god is great and will always be

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 144 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 15 Jun 2007 16:24:33 BDT
Z. Ghani says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Jun 2007 20:56:47 BDT
Dr. Mabuse says:
'our end in this world is death and to him we will definately return.'

Oh yeah? I think you may have a bit of a major disappointment coming your way!! But then again, you'll never find out!! Humans are more intelligent than any other creature on this planet? Well, maybe some of us are.

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Jun 2007 13:59:23 BDT
S. Ineson says:
In response to your question about the percentage of scientists who believe in God, there are several surveys published which answer this question. A quick Google should give you the details. Interestingly, you will find that % belief in God varies according to the scientific disciplines. Physicists and biologists (notably scientists for whom the origins of life and the universe are core study areas) tend to be a lot more sceptical than those working in the social sciences.

It always strikes me as funny that religious people have such an odd love/hate relationship with 'Science'. They tell us that science doesn't have all the answers, but you can bet your bottom dollar that if a scientific explanation for 'water into wine' was put forward, they'd leap on on it as incontravertible proof that their belief in miracles had a basis in fact. A look at some of the insane pseudo-science rubbish found on the hundreds of creationist websites out there is testament to this fact.

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Jun 2007 22:33:41 BDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Jun 2007 10:42:46 BDT
Dr. Mabuse says:
More physicists (the people who study the REAL origin of life) believe in a god than don't? You're the one that's wrong, my old Tozer. That's your particular view and it certainly doesn't mean it's correct. There are others out there that are atheists apart from Dawkins you know. Are you some kind of Darwinophobe? Or maybe it's just some kind af latent jealousy?

Mr Tozer's interpretation of the REAL origin of life? Only the one's that do believe in god are the one's that do study the REAL origin of life. Carry on like this and I'll have to start calling them 'Tozerisms'!

I'll take on any christian, muslim, jew, scientologist or whatever, fundamentalist or liberal, you care to throw to me!!

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Jun 2007 10:51:53 BDT
Mr. A. Wall says:
Amazing isn't it, something good happens and "thank god" something bad happens no-one says "that bastard god, letting that happen"....Make believe friends....a refusal to accept your own mortality...the best multi-level business ever invented...2 parents believe, have 8 children, they have 6 children each.....etc etc etc....pathetic saddos....

In reply to an earlier post on 20 Jun 2007 12:40:11 BDT
I am always amazed at the arrogance of the "god-believing" loons who unfortunately make up a sizable percentage of the human population. As humans, we are by no means the most successful species. If it wasn't for a freak meteor millions of years ago, the dinosours may well have still been around. In spite of this, the churches and "god obsessed" humans of the world still cling onto their unsubstantiated nonsense and claim to be "gods very own". What a joke! Its not up to the majority non-believers to prove the obvious myth that it is. Rather, by applying post Renaissance logic, it is up to the arrogant believers to prove otherwise. I doubt their minds are capable of objective thought. Until they do so with hard evidence based on accepted scientific methods that reach logical conclusion, I will like others continue to question their ridiculous beliefs. Like many, I am angry at the support the faiths receive from the taxes I pay and the influence they exert on politics, education, and culture when they have absolutely no right to. To me, those believers, including the ones that have it forced upon them without any choice, are dangerous parasites on the enlightened majority that should be held to account. Thats why we need the issue raised.

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Jun 2007 15:53:53 BDT
Malkmus fan says:
I concur 100% with everything you say. Don't hold your breath waiting for the believers to offer us any proof though. They are quite happy to fill in anything that is hard to understand with God. Richard Dawkins explains this theory much better than I ever could.

As for religion holding sway in the world of politics I think it is nothing short of a scandal. To think that major policies that have huge effects on the way we live are sometimes based on some non-existent bearded chap sitting on a cloud is almost unbelievable. It isn't as bad in the UK as it is in the states of course but with Blair claiming that he felt God agreed with the invasion of Iraq we are heading in the same direction.

The recent coverage of the Madeleine McCann abduction annoys me greatly also. According to most of the tabloids we are all praying for her safe return. Erm. No i'm not. Of course I would like to see her safe return but the assumption that I am praying for it offends me deeply. Why waste time praying when we can do something more constructive?

I am in the process of writing a spoof of the Bible. Reading the real deal has been an eye opener. If it wasn't so well known I would have thought it was a spoof itself. Maybe when i'm finished with my Bible I might turn to the Koran. Not entirely sure those lovely Islamic chaps will see the funny side of a Koran spoof but Salman Rushdie has survived so far and I wouldn't say no to a knighthood.

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Jun 2007 19:38:37 BDT
truth1066 says:
Mr Waldron you sound very sure of yourself, Have you ever wondered why nobody knows what happens when someone dies. Where does their spirit go? or do you think this earth is all there is and when we die we have eternal sleep. Humans are extremely small compared to whats out there in the universe, so to think there is no God or creater is very ignorant. So called scientists try to mimic God i.e stem cells,cloning etc, but no scientist has been able to make a fully functioning human being. I mean they could'nt even transplant a monkeys head to another monkey without paralysing the poor thing. The thing is religion (which IS man made) has been the tool to divide the masses, and with so much nonsense going on in the name of religion it is easy for someone who is not spiritualy connected to tie god and religion together. GOD HAS NOWT,NOTHING,DIDDLYSQUAT TO DO WITH RELIGION.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Jun 2007 02:39:23 BDT
Burlesque says:
Non-religious people claim that they don't know what, if anything, happens after death. Religious people claim that they do know. Now then, which view is more reasonable?

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Jun 2007 09:56:58 BDT
Actually, we do know what happens when you die. Unless preserved, you decompose and become part of the earth again, perhaps becoming a part of some other living thing. Fairly straight forward I would say. As for spiritual mumbo jumbo, sorry, there is nothing that proves any such thing exists other than in the mind. Granted, the brain is a pretty incredible thing and has enormous capacity for concepts, true or false. But please, the universe is as it is, awesome. We dont need a god or religion to try and explain the things we dont understand yet. Leave that to those that are better qualified and objective.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jun 2007 19:05:47 BDT
D. Jones says:
What I find hilarious, is these "Inter Faith", thingies that they have, it's like two sets of violently opposed football supporters, agreeing to have a pint together for just one night. Both sets will agree that their game is football, both sets will agree the rules, but as for who the best players (prophets) are and who has the best "Ron Manager", now that's funny.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Jun 2007 13:29:44 BDT
office_tramp says:
I love the indignation of the religious who push the 'science doesn't have all the answers' line. Science never pretended to have the answers. That's why it's all about asking the questions. Religion has all the answers (a miltiplicity of contradictory answers to boot) but without having ever bothered to ask the questions. I'd take the search of answers that may never come, over the dead-end of dogma any day.

In reply to an earlier post on 28 Jun 2007 08:49:39 BDT
P. N. Jones says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 28 Jun 2007 09:23:13 BDT
Dr. Mabuse says:
For Gray, humans "think they are free, conscious beings, when in truth they are deluded animals".

And like all the authors of the anti-religion / god? Who's that then? debate. Free and concious to make money out of their personal views!

Don't get me wrong, I don't disagree with Gray's views, I just find it disappointing that none of them (Dawkins et al) issue some of their work free, to people who ought to read it. Just like when I was issued a bible at school. I didn't want it, but it was given to me. I also read it, not religiously ('scuse the pun) but it was part of the curriculum. It also helped form my own views and opinions and made me the antitheist I am today!

Creationalist? I think the postee was probably searching for the word sensationalist, to be honest!

In reply to an earlier post on 28 Jun 2007 10:55:57 BDT
office_tramp says:
P. Dillon - I find this argument baffling. Why shouldn't Hitchens et al get paid for their work like anyone else. Should everything written on the subject of religion be disseminated for free?

The Pope don't work for free as far as I know...

In reply to an earlier post on 28 Jun 2007 18:43:57 BDT
Dr. Mabuse says:
I didn't say that they shoudn't get paid. That's everyones right in this free enterprise world. I am merely offering a suggestion to, as I stated, issue some of their work free.

The Pope and all religious folk get paid, that's not my point. Does it mean that you agree with such wealth being thrown at religious icons? I certainly don't, but it has nothing to do with me.

Making money out of telling people that they must follow this route or that direction and worship god is, as far as I'm concerned, appalling. Therefore why should I believe that people that make lots of money deriding such things is a good thing? I believe it's a contradiction that's all. It's my opinion and I don't ask anyone to share it. But if you do believe that my view is right, then, please by all means, send an signed open cheque, made payable to me, to my address please!!

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Jun 2007 13:44:05 BDT
office_tramp says:
Depends what your idea of 'lots of money' is I suppose. I personally don't regard Hitchens as a money hungry type and I don't think he has made himself independantly wealthy (unlike the Vatican) from his work. Also you must recognise that it is natural for people to percieve information made publically available at no charge to be less valuable than that which you have to pay for (see the whole of the internet or compare The Metro to a broadsheet!), not withstanding the fact that the King James Bible is not under copyright so the Gideons can prodcue their tiny weeny little New Testements to be given away free much more cheaply than something more substantial by a living writer. You do not even have to buy this - or any! - book if you belong to a public lending library.

It's also about actually wanting to pay. I bought this book (albeit at a dscount) because I think it's important that people get as much stuff on this topic into the public domain as possible, and by that I mean professional writers with cogent arguemnts and propper evidence - not idiot bloggers - people who make a living from their work and who rely on it to feed themselves and their families.

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Jun 2007 14:57:09 BDT
Last edited by the author on 29 Jun 2007 14:57:52 BDT
Dr. Mabuse says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Jul 2007 10:43:15 BDT
Ynda says:
Hi Mr Ghani, I don't think your views deserve to be blotted and openned it up to see what you had to say and I think it is a valid point. Except I disagree with it. Since all our kids are indoctrinated at an early age with religion then by the time they are adults they have a hard time making objective decisions on such matters. Most scientists are investigating detail and don't often look up for the big picture: which is very difficult to work out. The reality check is that religion was created by men to answer difficult questions a long time ago and then their views were ruthlessly enforced on the rest of the population. It's not wrong to suppose there is a god but it is wrong to be so dogmatic about whatever view there is. This is where religion has got its bad name and makes matters worse rather than better; and why we should all collectively distance ourselves from anyone who has the Ultimate Answer to Life, the Universe and Everything.

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Jul 2007 20:58:05 BDT
Last edited by the author on 1 Jul 2007 21:03:42 BDT
D. M. Palmer says:
Isn't 'liberal monotheist' an oxymoron? By its very nature, religion fosters exclusion and the elimination of debate. If you wish to wallow in the morass of superstition and myhtology, then do so; just don't drag the rest of us down with you.

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Jul 2007 13:21:57 BDT
office_tramp says:
What's wrong with rhetoric?

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Jul 2007 18:52:02 BDT
Dr. Mabuse says:
Is that a rhetorical question?

It depends whether you mean classical rhetoric or the contemporary practices of rhetoric.

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Jul 2007 10:00:55 BDT
J. Kinory says:
"You're wrong. More physicists (the people who study the REAL origin of life) believe in a god than don't."

I thought not ...

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jul 2007 14:20:20 BDT
True Percula says:
You can't believe something is true just because it sounds cosy!

What 'spirit' are you talking about?

'Eternal sleep', sounds much better than death, please sign me up!

I understand why people want to believe in 'there is more to being than life on Earth', it'd be a wonderful crutch.

When you die, you die, that's it, full stop, the end.

However, I am fully in agreement with your statement "GOD HAS NOWT,NOTHING,DIDDLYSQUAT TO DO WITH RELIGION".
Religion is just a convenient way for some people to get power over the hard of thinking majority.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in


This discussion

Participants:  72
Total posts:  144
Initial post:  15 Jun 2007
Latest post:  8 Dec 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 5 customers

Search Customer Discussions
This discussion is about
God is Not Great
God is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens (Paperback - 2007)
4.1 out of 5 stars   (463)