Dawkins getting slaughtered

I think it's ashame that you don't define yourself as British... as its the British values that shape who you are.

However, there is no escaping the British values which your child is taught, he won eat his enemies like some pygmey tribes, he wont eat dog like koreans, he wont marry a 13 year old like some beduein arabs and wont go on a tribal quest when he gets his first pube.... we teach our children our values.

And my tradition is to teach my child that Hashem is the G-d of he jews and that all other G-d's are false idols.

being english isn't a religion - i'm sure i did RE at school but it we didn't HAVE to. i dropped it in the 3rd year.

traditions aren't religion

religion is a tradition.... you're looking at it the wrong way round.

That's nonsense. You've said above that you would need proof that you're wrong before you renounce your beliefs, which obviously is as impossible as disproving the spaghetti monster. Even at 99.99% evidence against you'd still cling on to the 0.001.

Wheras all the rational scientist needs is a slight shift in the balance of evidence so that a new theory is more probable than they old one. That's all we'd need to renounce evolution, gravity, big bang or any of the other great theories, and that's why you're a fundamentalist in a way that Dawkins isn't. That's why your beliefs are 'faith' and Dawkins' are rational.

At least one of us is wrong....it's just not the case that jewish god literally created the universe if you have faith and didn't if you don't. Either he exists or he does not, and its a scientific question, like the existence of the Higgs boson, or the electron, or the dinosaurs or anything. The God Hypothesis is as subject to scientific scrutiny as any other.

The creationist knows all too well that their only weapon of any power is indoctrination.

They know that children brought up to question evidence and think for themselves will laugh in the face of someone telling them the world is 5000 years old and thats why they need to hammer it from birth.

That's why they're so desperate to cling on to exploiting the gullibility instilled by evolution to protect children.

The only thing I'll be teaching my children about faith is that it is a question they need to answer, and a decision they need to make, by themselves.

Of course you have british values, you don't date teenagers, you don't have multiple wives, you're probably against cruelty to animals theres a lot more to being british than supporting the monarchy.

I identify myself as a Jewish Briton as both heritages have sculpted my current mindset... to my knowledge (of what you've present) you have been shaped by British and Christian values.... There isn't a British born adult that hasn't been shaped by British values - even the most segregated and isolated reilgious sects extract some values from their host nation.

fuck off you patronizing prick.

you seem pretty indocrtinated in your ways... i'm not trying to convert you to my beliefs. You tell me that G-d deffinat;y doesn't exist and couldn't of brought about existence - yet you suply no proof other than a hunch.

I'll educate my children in the manner I feel appropriate - just as you'll educate yours in the manner you feel fit... there is more than one way of raising a child you shallow minded bigot.

HOW THE FUCK IS DAWKINS BELIEF RATIONAL?!?!?!?!?

He states there is no G-d.... I am asking for one shred of evidence!!!!!!

You're blinded by your own bigotry.

Where have I ever said god definitely doesn't exist? Every single one of us, me, Dawkins, forks, acknowledges the possibility that he might, in the same way that the spaghetti monster might. Not once have I ever said he definitely doesn't exist, or else I'd be a fundamentalist atheist which I'm not. All I need is evidence tipping the balance past 50% likelihood. Needless to say there is none.

I imagine you're scared that teaching a child to think for itself will lead to complete rejection of superstition. I think it's incredibly sad for the children involved that they are exploited by self interested quacks.

What evidence is there that tips the balance....

show me one shred of evidence.

The complete lack of evidence means that there isn't any balance at all - only the lingering, infinitessimal uncertainty of unprovability.

Like the spaghetti monster or the celestial lobster the onus is on claimant (assuming you prefer a belief to be rational over irrational) to provide some, any, even a shred, of decent quality evidence. In the absence of that evidence, belief in the deity is as irrational as belief in the lobster, and the onus isn't on scientists to waste time disproving broze age mythologies or 21st century piss takers.

If I have a theory about a scientific question, such as the existence of a god, the onus is on me to provide evidence, not for the rest of the world to assume I'm right until proven wrong.

You keep on calling me arrogant - only one of us is claiming to know the origin of matter, the origin of the universe and only one of us is claiming that they're so confident they're right, in the total absence of evidence, that it's appropriate to indoctrinte children with it.

lol andy you said the evidence tips the balance.... and above you've affirmed theres absolutly no evidence as to the origins of existence.

if there is no evidence either way and if there is nothing we can observe to determine the conception of existence... then how can you possibly tell me that teaching my child about a G-d is wrong or even inprobable?

This is almost too stupid to be typing.

Why do you not think it likely a spaghetti monster exists? Total lack of evidence of existence is sufficient for the resrt of us.

You're confusing the probability of this universe with that external to existence, a spagetti monster is a diety conjoured up by modern day athiests.... while no one can prove or disprove its existence it would be an incredible coincidence if it was the action which brought about existence.

Religions are different, they have rich teachings and highly intellectual theories to explain genesis, just as the scientific community have highly educated theories to explain creation.

However, this is where you get confused and make a juvenille assumption based on the observable phenomona of this universe; you stupidly think that because something is so in this universe - then it must be so outside of this universe.

Both you and I have NO idea what brought the universe into existence, there are no degrees of probability (Dawkins may state that Ockham's razor would imply that something simple brought about existence; but Ockham's razor is a product of this universe and the complete opposite may be true when you step outside of this universe - it is also a thoery)... So as there are no degrees of probability you cannot possiblity state that there is evidence for or against.

So the question of origin remains a complete matter of faith; you can place faith as dawkins does in a simple explination, alternatively you can place faith as religions do in a diety.... but from a scientific perspective there is NO bias for either as both theories are as probable.

this is the joys of moving into an international world; but because of our stage in history those foreign morals are interpeted through red, white & blue tinted glasses

there IS no basis for believing or disbelieving the existence of a creator, since, as you say, we cannot step outside space and time to check it out. I personally think it unlikely but that is a matter of faith as you say.

Where it becomes stupid is when religions claim to have received word from this creator about how we are to act, or that he's decided to let us live forever as long as we worship him or some other tosh. They all can't be right. If the jews are right then all the others are wrong even though they are all as passionate in their belief as each other.

And it's when these religions impact on societies that the danger lies.

I know they are sometimes a force for good but often (as in Iraq now) they are a force for evil. The trouble is they sanction irrational faith as a way to organise a society. This is inherently dangerous. total rationality is also dangerous as it doesn't take into account the human spirit but my worry about religion is that it is in danger of reconquering the world and bringing in a new age of theocratic totalitarianism.

We are in agreement then, we are of different faiths

Of course we can't all be right, Judaism may be pie in the sky; but I don't believe this to be the case... However I strongly feel that it is religions roll to provide us with moral guidance, I'd much rather science told me where I came from than provided me witha moral backbone

I think every religion has to be assessed on an individual level; I personally feel there are elements of Islam which are deeply troublesome for the rest of mankind... So it's not as if I'm speaking as a lover of all religions.

However to blame the wrongs of man on religion is naive, Iraq is a great example there are two religions at war sunni & shiia islam... This has nothing to do with the teachings of the religions and everything to do with the tribal power struggle which is taking place in the country.

Religion like any man made* philospohy can be used for good and evil, as it is in mans nature to do both good and evil.

*only 1 can be true, so the rest are man made

but you can't have it both ways. either your jewish morality is right and the others are wrong and should be punished for behaving in an immoral way. or your morality is wrong and the others are right and you should be punished. Isn't that the basis for all religious wars?