progressive pat said "Dawkins recently said he can't be sure that there isn't a God, which was weird, so he's actually agnostic. That's the problem for atheists who really have men as their God - humans tend to change their beliefs over time - Dawkins may very well go to his grave as a Westboro Baptist! Reminds me of Jane Roe's (of Roe V Wade fame) conversion to pro-life Christianity."

Others have done a good job of refuting the substance of your argument, such as it is.. but this is simply untrue and should not go unchallenged. Like any rational person, Dawkins has never denied the possibility of the existence of god. He has consistently stated that since the non-existence of something can never be proved, the only logical position is to keep an open mind and assign relatve likelihoods, c.f. Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot. Praps you shouldn't opine without some basic research.

I'd probably be defined as agnostic (Well, I as I've said before it seems a bit strong a word as I don't really care enough to apply labels as such, maybe an 'undefined', or 'Not Applicable' would be better), but this article makes atheism sound excellent.

'each human being is, in principle at least, totally free to do, think, and say whatever he/she likes.'

Sounds good to me. I wonder what kid of individual would be perturbed by this.

'What is the problem with saying to young people: that we have all come unintentionally into being; that the existence of everything in the universe, from viruses, to rats, to themselves, is the product of mindless, unconscious, uncaring physical forces; that our actions, thoughts and words are merely, and entirely, the chance outcome of molecules interacting; that with death comes eternal nothingness; and that there is ultimately no point to our existence.'

I see no problem at all. It sounds a bit too definitive though. How do you know for sure that physical forces don't care? How do you know you're not part of The Matrix? Or you may be the lead in the Truman Show.

'that our actions, thoughts and words are merely, and entirely, the chance outcome of molecules interacting'

I'd take it further and consider that the people that you see every day are actually figments of your own imagination.

'because there is no point to their existence they are not obliged to do anything; and that all moral rules, from the mundane to the seemingly profound, are just constructs made up for the convenience of society and thus have no absolute significance.'

I would have to agree really. So why not tell kids that's what I think, and to bear in mind I might not really exist, and nor may they.

I would though warn them about actions and consequences, in our current partially shared perceived reality.

Your reality is a concern to all of us, Houllebecq... doesn't stop me agreeing though.

You may recall that previously "I asked a work colleague, whether or not you actually existed. She reminded me she was a projection of my universal consciousness and the question was solipsistic. But she has a bad lisp and I fell off the chair laughing."

You seem a little upset, JP. I'm not sure why, as you seem to have it pretty well sorted...

>>Pericles – either there is a God or there isn’t and if there isn’t a God then this is indeed a universe where atheism is true, and vice versa.<<

Since neither position has any impact on the way in which we human beings behave, I don't see the problem. Neither you nor I in our lifetimes will be faced with a definitive position on this, since your belief in the existence of God relies on faith rather than science, and my atheism will always be aware that it cannot prove a negative.

However, your God is also supposed to determine your actions. If you had been living in the Middle Ages, your God would have been quite comfortable with the idea of burning witches, in the context of the society in which you lived. If you had been living in the twelfth century, your God would have been quite comfortable with the idea of you going off to massacre a city full of non-Christians. Totally appropriate - even encouraged - in the context of society at that time.

These "rules", whether religion-based or not, are the social constructs that allow us to live together in relative harmony. Non-belief is not an excuse to run around murdering people, any more than being religious. Ask a few kneecapped Belfast residents whether they were maimed by atheist or religious social mores, and whether they feel that the law should condemn each, equally.

So you see, it doesn't really matter whether your God exists or not. People are capable of determining the difference between right and wrong behaviour, within the context of their circumstances and responsibilities.

Above all, relax.

No-one is going to tell you what you can and cannot believe. That is entirely up to you.

hi woot[*waves*back*]

you/rote..:""you are just putting forward..your assertions still, contradicting yourself""

lol..go for it

[oug].."everything has a cause!"

woot;""Really?

Can you show evidence for this,""

sure[strike a match[usally]makes the match burn

but lets go bigger...[talk science fact]
the sun emmmits photons....[in particles..
cause light is phtonic emmision of particles

because of..a progressive 'event's..[cause]
that releases these photons in waves...light is said to be wave

thing is waves and individual photons
need a causal event...to release the photons
[takle a light bulb...its 'event' of emmiting photons..[in waves]
is via the cause..of the individual 'event'..[electicity flowing through it..

ok more
babies...need a sperm/egg
lovers need lovers..[everything has a cause]
you waved..i waved back...you test..i push back

""particularly in light of :

"fact
E= ability to change form""

yes...[WOOD dont burn!]
but if you heat it[the heat CAUSES smoke..[un-burned gas]
that does burn...[where there is smoke[there is gas..that can burn,...if it has a spark[a cause]..of course

e=wood
e=gas
e became heat...emited photons [light]

why..cause heat released gas
cause cause needs cause

yet every cause[action]..has a re-action
even reagents..and other actions..stimulations impulsations
provide the yeast..[action/re-action]

still regarding ...E
""BUT [E]..CANT BE CREATED..NOR DESTROYED"
[argue with the science

""We see energy changing form,
but we haven't seen anything 'caused'.""'

the cause wasnt the change
but the re-agent..that caused the change
[youtr confounding form[quality].. with qualitive's of substance]

""Can you show me an example of 'nothing'""

an incorrrect fact..

""in any other sense..other than that
which physicists recognise?""

ok
*lets hear..what they recognise*...lol
lol..their latest theory..is two oppisites...lol
cancel each other out...lol

ie they say in the beginning was nuthin
cause matter and anti-matter [lol]..cancel each other out

its insane
but its consistant with the delusion of science proof[lol]
that refute..but dont validate any other cause [beyond non cause]

chance
accident..alians?
wth/eck

""you have always simply asserted without evidence
...the magic man did it!""

that aint fair woot
i offer how it really is
wood dont burn...[unless you have a heat source..HOT ENOUGH..to initiate gas release..

[wood dont burn..gas do..
[thats not god..thats science fact]

fact..you wernt taught in school!
think..why not!

For arguments sake, let us assume that atheism is true and that every human being is a sincere atheist. Now consider the following:

• Atheists have opinions/beliefs/preferences about what is morally right and wrong
• Not all atheists agree with each other as to what is right and wrong
• There is no known arbiter who can definitively state which atheist, if any, is right and which atheist is wrong when there is a disagreement about moral issues

Therefore atheists are unable to state, beyond expressing their own personal opinion/belief/ preference, what is right and wrong.

I would say that it also follows from the above that “morality” which consists solely of individuals expressing their personal preferences is no meaningful morality at all.

Now if you disagree with my conclusions, could you please tell me which of the premises is wrong, or why the conclusions do not follow from the premises.