Religion

ladjf

(17,320 posts)

27. I disagree. His basic statement clearly indicated a lack of

Reply to cbayer (Reply #19)

Wed Oct 8, 2014, 08:58 AM

Oct 2014

corroborative evidence.

But, I still think you have the coolest avatar on DU.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

67 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Prof Brian Cox: 'There�s a naivety in saying there is no God� [View all] cbayer Oct 2014 OP

As there is in "knowing" that there is a god. n/t trotsky Oct 2014 #1

...and what about just saying we don't believe people who say there is one, with no evidence? whatthehey Oct 2014 #2

Sure. I think that is equally valid. cbayer Oct 2014 #3

That's an amazingly deceptive headline. AtheistCrusader Oct 2014 #4

I agree that the headline oversimplifies his statement and cbayer Oct 2014 #5

At leas they put it in single quotes as a paraphrase. AtheistCrusader Oct 2014 #6

He's sort of the British equivalent of Neil deGrasse Tyson muriel_volestrangler Oct 2014 #8

Sounds like an interesting guy. pinto Oct 2014 #9

That's what I kind of assumed. cbayer Oct 2014 #18

Check out his "Wonders of the Solar System" and "Wonders of the Universe" programs... Humanist_Activist Oct 2014 #15

What does Cox base his bland proclamations upon? They sound like personal "notions" to me. nt ladjf Oct 2014 #7

One might have to read the article to see what he meant here. cbayer Oct 2014 #19

I disagree. His basic statement clearly indicated a lack of ladjf Oct 2014 #27

That is so sweet of you. It's an avatar with a very personal meaning for me. cbayer Oct 2014 #29

I've spent many happy hours sailing boats. ladjf Oct 2014 #30

Do you still get to sail? cbayer Oct 2014 #31

I sold my last boat 25 yrs ago and have only sailed a few rental catamarans in recent years. nt ladjf Oct 2014 #32

Well, I wish for you the opportunity to sail again. cbayer Oct 2014 #33

Thanks. nt ladjf Oct 2014 #34

Sailing at times appealed to me. But it was the opposite of religion: pure material sense. Brettongarcia Oct 2014 #39

One person's wonder, excitement, or mmonk Oct 2014 #67

Cox assumes a lot of stuff without evidence. Warren Stupidity Oct 2014 #10

I reformatted the queries just for a look - pinto Oct 2014 #12

Those are not the same questions. Warren Stupidity Oct 2014 #13

Yeah. Replaced was my original wording but went to reformat for some reason. pinto Oct 2014 #14

Your purpose edhopper Oct 2014 #28

Yes there is no external "purpose" to our existence. Warren Stupidity Oct 2014 #35

Agree, save for the grand design point. There's so much design commonality among life that is grand. pinto Oct 2014 #36

Given his comments in the article, I don't he's assuming what you think he is muriel_volestrangler Oct 2014 #16

"Why are we here" has like 2500 years of loaded meaning attached to it. Warren Stupidity Oct 2014 #17

If it helps you rest, he is an 'avowed atheist' muriel_volestrangler Oct 2014 #21

So is Nagel, however teleology is bullshit. Warren Stupidity Oct 2014 #24

I'm watching it now, and there's been no sign of teleology muriel_volestrangler Oct 2014 #25

I don't believe that there is any credible evidence that a God either exists ladjf Oct 2014 #52

I hope this show can get some play in the US. Jim__ Oct 2014 #11

I hope we get it as well. I'm not familiar with the Why does�. cbayer Oct 2014 #20

It's a book. Jim__ Oct 2014 #22

Putting it on the list. cbayer Oct 2014 #23

Cool. Thanks for the blurb. Looks like a good read. pinto Oct 2014 #26

It's one thing to say you know there is a God, it's another to say you know..... DrewFlorida Oct 2014 #37

Agree. There is a big difference between just holding the belief cbayer Oct 2014 #40

At least a billion theists... trotsky Oct 2014 #41

Okay, i'll bite. There is not god. PoutrageFatigue Oct 2014 #44

Your first statement is without merit, while your second is true. cbayer Oct 2014 #45

How is it without merit? PoutrageFatigue Oct 2014 #46

Because you have made a definitive statement without evidence. cbayer Oct 2014 #47

You have that precisely backwards. Again. PoutrageFatigue Oct 2014 #48

You are making a definitive statement. cbayer Oct 2014 #49

There are no unicorns. PoutrageFatigue Oct 2014 #53

It is generally accepted that there are no unicorns. cbayer Oct 2014 #54

How do you prove something DOESN'T exist? PoutrageFatigue Oct 2014 #55

I think we have been through this, but I am happy to go over it again. cbayer Oct 2014 #56

Notoriously, "proving the negative hypothesis" cannot be done, some say Brettongarcia Oct 2014 #57

ok, proove there is no santa Lordquinton Oct 2014 #50

I'm not interested in proving there is no santa. cbayer Oct 2014 #51

but you do believe he doesn't exist, right? Lordquinton Oct 2014 #58

Why would it matter one way or another? cbayer Oct 2014 #59

why do you refuse to answer? Lordquinton Oct 2014 #60

Lol, why do you refuse to answer? cbayer Oct 2014 #61

so that's a yes you do believe in santa? Lordquinton Oct 2014 #62

I'm agnostic when it comes to santa, cbayer Oct 2014 #63

but you do care so much about it when the subject arises, something doesn't add up. Lordquinton Oct 2014 #64

No, I don't care about it at all. cbayer Oct 2014 #65

Prof. Brian Cox deserves that "D" in Math ... and another one in logic. Brettongarcia Oct 2014 #38

No, that's not what he said muriel_volestrangler Oct 2014 #42

So once again, as hundreds of times before, religious defenders used a deceptive headline Brettongarcia Oct 2014 #43

nope, just a dishonest quote-mine pokerfan Oct 2014 #66