual respect for everyone in it, oh and no defacing the pictures of Tommy Bowe, Ryan Jones, Dan Newton and birthday boy Prop above the bar.





Last Pub: https://www.606v2.com/t23758p1000-the-dew-drop-inn-virtual-rugby-pub#970282

WillyGilly wrote:

red_stag wrote:Glas I think its possible to not believe in God without being all ultra science about it.

I think it is highly offensive to say to a religious person "your WRONG" and is as unhelpful in a religious indiviudal dismissing scientific views.

But really you simply can (in my case) not believe in God. I am not a scientific person - I haven't a bloody clue what way a lot of things work but I just don't believe in God thats all. No big deal. Not presuring people into evolution or whatever.

I find a lot of people nearly expect you to take a firm stance on this when in reality many people just dont give it thought.

This is a big issue for me. These same people are willing to criticise people's belief in god and the bible questioning all aspects of their faith and yet have never in all probability asked themselves properly what they believe.

Exactly. I really don't like the Dawkins types of this world. Why is it so important to try disprove something people care about.

Its like the older kid who tells the young 'uns that Santa Claus isnt real. Willy + Munsty imagine (in theory) it was proven God doesn't exist. Even as a non believer I'd hate for that to happen.

WillyGilly wrote:
This is a big issue for me. These same people are willing to criticise people's belief in god and the bible questioning all aspects of their faith and yet have never in all probability asked themselves properly what they believe.

Athiests don't believe in anything Willy thats the point. It is possible and perfectly reasonable to not believe in something without believing in something else.

The term athiest is an oxy moron anyway. The comment about Origin of the species being an 'athiest bible' shows how misunderstood the term is. Richard Dawkins is world renound evolutionary biologist but he is not a spokesperson for athiesm as such a role is not possible.

That's not true. He may not have been appointed to that role, but it's one he relishes.

No Dawkins is a spokesperson for evolutionary biology, in which field he is one of the worlds leading scientists.

Is Stephen Hawkins a spokesman for athiesim too? Or Sir David Attenborough?

Rodders, I think Glas' point is that whether he actually represents atheist people or not he has made sure that he is seen that way.

I don't really believe in anything. Horrifying I know! "Say what you will about the tenets of National Socialism, at least it's an ethos dude!"

No, thats not true. I believe in enjoying life and making the most of what you have in the short time you have it. Probably here by chance and could just as easily be gone by chance tomorrow.

I don't think he has Stag, has anyone here actually read any of Dawkins books?

The idea of being a spokesman for atheism is silly, because you can't be the spokesman for the absence of something.

What these new dogmatic atheists actually are are humanists in disguise.

It was proven in theory recently though by Hawkins wasn't it? Doesn't matter, such are x% of the 7 billion people here on this rock, that they won't believe it. I got into a heated argument once with a uni mate of mine over the big bang theory. He was attempting to belittle my semi religious argument for the creation of the universe by explaining the big bang to me in laymans terms. So evidently there where all these materials, gases, rocks etc floating in space eventually their mass and gravitational pull etc blah blah blah. Alright I said to him where did all that stuff come from? It's not enough to say they were always there that doesn't ring true. The big bang may explain the beginning of our known universe but what about before the beginning, at some point the way I work it there must be some higher power/life generating force and it this follows that the universe must be infinite.

Take another example. Within the next 1000 year humans will have ventured out of the milky way, assuming we haven't all killed each other. So they're bobbing along in this star trek style space ship faster than the speed of light/warp drive etc etc. At any point of their journey do they just hit wall? Does the universe end? Or do they just keep traveling generation after generation.

There's a good chance that won't make any sense to anyone but me. And besides it physically hurts my head thinking about it.

Willy you can't prove God exists anymore than you can. Thats what faith is, believing in something in the absence of evidence.

Exactly Rodders I did mean to insert that line at some point.

...but none of that is evidence for God though willy. As in; a supreme intelligence/power that actively takes an agency in the lives of humans here on Earth. Just very, very interesting questions about the Universe.

If your belief, whether in a religion or a political party or movement or whatever, makes you more kind, more compassionate, a better person, I have no problem with it whatsoever. If, on the other hand, it makes you hate people, exclude people, I can't be in favour of it.

i read 'origin of species' in university. it wasnt nessecery for me to do so but i was very keen.

evolution by natural selection is hugely missunderstood. ('are you decended from apes on your mothers or your fathers side') it is a fantastic theory and explins so much it is as close to a scientific truth as is possible to get.

why are people so afraid of this theory?

btw. the dentist sorted me right out. free of pain and i didnt lose any teeth

now all i have to worry about is my friday deadline.

Deadline for what, Dogtooth?

roddersm wrote:Willy you can't prove God exists anymore than you can. Thats what faith is, believing in something in the absence of evidence.

like beliving wales are world beaters?

wum? me?

I agree dog tooth. I've read selfish gene and a few of Dawkins books. They are extremely informative and eye opening.

Natural selection is very widely misunderstood and a lot of the arguments thrown around are based on an ignorance of this and a lot of silly cliches, mainly from creationalists.

dogtooth wrote:

roddersm wrote:Willy you can't prove God exists anymore than you can. Thats what faith is, believing in something in the absence of evidence.

like beliving wales are world beaters?

wum? me?

No there's evidence for that unfortunately......

luckless_pedestrian wrote:Deadline for what, Dogtooth?

a tv script for bbc wales in partnership with the welsh college of music and drama; working title 'alone in a crowd'. i have no ambition to write for tv (good money though) i love to write for radio and the stage. radio and stage drama are more closely related to each other than either are to tv.

my last commission was for a series of audio dramas for the cultural olympiad. when they are presented later this year i will let everyone know so you can hear my work.

Awesome! <jealoussmiley>

roddersm wrote:I agree dog tooth. I've read selfish gene and a few of Dawkins books. They are extremely informative and eye opening.

Natural selection is very widely misunderstood and a lot of the arguments thrown around are based on an ignorance of this and a lot of silly cliches, mainly from creationalists.

the selfish gene is pretty grim i find, but probably quite close to the truth. i like to think i am in control of me, free will and all that. the selfish gene suggests free will is a bit of an illusion.

i do like dawkins and dont think he deserves the criticism he gets from so many quaters.

luckless_pedestrian wrote:Awesome! <jealoussmiley>

i love it. i wrote my first story when i was about 8. (two cops running around a derelict building-i had just learned the word 'derelict') i wrote poetry in my teens (why do nice girls hate me) then songs in my 20's and i performed and recorded with bands.

i wrote three crappy novels, loads of short stories-2 published- but when i wrote a short play for the sherman, and they presented it, i knew i had found my medium. i am starting to get some recognition which is really nice and i am starting to pull down a few quid-which makes mrs tooth very happy.

anyway, i'd better go and write my happy ending for 'alone'

The problem for Dawkins is that religion is evolution at work. Some might even argue that religion (a belief in an over-riding spiritual presence) is what eventually took man on his special journey through evolution, to his 'superior intelligence', to his need for complex communication, to his abilty to articulate abstract concepts (something a scientist needs in abundance), to his need for writing, to his abilty to read.

It's a bit pointless arguing against the fruits of your own theory. Religion is part of evolution (both the belief in and the lack of belief) and evolution, as Dawkins continuously points out, happens regardless of arguments suggesting bits of it should be campaigned against!

Dawkins eternally fails to recognise that simple truth.

Fact. End of.

SecretFly wrote:Dawkins eternally fails to recognise that simple truth.

Actually thats not true, Dawkins has wrote at length (the extended phenotype,the god delusion etc.) about why humans believe in religon and how it is an evolved behaviour.

Excellent blog from the Whiff of Chordite lads...

http://whiffofcordite.blogspot.com/

roddersm wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Dawkins eternally fails to recognise that simple truth.

Actually thats not true, Dawkins has wrote at length (the extended phenotype,the god delusion etc.) about why humans believe in religon and how it is an evolved behaviour.

Rodders, if it is 'evolved behavior' then the concept of 'wrongness' he often publically attaches to it is inaccurate by the very logic he uses to explain evolution itself. He should therefore distance himself from criticising belief in God, as belief, in anything, is a particular evolutionary gem of evolution itself and affords him the skills necessary to unlock his theories on evolution.

Dawkin's problems with religion are mostly political. Doctrines are what he rails against. Doctrines are political constructions not religious ones. He should call a spade a spade and say his war is with political manipulation of thought as it exists in organised religion and/or politics itself. But then again, even if he is correct in his evolution theories, he too is guilty of that very same manipulation of thought when he projects those theories.

You'll say he doesn't manipulate thought without supporting evidence. I say supporting evidence is not a requirement of evolution. We don't need to be aware of evolution to exist. Neither does awareness of evolution change the path evolution might take. Indeed, if Dawkins wish for an end to organised religion is a wish to somehow manipulate the evolution of man, he again runs up against his own theories... playing God with something that listens to no preacher.

Dawkins job is not to say something is 'wrong'. When he says it is wrong so often I lose faith in his understanding of the chaotic, uncontrolled trail of evolution.

He remains a very interesting man though

I believe in a thing called love. Just listen to the rhythm of my heart.

I believe I can fly...

The only reason I brought up what the radio broadcaster (it was George Hook actually!) said about Dawkins was because Hook seemed to think that Dawkings spoke on behalf of other people who are atheists. He even called him the “pope” of atheists and called the Orgin “the atheist bible”. That’s all I found funny, Dawkins does not speak on my behalf, nobody does and I don’t have a book that I refer to in order to find a path in life.

I think Dawkins is sometimes guilty of going on talk shows to speak with creationists because he believes if he tries to humiliate them that his point will carry more favour. It doesn’t, it’s just an scientist arguing science with a creationist, which is embarrassing to watch no matter what side of the fence you’re on. I only get annoyed with religious (and with atheist) people when they push their views on me.

Love ... only a fancy name for the exchange of genes

Mickado wrote:The only reason I brought up what the radio broadcaster (it was George Hook actually!)

Why didn't you say it was Hookie in the first place?!

That Dawkins guy is clearly an idiot, Darwin too! Everyone knows Hook is always right!

Fly you the man!

Boy this is a fine conversation to come across on a Monday lunch time.

Where to start?

I haven't read any of Dawkin's books so I can't comment on him or those although he does seem to hold agressive views on "belief" which I find strange. I could have him all wrong though.

I can completely understand people being disillusioned, even angry with religion but religion and faith are very different things.

The Jesus that I believe in lived his life quietly helping and accepting everyone. He challenged the Religious people of his time.

I can see how people feel you can lead a moral life without any need of faith but the moral boundaries and setting in which we all live has been affected if not entirely based on the Christian faith and the ideals set out in the Bible.

Would our morality be the same without that setting?

Would the world be a better or a worse place if everyone lived their lives by following the 10 Commandments?

Well I know we'd still be putting Christians to death in Rome at the weekend and I'd be flying over to have a look.................. if not for Christianity....................!!! And people say why do you blame religion???? There's your answer! It dried up a pretty good sport!

MrsP wrote:
I can see how people feel you can lead a moral life without any need of faith but the moral boundaries and setting in which we all live has been affected if not entirely based on the Christian faith and the ideals set out in the Bible.

Would our morality be the same without that setting?

Would the world be a better or a worse place if everyone lived their lives by following the 10 Commandments?

Hi Mrs P.

fair points but whether the world would be a better place if everyone followed the 10 commandments has no bearing on whether natural selection is true or not.

Morality and modern values were not invented by Christianity, nor by Judiasm or Islam.

Would the world be a better or a worse place if everyone lived their lives by following the 10 Commandments?

A world where nobody stole from eachother, nobody killed anyone, brilliant, but a world where nobody is allowed worship any other god?

I wasn't trying to address Natural Selection at all, just wondering if we can divorce our standards of morality from the context in which we have been reared, not just as individuals, but as a society?

"You shall not covet your neighbor's...ox or donkey"

Sheep, chickens and goats are fair game though.

MrsP wrote:I wasn't trying to address Natural Selection at all, just wondering if we can divorce our standards of morality from the context in which we have been reared, not just as individuals, but as a society?

Fair enough but I'm not sure why some people assume that religon and morality go hand in hand and that an absence of religon automatically leads to an absence of morality?

Afternoon all, some heavy topics about, especially after I've spent all day in bed with a migraine

I started reading one of Dawkins' books once, gave up 2 chapters in because I didn't like his writing style (a similar thing happened 4 books into the Harry Potter series I must admit).

Personally, I try to respect everyone's beliefs, lor lack thereof; while being wary of fanatics* of all stripes (be it religous, atheistic, environmentalist or ManUnitedist).

I was on the press bench at Quins Saturday, here's my match report:
https://www.606v2.com/t24262-harlequins-vs-worcester-match-report#975935


*My personal definition of a fanatic is someone who'd screw over their friends for the sake of somethng they believe in.

MrsP wrote:I can see how people feel you can lead a moral life without any need of faith but the moral boundaries and setting in which we all live has been affected if not entirely based on the Christian faith and the ideals set out in the Bible.

Would our morality be the same without that setting?

Rodders beat me to it - the morality and ideals of Christianity aren't exclusively Judeo-Christian. A Buddhist would lead a similar life to a true Christian (i.e. someone living as Christ lived).

But take the Bhagavad Gita. Arjuna asks Krishna: what about those people who live good lives while following other gods? What happens to them? Krishna replies that because they are honest in their faith, 'in truth they come to me.' In contrast, the Christian belief (based on scripture) is that these honest, good, well-meaning people will go to Hell because they're saying the wrong name when they pray. I think that's terrible.

I wasn't suggesting that morality is soley the preserve of Christianity just wondering if we can be sure that our morality would be the same if not for the framework in which we have been raised, which for the majority of the countries we represent, was based on Christianity.

I'll say one thing, MrsP: I had to go to church three times every Sunday until I was eighteen and I'm glad I did, even if only because that background served me so well when I was studying English. All those Biblical references in the works of William Blake, Shakespeare - well, any pre-20th-century writer - I knew what they were on about. Some in my class had to look them all up. So thanks to my parents for that!

To be honest Mrs P I'm not so sure that our society is particulary moral anyway.

Personally I've never found peoples morality to be particularly connected to their religious beliefs or lack their off.

I used to be an altar boy. True story. I liked it too.

My parents are still devout Christians and go to mass every Sunday. It’s hard to say I’d be any different now if I was raised by people who weren’t religious but I can’t believe I would be any less moral.

I was thinking more about our societies rather than as individuals Lucky. I mean the way our laws were made etc.

I'm glad you gained something from your time in the pew! I hope the things you heard will be of use in other ways too.

What I've also find hypotcritical is that the general principle of if you are good you'll go to Heaven. If your bad you'll go to Hell.

The idea isn't to convince people to want to be better. Its a case of if you do this you'll get a better reward. Playing on peoples greed.

red_stag wrote:What I've also find hypotcritical is that the general principle of if you are good you'll go to Heaven. If your bad you'll go to Hell.

The idea isn't to convince people to want to be better. Its a case of if you do this you'll get a better reward. Playing on peoples greed.

Or fear of hell.