This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Metch's Profile

Metch's Avatar Joined over 5 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by Metch

More Discussions by Metch

Latest Comments by Metch

Go to: Interview with A.C. Grayling

Metch's Avatar Jump to comment 30 by Metch

That is nonsense. As has been well said, atheism is to religion what not collecting stamps is to stamp collecting. Not collecting stamps is not a hobby. Not believing in gods and goddesses is not a religion.

In response to the apparent believer in the midst, Mr. Grayling was pointing out that technically 'atheism' is to religion as bald is to a hair color. It's sort of a play on words, but mostly it's the odd and aggressive questions. Still, Grayling has been very clear that he holds humanist beliefs, and the interviewer asked specifically about atheism - which is simply not believing in gods. Now, not believing in gods does come with some mental baggage, which is that one has reasons and explanations as to why he or she doesn't accept the claims and arguments that gods exist or have ever existed.These are critisizms of the ideas and beliefs and statements and ideologies of the religious.

Grayling was just giving the technical answer because of the questions were all quite similar.

This reminds me of that king-douche on youtube 'shock of god', who kept asking "give me proof and evidence that atheism is accurate and correct". It's the same type of thinking and it's knowingly deceitful in some cases. The burden of proof is on the theist because they're starting from an emotion and faith bred religious world view and think that it is self evident that deities exist, and therefore we atheists are required to disprove their existence. This way of thinking is not in keeping with proper philosophical arguments protocol, because they are starting with an unsubstantiated belief when the argument starts.

Mon, 25 Apr 2011 10:11:28 UTC | #619131

Go to: Richard Dawkins is the best argument for the existence of God

Metch's Avatar Jump to comment 56 by Metch

There was a time when the universe did not exist, this we know. We also know that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed. This means that something, not nothing, existed before the universe.

Is this another lame rehashing of the first cause argument? This argument shoots itself in the foot no matter how you word it. If every effect needs a cause, then what/who caused God? If God is timeless, why can't the universe/energy(in some form or another) be timeless? If everything needs a creator except God, then everything doesn't need a creator now does it? So if energy cannot be created, why call God a creator, and not a "transformer"? In fact, acknowledging that energy cannot be created is actually evidence AGAINST the existence of a creator god, as it eliminates the need for a creation event.

Maybe the pushers of this argument would realize the fatal flaw if they worded it like so: Nothing can be created, therefore God created everything. ................... huh?

Yes, there was a time when the universe didn't exist as we know it, but perhaps a precursor to energy was merely transformed by the big bang into the energy we can detect in the universe today. I watched a lecture recently about how "nothingness" can exist as something in itself because it is unstable by nature. How is the fact that 'something' existed before the universe, considered evidence that it was a magical, invisible, intelligent being(much less the prayer answering, miracle performing, genocidal maniac of the "good" book).

Mon, 11 Apr 2011 23:08:54 UTC | #614246

Go to: Debate: Does the Universe have a purpose?

Metch's Avatar Jump to comment 5 by Metch

Same old fallacy spewing faith-junkies deluded by their childish emotional attachment to comforting bronze age myths. Evil is not an object force in the universe, it's a label we put on actions which cause suffering. Honestly, how long will it take for a consciousness shift which has the apologists admitting their arguments are flawed. Perhaps they never will, in which case religion will fade out gradually over time as each generation becomes less and less religious. Perhaps religion will simply become outdated, like VHS tapes.

Sat, 20 Nov 2010 07:07:08 UTC | #550289

Go to: Hitchens on cancer diagnosis: 'Why not me?'

Metch's Avatar Jump to comment 4 by Metch

Any God who sends this genius to hell is a buffoon. I hope he suffers little and lives long.

Fri, 06 Aug 2010 08:52:55 UTC | #496588

Go to: [Updated] Richard Dawkins 'atheist free school' Articles

Metch's Avatar Jump to comment 14 by Metch

I don't think setting up "atheist" or "secular" schools is a good idea. All students need to be exposed to critical thinking, they need 'baloney detection kits' - it should be standard in all schools. Kids need to learn how to sift through the bullshit, before they enter high school. Critical thinking isn't and secular virtue, it's a human one.

Fri, 25 Jun 2010 09:35:42 UTC | #483460

More Comments by Metch