You know the ones: always banging on about how religion is the root of all evil, how everyone should read the teachings of their Messiah, Richard Dawkins... they like to give it a bit of 'that' don't they?

Personally, I consider myself to be a semi-agnostic Buddhist-Spiritualist with Anglican leanings, although I also regularly read the Koran. Should these atheists be allowed to preach their faith in science, while condemning all religion as 'mythological mumbo-jumbo'?

... Should these atheists be allowed to preach their faith in science, while condemning all religion as 'mythological mumbo-jumbo'?
Yes, they should. Next! ;)

Science doesn't require any faith.
Everyone is free to 'preach' whatever they like within the forum rules, so why should aethiest be singled out for restrictions? Just because you disagree with them?

No - because there is statistical evidence that religious ignorance and intolerance is the leading cause of long, tedious threads on Sheffield Forum.

No - because there is statistical evidence that religious ignorance and intolerance is the leading cause of long, tedious threads on Sheffield Forum.

It's not a compulsory requirement to read any thread on SF.

You have the "freedom" to choose for yourself. :)

That must be the only option in all things, providing it is within the laws of the land.

No - because there is statistical evidence that religious ignorance and intolerance is the leading cause of long, tedious threads on Sheffield Forum.
:clap: :clap: :clap:

It's not a compulsory requirement to read any thread on SF.

You have the "freedom" to choose for yourself. :)
Absolutely true, but the problem comes when members of the forum express a view which doesn't fit into the 'correct' atheist way of thinking... they are then agressively chased down for lengthy explanations of their beliefs - it's almost Orwellian.

Absolutely true, but the problem comes when members of the forum express a view which doesn't fit into the 'correct' atheist way of thinking... they are then agressively chased down for lengthy explanations of their beliefs - it's almost Orwellian.
Yep, and when I made just such a point, certain forummers completely ignored what I'd actually said and then argued against a point that I hadn't even made! :loopy: At least they're 'right' though, eh? ;) Makes me laugh that it was they who got 'high and mighty', not I. lol.

Absolutely true, but the problem comes when members of the forum express a view which doesn't fit into the 'correct' atheist way of thinking... they are then agressively chased down for lengthy explanations of their beliefs - it's almost Orwellian.
If they can't stand the heat...

It's a debate about a controversial subject. If someone is willing to engage in a debate about evolution, for example, then they should be prepared to defend - vigourously if necessary - each of the points they make, as in any other debate.

Absolutely true, but the problem comes when members of the forum express a view which doesn't fit into the 'correct' atheist way of thinking... they are then agressively chased down for lengthy explanations of their beliefs - it's almost Orwellian.

What's wrong with asking for explanations? When a religionist makes a claim, why not demand an explanation? I don't see any reason to accept any view or statement based on supernatural gibberish (the Bible, the Koran)and would therefore like some justification. The only problem I can see is that a religionist is put in the uncomfortable (for them) position of not being able to answer because their belief system is ultimately based on the irrational...all arguments regress back to 'I just know', without offering a shred of evidence.
If someone claims to hear the voice of a fairy in their head, and says that eating toast on a Tuesday will send you to hell, aren't we entitled to say, 'hang on a minute, what utter bilge!' Why is any different for religion?
Religion has had a good run of it but their numbers up and the sooner we shunt it out of public life for good, the better.

If they can't stand the heat...

It's a debate about a controversial subject. If someone is willing to engage in a debate about evolution, for example, then they should be prepared to defend - vigourously if necessary - each of the points they make, as in any other debate.
Did that, got dismayed by those I was debating with not actually reading what I'd taken time to write (despite me granting them that basic conversational pleasantry) and bored them resorting to petty jibes instead, gave up.

I find it amusing that those who apparently have 'no interest' in religion are those who shout the loudest in any religious debate I've ever read (not just here). :)

If someone claims to hear the voice of a fairy in their head, and says that eating toast on a Tuesday will send you to hell, aren't we entitled to say, 'hang on a minute, what utter bilge!' Why is any different for religion?
Religion has had a good run of it but their numbers up and the sooner we shunt it out of public life for good, the better.
Absolutely. But if someone says 'I'm a Buddhist and I meditate twice a day to help me deal with my anger at modern society - this helps me to connect with my spiritual side and calms me down. I also study the Teachings of Buddha as I feel it bears relevance in this day and age, where we are surrounded by evil and people value only technology and money, etc etc'... generally speaking they would be given the :loopy: treatment here. No sky-pixies or talking fairies are involved, yet the intolerant atheist will (generally speaking) become outraged and demand evidence that a) meditation works, or b) Buddha ever existed, or will c) claim that the forum member is some kind of general crackpot who knows nothing about his faith.

Absolutely. But if someone says 'I'm a Buddhist and I meditate twice a day to help me deal with my anger at modern society - this helps me to connect with my spiritual side and calms me down. I also study the Teachings of Buddha as I feel it bears relevance in this day and age, where we are surrounded by evil and people value only technology and money, etc etc'... generally speaking they would be given the :loopy: treatment here. No sky-pixies or talking fairies are involved, yet the intolerant atheist will generally become outraged and demand evidence that a) meditation works, or b) Buddha ever existed, or will c) claim that the forum member is some kind of general crackpot who knows nothing about his faith.
Can you give some examples where this has happened?

Can you give some examples where this has happened?
To be honest, probably not exactly as hypothesised above, but if I had a few hours I probably could find something similar, yes. I'm talking more generally about the air of intolerance here on SF. It was just something I wanted to put to the atheist masses, like, and see what they thought...

If someone claims to hear the voice of a fairy in their head, and says that eating toast on a Tuesday will send you to hell, aren't we entitled to say, 'hang on a minute, what utter bilge!' Why is any different for religion?
Religion has had a good run of it but their numbers up and the sooner we shunt it out of public life for good, the better.

Of course your entitled to believe it is utter bilge - however the other individual is perfectly entitled to believe that a toast fast on a tesday is the true way to heaven. I don't relly see why it should impact on you unless they try and stop your tuesday snack of toast and marmite? Does it really matter to you what they believe and whether they eat toast on a Tuesday or not? The same is true of any belief system - it's your own and no-one else has the right to try and change it unless it impinges on them in some way...

Of course your entitled to believe it is utter bilge - however the other individual is perfectly entitled to believe that a toast fast on a tesday is the true way to heaven. I don't relly see why it should impact on you unless they try and stop your tuesday snack of toast and marmite? Does it really matter to you what they believe and whether they eat toast on a Tuesday or not? The same is true of any belief system - it's your own and no-one else has the right to try and change it unless it impinges on them in some way...
So you think religious evangelism should be banned?

To be honest, probably not exactly as hypothesised above, but if I had a few hours I probably could find something similar, yes. I'm talking more generally about the air of intolerance here on SF. It was just something I wanted to put to the atheist masses, like, and see what they thought...
What 'air of intolerance' is that? Simply asking people to back up their claims is not intolerant. Trying to prohibit people from voicing their opinion is however and I'm not aware of any atheists around here trying to do that, theists on the other hand...

Absolutely true, but the problem comes when members of the forum express a view which doesn't fit into the 'correct' atheist way of thinking... they are then agressively chased down for lengthy explanations of their beliefs - it's almost Orwellian.
I don't think anybody has a problem with people expressing their beliefs, in the form of, "I believe this [undisprovable hypothesis]" (where [undisprovable hypothesis] is something like, "God created the universe a long time ago"). However, it'd better be necessarily vague. If an untestable hypothesis (belief) is passed off as fact, or if a statement is made that runs contrary to evidence, then they should expect to have to defend their position.

So you think religious evangelism should be banned?

Yes - but I also think athiestic evangelism should be banned - well banned may be the wrong word. I would hope that people would learn to be respectfull enough of others belief systems that they wouldn't go around trying to arbiteraly change them.

Of course your entitled to believe it is utter bilge - however the other individual is perfectly entitled to believe that a toast fast on a tesday is the true way to heaven. I don't relly see why it should impact on you unless they try and stop your tuesday snack of toast and marmite? Does it really matter to you what they believe and whether they eat toast on a Tuesday or not? The same is true of any belief system - it's your own and no-one else has the right to try and change it unless it impinges on them in some way...

If they choose to engage in a debate about something and quote evidence from their holy book of no toast on tuesdays then they really ought to expect that someone might suggest that the book was written by a bloke down the pub just last week who has a grudge against warbutons.

Of course your entitled to believe it is utter bilge - however the other individual is perfectly entitled to believe that a toast fast on a tesday is the true way to heaven. I don't relly see why it should impact on you unless they try and stop your tuesday snack of toast and marmite? Does it really matter to you what they believe and whether they eat toast on a Tuesday or not? The same is true of any belief system - it's your own and no-one else has the right to try and change it unless it impinges on them in some way...

Yes you're right, it doesn't matter to me what people believe....right up until the point where admission to state schools is based on observance of toast fasting (or where otherwise non believing parents claim to toast fast in order to get their children into the school), where Bishops of the Toast sit in the house of lords, where the established church of toast gets preferential tax treatment and all the rest of it. The problem is, as you note in the last sentence, that religious belief does impinge on me in some way.

BTW, still waiting for an address to send the God Delusion to....:)

Absolutely. But if someone says 'I'm a Buddhist and I meditate twice a day to help me deal with my anger at modern society - this helps me to connect with my spiritual side and calms me down. I also study the Teachings of Buddha as I feel it bears relevance in this day and age, where we are surrounded by evil and people value only technology and money, etc etc'... generally speaking they would be given the :loopy: treatment here. No sky-pixies or talking fairies are involved, yet the intolerant atheist will (generally speaking) become outraged and demand evidence that a) meditation works, or b) Buddha ever existed, or will c) claim that the forum member is some kind of general crackpot who knows nothing about his faith.

If they post this then they are presumably trying to stimulate some sort of discussion. So they must expect someone to question something or talk about something in their post.
As it happens they'll have no difficulty providing evidence regarding meditation, and it probably doesn't matter too much to them whether budda existed or not.

There's an easy way to avoid your beliefs being questioned, don't post about them and definitely don't present parts of them as fact or the solutions to real questions with real answers.

My honking point would be that science, athiesm and freethinking in general welcomes debate... however, the faith based posters on this and other fora seem unwilling to enter into debate without the use of selective qouting from some very dubious sources...

This is characteristic of the entire faith debate which we can see colouring world politics at the moment - i.e. that faith gives you ablity to think that youm and you alone are correct..

As I have posted m-a-n-y times I would actively welcome a single shred of evidence for the afterlife, ghosts etc etc, but the "other side" are unwilling to say what would disprove their own brand of the supernatural :|

Yes - but I also think athiestic evangelism should be banned - well banned may be the wrong word. I would hope that people would learn to be respectfull enough of others belief systems that they wouldn't go around trying to arbiteraly change them.
Unfortunately many believers would find that rather difficult as evangelism is an essential part of many religions and monotheistic religions by their very nature tend to be inherently disrespectful of all other religions.

Absolutely. But if someone says 'I'm a Buddhist and I meditate twice a day to help me deal with my anger at modern society - this helps me to connect with my spiritual side and calms me down. I also study the Teachings of Buddha as I feel it bears relevance in this day and age, where we are surrounded by evil and people value only technology and money, etc etc'... generally speaking they would be given the :loopy: treatment here. No sky-pixies or talking fairies are involved, yet the intolerant atheist will (generally speaking) become outraged and demand evidence that a) meditation works, or b) Buddha ever existed, or will c) claim that the forum member is some kind of general crackpot who knows nothing about his faith.
I don't think anyone here would object to a Buddhist meditating. People only get the hump with organised relligion when it starts to effect other peoples lives or those that practice it start making demands. So;

Iif you demanded time off during the working day to practice your religion then I'd object.

If you were sent to prison and demanded a special mat for praying, or a different diet of food, then I'd object.

If you argued that your religion demands women cover-up and stay in the home then I'd object.

If you strapped explosives to your body and blew yourself and non-believers up then I'd object.

Basically, keep your religious mumbo jumbo beliefs to yourself and nobody will complain. Fair enough?

Yes - but I also think athiestic evangelism should be banned - well banned may be the wrong word. I would hope that people would learn to be respectfull enough of others belief systems that they wouldn't go around trying to arbiteraly change them.


Again DrNeil, why should there be respect of another's belief system? On what grounds? Can you honestly say that you respect equally all belief systems (from Christianity to Mormons to scientologists to devil worshippers and cannibals)? And if not, if you don't respect one or more of these, then you can understand why I don't respect any.

Absolutely. But if someone says 'I'm a Buddhist and I meditate twice a day to help me deal with my anger at modern society - this helps me to connect with my spiritual side and calms me down. I also study the Teachings of Buddha as I feel it bears relevance in this day and age, where we are surrounded by evil and people value only technology and money, etc etc'... generally speaking they would be given the :loopy: treatment here. No sky-pixies or talking fairies are involved, yet the intolerant atheist will (generally speaking) become outraged and demand evidence that a) meditation works, or b) Buddha ever existed, or will c) claim that the forum member is some kind of general crackpot who knows nothing about his faith.

This doesn't describe my atheism. My general rub with religion is where it impinges on public life. If your belief system works for you, good luck to you. I might think you'd be better of rejecting any form of religion and celebrating this marvelous gift of life rather than looking forward to the next one but, whatever floats your boat! But if the government were to afford your belief system privileged treatment in society, I would strongly take issue.

Iif you demanded time off during the working day to practice your religion then I'd object.

If you were sent to prison and demanded a special mat for praying, or a different diet of food, then I'd object.


These first two strike me as intolerant and i'm very much a confirmed aetheist and quite willing to argue with religous mumbo jumbo.
Vegetarians can demand a different diet, so why not someone who eats differently for any other reason.
And time off is unimportant so long as the contractural hours are fulfilled by staying later.


Basically, keep your religious mumbo jumbo beliefs to yourself and nobody will complain. Fair enough?

Doesn't this contradict your earlier points. Time off to go and pray doesn't impact you so long as they still work 7.5hrs, and neither does them choosing not to eat pork (for example).
I choose not to eat cabbage, would you object to that as well (it's on taste grounds, not religous).

Again DrNeil, why should there be respect of another's belief system? On what grounds? Can you honestly say that you respect equally all belief systems (from Christianity to Mormons to scientologists to devil worshippers and cannibals)? And if not, if you don't respect one or more of these, then you can understand why I don't respect any.

You can respect someones right to hold a belief whilst at the same time not respecting the belief they hold (or indeed the person who holds it).

You can respect someones right to hold a belief whilst at the same time not respecting the belief they hold (or indeed the person who holds it).

Well yes. But that's something completly different. Luckily, we live in a liberal democracy and a cornerstone of that is that people are free to believe in whatever they choose and I cherish this freedom. But I was asking why I should afford any respect to a belief system, not if I should repect the right to hold belief.

Doesn't this contradict your earlier points. Time off to go and pray doesn't impact you so long as they still work 7.5hrs, and neither does them choosing not to eat pork (for example).
I choose not to eat cabbage, would you object to that as well (it's on taste grounds, not religous).
You're not an employer yourself then! ;) They can do it in their lunch break.

I regularly object to the kids not eating their greens... I am apparently a mean person. Besides, cabbage and bacon is the food of gods and any religion that says you can't eat it is just plain silly.

No they can't, no more than a strict christian can work overtime on a sunday.
If they choose to take 20 minutes to pray at 3:30 (or whatever time) they can have 20 mins less at lunch or go home at 1720 instead of 1700. Nobody looses out.

Yes, they should. Next! ;)

No, they shouldn't! Next! ;)

Seriously, atheists in general appear to have huge chips on their shoulders regarding religion/faith/spirituality, and some take the fact that other people have Faith almost as a personal affront to themselves. It's like they're scared down to the tips of their toes that they've got it wrong, and that humans are indeed "Spirits on a human journey" - that there is more to Life and the Universe that can be counted, measured or seen.

It seems that many atheists, when confronted by a person of Faith, do not want to hear what that person has to say, and will try to silence that person, often by using the playground equivalent of putting their fingers in their ears, and going "I can't hear you! Na, na, na, na..... etc". I see a lot of that here on SF.

To paraphrase Cyclone above, even if a person doesn't have Faith themselves, surely they can respect the right of another to have Faith?

If atheists are so certain of their position, why do they find the spirituality of others something to fear? Doesn't sound to me like they're all that confident of their 'beliefs'.....

StarSparkle

No, they shouldn't! Next! ;)

Seriously, atheists in general appear to have huge chips on their shoulders regarding religion/faith/spirituality, and some take the fact that other people have Faith almost as a personal affront to themselves. It's like they're scared down to the tips of their toes that they've got it wrong, and that humans are indeed "Spirits on a human journey" - that there is more to Life and the Universe that can be counted, measured or seen.

It seems that many atheists, when confronted by a person of Faith, do not want to hear what that person has to say, and will try to silence that person, often by using the playground equivalent of putting their fingers in their ears, and going "I can't hear you! Na, na, na, na..... etc". I see a lot of that here on SF.

If atheists are so certain of their position, why do they find the spirituality of others something to fear? Doesn't sound to me like they're all that confident of their 'beliefs'.....

StarSparkle
I feel that this is the most accurate and succinct post I have ever read about any topic and on any forum anywhere. Nail hit VERY firmly on the head!! Well done StarSparkle!

I find religous ideas offensive because of their inherent irrationality, hence whenever someone comes along and says "god made the world" i feel obliged to argue in case someone else gets sucked into their delusion.

If they want to have faith quietly at home and not get involved in trying to answer serious questions then there'd be no aethiests having to argue with them about it.

No, they shouldn't! Next! ;)

Seriously, atheists in general appear to have huge chips on their shoulders regarding religion/faith/spirituality, and some take the fact that other people have Faith almost as a personal affront to themselves. It's like they're scared down to the tips of their toes that they've got it wrong, and that humans are indeed "Spirits on a human journey" - that there is more to Life and the Universe that can be counted, measured or seen.

It seems that many atheists, when confronted by a person of Faith, do not want to hear what that person has to say, and will try to silence that person, often by using the playground equivalent of putting their fingers in their ears, and going "I can't hear you! Na, na, na, na..... etc". I see a lot of that here on SF.
Do you have any specific examples of this behaviour?

If atheists are so certain of their position, why do they find the spirituality of others something to fear? Doesn't sound to me like they're all that confident of their 'beliefs'.....
Theists are scary because of their tendency to try and force their arbitrary beliefs upon society by for example trying to take control of women’s bodies away from them, trying to stop scientists researching lifesaving and improving treatments, trying to criminalise loving the wrong kind of person, by sabotaging safe sex programs by spreading anti-condom propaganda, trying to have their fairy stories taught as fact in school. Theists are scary because they think the ‘next world’ is more important than this one.

You will note that none of these reasons have anything to do with a fear of spirituality or a lack of confidence in atheism. They are practicle fears based upon harmful behaviours consistently exhibited by theists which adversly affect real people in the real world.

Perhap's atheists simply do not have "the God Gene". :)


Telegraph Online

Religious belief is determined by a person's genetic make-up according to a study by a leading scientist.

After comparing more than 2,000 DNA samples, an American molecular geneticist has concluded that a person's capacity to believe in God is linked to brain chemicals.

His findings were criticised last night by leading clerics, who challenge the existence of a "god gene" and say that the research undermines a fundamental tenet of faith - that spiritual enlightenment is achieved through divine transformation rather than the brain's electrical impulses.

Dr Dean Hamer, the director of the Gene Structure and Regulation Unit at the National Cancer Institute in America, asked volunteers 226 questions in order to determine how spiritually connected they felt to the universe. The higher their score, the greater a person's ability to believe in a greater spiritual force and, Dr Hamer found, the more likely they were to share the gene, VMAT2.

Studies on twins showed that those with this gene, a vesicular monoamine transporter that regulates the flow of mood-altering chemicals in the brain, were more likely to develop a spiritual belief.



Full Article Here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/11/14/ngod14.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/11/14/ixnewstop.html)

...If atheists are so certain of their position, why do they find the spirituality of others something to fear? Doesn't sound to me like they're all that confident of their 'beliefs'.....
Where has an atheist stated that they find the spirituality of others something to fear? You're taking your own interpretation of a robust defence of an atheistic/scientific viewpoint, and ascribing it to others.

On the many threads in which atheists have debated with those who believe in God, I've seen points made and points countered. If one view has silenced the other, then to me it would imply that they have no response. However, the length of the recently-closed debate on evolution would suggest otherwise.

I'm not religious.

Religious people - don't worry about getting stick from atheists too much, after all, we're all going to burn in hell having wasted our lives.

I said theists have a 'tendency to try and force their arbitrary beliefs upon society' which they undeniably do, I most definitely did not say that all theists invariably do so, will you please respond to what I actually write rather than strawmen of your own invention.
And I'm saying that they don't, and therfore that you're wrong.
The results from the lastest census said something almost unbelievable like 72% of UK residents classed themselves as Christians. Pretending for a second that other faiths don't exist, wouldn't your statement mean at least 72% of people you come across would be shoving their faith down your neck, objecting to science, etc?

Seriously, atheists in general appear to have huge chips on their shoulders regarding religion/faith/spirituality, and some take the fact that other people have Faith almost as a personal affront to themselves. It's like they're scared down to the tips of their toes that they've got it wrong, and that humans are indeed "Spirits on a human journey" - that there is more to Life and the Universe that can be counted, measured or seen.

It seems that many atheists, when confronted by a person of Faith, do not want to hear what that person has to say, and will try to silence that person, often by using the playground equivalent of putting their fingers in their ears, and going "I can't hear you! Na, na, na, na..... etc". I see a lot of that here on SF.

If atheists are so certain of their position, why do they find the spirituality of others something to fear? Doesn't sound to me like they're all that confident of their 'beliefs'.....

StarSparkle

You seem to be black-balling many a poster on SF with that statement StarSparkle.

We have not reached Orwell's "1984" quite yet. :)

I think it seems that some atheists are more angry than fearful, and this is leading to a form of extreme atheism. The anger seems to cloud judgement slightly, leading to generalisation of all religion as evil, and all followers as blind. This is where it gets Orwellian.

I think it seems that some atheists are more angry than fearful, and this is leading to a form of extreme atheism. The anger seems to cloud judgement slightly, leading to generalisation of all religion as evil, and all followers as blind.
Can you provide specific examples of this behaviour or are you just making stuff up again?

This is where it gets Orwellian.
In what way?

I'm a proclaimed atheist ! :wave: Hello.

I don't know about the opinions mentioned in this thread about 'some' atheists and how they give it 'all that'.

I've seen a lot of well-structured debates and arguments here on the SF about evolution, religion, and scientific viewpoints. I actually do enjoy those debates. A lot of people use the phrase 'I am an atheist' to allow the viewer to understand that their viewpoints are not based on religious grounds or information. I sometimes do this a lot, and I've seen a few people do this too. I would say it's pretty fair to say that, if you're a religious believer, then you would know more about the religion than the average non-believer who may not take the time to learn it also. To claim that one is an aetheist is also to endorse what I write comes from an non-religious viewpoint.

What I personally do detest are the, (sorry to quote you here Zamo), "I object" stance on issues which, as I see fit, has no business of the average joe blogg. I personally find this very off, to say the least. Maybe to me, I see it as extremely rude and antagonising. It's different if a person wishes to discuss and debate about his own personal issues, and to explore the topic of religion with the general public. However, it is rude to insinuate, and to criticise a person's personal beliefs. It's a small difference between the two examples, and it's an important one !

People only get the hump with organised relligion when it starts to effect other peoples lives or those that practice it start making demands. So;
I agree. ONLY if those demands affect others. If they don't. Then I see this as a personal attack on someone. Maybe on some level, I see it as a form of an attack of that person's human rights, even.
Iif you demanded time off during the working day to practice your religion then I'd object.
If you were sent to prison and demanded a special mat for praying, or a different diet of food, then I'd object.
If a person is religious, and he works his way round the set rules. Then what is the problem ? The point about diets, you don't want to kill someone with a certain food type if they have allergies, so why not give food to those that needs it ? Set meals can be set meals. Either they choose what they can eat, or they will starve. I think those who are religious will have their own mats. It's a personal thing. :rolleyes:
If you argued that your religion demands women cover-up and stay in the home then I'd object.
I don't object. I disagree with you. Clothing to me, I see it as an expression of oneself. How can what I wear hurt another person ? On what grounds or level ? It is not physical. It is not emotional. It is not even mental.

I find that people who make demands that others should 'do as I say' too intrusive. :gag:
If you strapped explosives to your body and blew yourself and non-believers up then I'd object.
I agree. Cos it's a case of national security, and population death. Must be stopped.
Basically, keep your religious mumbo jumbo beliefs to yourself and nobody will complain. Fair enough?
I encounter different type of people who sprouts different religion everyday. As long as they respect me, and know when to quit. I don't mind listening on some levels. The religious people that I have met know when to quit. I too know when they talk, it is a mere joy for them to share an aspect of their life with me. It does not mean that I have to take it. What a ridiculous idea !

I find religous ideas offensive because of their inherent irrationality, hence whenever someone comes along and says "god made the world" i feel obliged to argue in case someone else gets sucked into their delusion.
Seeing as you cannot prove that people who hold religious beliefs are wrong, in exactly the same way they they cannot prove to you that they are right, what gives you the right to decide that they are "deluded"? As both parties have come to their own, intelligent conclusions via their own means and retionale, isn't your stance somewhat, pretentious?
No-one shouts you down for holding your views, why do you feel the need to shout other down for holding theirs, when neither viewpoint can be proven beyond ALL doubt in EVERYONE'S mind to be correct. It's very, very petty and exceptionally ignorant, to be blunt.

Seeing as you cannot prove that people who hold religious beliefs are wrong
Actually a lot of the time you can because they make claims which can be demonstrated to be false.

, in exactly the same way they they cannot prove to you that they are right, what gives you the right to decide that they are "deluded"? As both parties have come to their own, intelligent conclusions via their own means and retionale, isn't your stance somewhat, pretentious?
No-one shouts you down for holding your views, why do you feel the need to shout other down for holding theirs, when neither viewpoint can be proven beyond ALL doubt in EVERYONE'S mind to be correct. It's very, very petty.
When has Cyclone attempted to 'shout down' theists?

Mod note:

This is just a little pre-emptive nudge in the ribs to remind everyone to keep it nice and polite :)

neither viewpoint can be proven beyond ALL doubt in EVERYONE'S mind to be correct.

Only because large numbers of people don't appear to have a mind worthy of the name. Religion is based on such a morass of logical inconsistencies that anyone with even the slightest inkling of how to follow a logical argument would laugh it out of court within five minutes.

I think believers and non-believers may never really agree since they accept different viewpoints. The two inherently will clash. However, it is always down to those that have given the subjects a good think, that allows the debaters to discuss the issue on a subjective level, and NOT to resort to personal attacks on personal beliefs.

It is these kind of debates which I enjoy the most. Cos to me, it's just food for thoughts.

...NOT to resort to personal attacks on personal beliefs.
But for some, a bold statement such as 'God doesn't exist' might be taken as a personal attack on personal beliefs.

Seeing as you cannot prove that people who hold religious beliefs are wrong, in exactly the same way they they cannot prove to you that they are right, what gives you the right to decide that they are "deluded"? As both parties have come to their own, intelligent conclusions via their own means and retionale, isn't your stance somewhat, pretentious?
No-one shouts you down for holding your views, why do you feel the need to shout other down for holding theirs, when neither viewpoint can be proven beyond ALL doubt in EVERYONE'S mind to be correct. It's very, very petty and exceptionally ignorant, to be blunt.

Delusion.
a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact.


A belief in the supernatural and mythical beings fits the bill. A belief in the scientific method and rational thought doesn't.
Who exactly have I been shouting down? I gave up talking to grahame about evolution because all he did was quote obscure bits of the bible at me as if it somehow proved something.

I know full well that you cannot prove a negative, you can't prove that Santa doesn't exist and fairies aren't hiding in your garden right now. It doesn't mean that a rational person should believe in them though.

intelligent conclusions via their own means and retionale[sic]
Rationalle and intelligent thought are nothing to do with religion, religion is based on faith, faith is a believe without evidence, and belief without evidence is a delusion.

So to be blunt, I reject your assertion and challenge you to prove any part of it.

When has Cyclone attempted to 'shout down' theists?

Originally Posted by Cyclone
I find religous ideas offensive because of their inherent irrationality, hence whenever someone comes along and says "god made the world" i feel obliged to argue in case someone else gets sucked into their delusion.
I think this is what Suprasteve meant.

However, saying that, I understand where Cyclone is coming from. Since the idea of "world creation" is different whether you see it from a science viewpoint to a religious one. So the two will never agree anyway. Unless the debater would want to explore the area, and to find evidences or ideas to dispprove it from some kind logical angle.

However, I don't think that Cyclone (well, you can see for yourself what he wrote previously above), will stop and shout down every single religious person.

I think this is what Suprasteve meant.

However, saying that, I understand where Cyclone is coming from. Since the idea of "world creation" is different whether you see it from a science viewpoint to a religious one. So the two will never agree anyway. Unless the debater would want to explore the area, and to find evidences or ideas to dispprove it from some kind logical angle.

However, I don't think that Cyclone (well, you can see for yourself what he wrote previously above), will stop and shout down every single religious person.
That's not ‘shouting down’ though that’s debating which is an entirely different matter, Cyclone make and counters points and backs his assertions with evidence, that is a world away from 'shouting people down'.

But for some, a bold statement such as 'God doesn't exist' might be taken as a personal attack on personal beliefs.
Well then it just depends on what context it was used, right ? For the average person who court the idea of science and its derived principles which governs a lot of things we see and hear today. I don't think that they will be as extreme in response to that statement.

I don't doubt that in a structured formal debate (which is not meant to be personal) should not be welcomed. IF both parties KNOW the score of where the debate leads to.

However, if that kind of sentence is shouted at during Christmas time say, with a looney waving a flag of some sort and joyriding down a road. Do you think that won't drum up a different response otherwise ?

I think, what a lot of people 'fear' is that, there is no room for logical debates. I say that there is. However, it does not mean that we must not be ourselves. I don't debate religion with my parents. I don't. Cos I know what response I will get. It's too closely-tied with our family culture. However, I do discuss Christianity with my friends' parents. We explore different areas of it.

Only because large numbers of people don't appear to have a mind worthy of the name. Religion is based on such a morass of logical inconsistencies that anyone with even the slightest inkling of how to follow a logical argument would laugh it out of court within five minutes.

The same is true of athiesm - there is no logical or scientific argument for the adoption of athiesm. The best that can be proved via science and logic is agnosticism - i.e. unproved and unprovable. The adoption of any faith position (theistic or atheistic) is based on personal conviction and belief rather than logical argument.

That's not ‘shouting down’ though that’s debating which is an entirely different matter, Cyclone make and counters points and backs his assertions with evidence, that is a world away from 'shouting people down'.
But that's his opinion of how he interprets the way it comes across to him. Is he not entitled to his opinions ? 'shouting down', 'being negative', 'put down', or 'antagonise'. Are these not in the same group of emotions ?
It's his choice to choose those descriptive words that he did. To me, they amount to the same thing. I understand his general sentiment. Which to me, is what counts.

Cyclone may want to make a rational and logical debate of the discussion, but what if the other person was not after that ? But more of sharing an experience or even being empathetic to each other ? How antagonising would it be if he then took the opportunity to 'argue' when the opposed writer does not want that ?

No it would not, might I suggest you grab a dictionary and actually look up the definition of 'tendency'.
"Tendency: an inclination, bent, or predisposition to something" So [all of] the people you mentioned in your stament will tend to act as you've described. My counter-argument is that they clearly don't!

Religion is exceptionally weak in the UK at this moment in historyI disagree, 72% of the country counting themselves as Christian is hardly weak, then add n the other faiths - I'm sure a good amount of what's left must be Muslim by now, if we believe the hype. ;)

Anyway what makes you think I'm just talking about the UK?Because we live in the UK and so far that's been the core of this topic of conversation? By all means move the goalposts plekhanov, but doing so doesn't undermine the points I've raised to the discussion so far.

In Nicaragua this year Catholics....
Like I say, I cannot justify faiths I don't follow. Those actions are absurd and unjustifiable, to me. :(

Only because large numbers of people don't appear to have a mind worthy of the name.
The religion itself came first, not the large group of followers. There wasn't a huge gathering of people who soimply decided to all believe the same thing, and make the decision collectively. The reason there is a large group of people is because the majority of them - like me - decided of their own free and individual will that religion has something to it.Religion is based on such a morass of logical inconsistencies that anyone with even the slightest inkling of how to follow a logical argument would laugh it out of court within five minutes.
Says you. I however, and some of the greatest scientific minds of present and past history, disagree. What did they know about logic though, eh? ;)

A belief in the supernatural and mythical beings fits the bill. A belief in the scientific method and rational thought doesn't.
Who exactly have I been shouting down? I gave up talking to grahame about evolution because all he did was quote obscure bits of the bible at me as if it somehow proved something.

Only if the existance of said supernatural beings can be disproved. As this is not the case (the whole can't prove a negative thang) then belief in the supernatural does not constitute delusion.

I know full well that you cannot prove a negative, you can't prove that Santa doesn't exist and fairies aren't hiding in your garden right now. It doesn't mean that a rational person should believe in them though.

Hoever it does mean that if the person is truly rational and scientific in their approach they shouldn't state non existance as a fact. Stating that you do not believe the hypothesis that can neither be proved or disproved is not rational but is taking a faith based position.

Rationalle and intelligent thought are nothing to do with religion, religion is based on faith, faith is a believe without evidence, and belief without evidence is a delusion.

There are many rational and intelligent religious people - many of whom have furthered the frontiers of science greatly. As to the belief without evidence being delusion, that is patently rediculous. Is belief in the superiority of one artist to another delutions? Preferance for a particular food, football team, author, person etc. etc. None of these things have any evidence, apart from their personal impact, behind them yet are more important to most people in day to day than arguably any scientific thinking.

It seems to me that to some, to have a god is a need and if there were none existing already, they'd invent one anyway... Such is the way of the species.

The same is true of athiesm - there is no logical or scientific argument for the adoption of athiesm. The best that can be proved via science and logic is agnosticism - i.e. unproved and unprovable. The adoption of any faith position (theistic or atheistic) is based on personal conviction and belief rather than logical argument.

I disagree. Logic leads you to disbelieve anything that has no evidence offered to support it.
Otherwise you have to give equal credence to the idea that I made the universe, the idea that Santa lives in the artic with a bunch of elves and the idea that pixies are hiding in your garden.

No supporting evidence after you've made a reasonable search, find a better hypothesis. Indeed find a hypothesis that is actually a hypothesis and not just mystical babble. Part of being a good hypothesis is making testable predictions to allow for proof/disproof.

cyclone: I don't know whether you have followed the very long thread about religion and the basis of Christianity. I recall that the idea of Christianity is based on logic too. The idea of artefacts which matches the ideas written in books. Separate books which were in different areas of the world, and they conclude to the same idea. Just as the idea of science. Facts, experiments, and theories. With Christianity (well, can't say for other religions/faith as such), it is backed up with artefacts. What may not happen in this day and age is to recreate Christianity. It is an idea based on old historical artefacts, people, and beliefs. So.... why is it not believable ? Maybe the central idea that God created the way by x, y, and z method seems a little far-fetched. However, some see a flower, and think that it is created by God. Some Christians see science, and they think that God has allowed them to decode how he made it.

The religion itself came first, not the large group of followers. There wasn't a huge gathering of people who soimply decided to all believe the same thing, and make the decision collectively. The reason there is a large group of people is because the majority of them - like me - decided of their own free and individual will that religion has something to it.

More likely a large number of current religously inclined people were brainwashed into it as a child and have never seen through it.
And historically, if you didn't believe or at least profess to believe then you would probably have been killed. Not to mention that (again historically) most people were completely uneducated and not equipped mentally to think through the whole issue and come to any rational conclusion. The whole concept was so far outside what they could conceive that they would believe whatever they were told if it was done in the right way.

You can't pick christianity out specifically to defend by the way, when we are clearly not just talking about christianity. That's you moving the goal posts, not plekhanov.

Bago - if someone wants to empathise then they're welcome to it, just not with me.
I won't argue with something that isn't presented as a fact or an answer to a question. Although I might ask why they believe that. They are entitled of course to say that they don't want to talk about it and i'll always be happy to leave it at that. I don't go around searching for people posting "I believe in god" and then arguing with them.
I've joined in threads about evolution and threads about whether god exists and argued the point in those threads, which surely must have been what people expected.

I disagree. Logic leads you to disbelieve anything that has no evidence offered to support it.
Otherwise you have to give equal credence to the idea that I made the universe, the idea that Santa lives in the artic with a bunch of elves and the idea that pixies are hiding in your garden.

No supporting evidence after you've made a reasonable search, find a better hypothesis. Indeed find a hypothesis that is actually a hypothesis and not just mystical babble. Part of being a good hypothesis is making testable predictions to allow for proof/disproof.

Only in the case of physical events and entities. For example I could say that dark chocolate is a preferable food to mushrooms. I can offer no evidence for it, yet I like chocolate and dislike mushrooms. Does this mean that my preference in foodstuffs is wrong?

Only if the existance of said supernatural beings can be disproved. As this is not the case (the whole can't prove a negative thang) then belief in the supernatural does not constitute delusion.

In which case there is simply no such thing as a delusion. As whatever someone believes there is no possibility of ever proving it to be false.



Hoever it does mean that if the person is truly rational and scientific in their approach they shouldn't state non existance as a fact. Stating that you do not believe the hypothesis that can neither be proved or disproved is not rational but is taking a faith based position.

No it isn't. You can only hold one of multiple exclusive views. If logic supports one of those views, despite the impossibility of disproving the others, you stop believing them. To do otherwise is to ignore what logic there is in support of an alternative and to sit on the fence for ever.


There are many rational and intelligent religious people - many of whom have furthered the frontiers of science greatly.

So?

As to the belief without evidence being delusion, that is patently rediculous. Is belief in the superiority of one artist to another delutions? Preferance for a particular food, football team, author, person etc. etc. None of these things have any evidence, apart from their personal impact, behind them yet are more important to most people in day to day than arguably any scientific thinking.

Belief in the superioty of an artist is based on an internal value judgement that you make. It's subjective not objective and even so is based on something. It's not without evidence.
Preference for food is based on the evidence of your senses. Preference for a football team must be based on something (wouldn't know, hate the game).

Ultimately even if you can find an example where people aren't rational in what they decide. Does that somehow make irrationality correct? I don't think so, it just proves that humans aren't always rational.

Believe without evidence is delusion. If you believe that Leeds are going to come top of the championship (despite hating football) this is a delusion. There's no evidence to support it and plenty to discount it. Probably doesn't mean that 25% of the leeds fans wouldn't tell you that they will.

Cyclone, you are simply god manisesting the aspect of himself, that doens't believe he exists.

Only in the case of physical events and entities. For example I could say that dark chocolate is a preferable food to mushrooms. I can offer no evidence for it, yet I like chocolate and dislike mushrooms. Does this mean that my preference in foodstuffs is wrong?

You keep trying to suggest that anything internal to your head is without evidence.
Despite the fact that we don't fully understand the brain, that doesn't mean that subjective decisions are made without evidence.
You have taste buds, they transmit signals to your brain. I'm sure that someone somewhere is studying how/why we decide to like one thing and dislike another.

Like I said to someone else recently, how about you try emotions, there even less tangible and harder to explain, so maybe you can claim that loving someone is without evidence.

Cyclone, you are simply god manisesting the aspect of himself, that doens't believe he exists.

As god I'm a very complicated fellow. It's lucky that I can use my godlike powers to spend all day posting on the forum and still hold down a full time job :hihi:

Cyclone, can you understand the futility of discussing the concept of colour, with a blind man?

As god I'm a very complicated fellow.

You got that right bro!

Bago - if someone wants to empathise then they're welcome to it, just not with me.
I won't argue with something that isn't presented as a fact or an answer to a question. Although I might ask why they believe that. They are entitled of course to say that they don't want to talk about it and i'll always be happy to leave it at that. I don't go around searching for people posting "I believe in god" and then arguing with them.
I've joined in threads about evolution and threads about whether god exists and argued the point in those threads, which surely must have been what people expected.
I understand that you're that kind of person, and I myself is probably that kind of person too. However, we can't accept that everyone will see it as that. Sometimes I can spot it coming, and sometimes I can't.

All I know is that, not everyone post on the SF publically is always up for a debate. I know some people who wore their hearts on their sleeves and gets put down at times. I must admit that, I too try and avoid it if I can, but communicating is the only way forward, me thinks ! I'm not mystic meg.

I'm also the kind of person to say, 'hey, let's call it quits'...and move on. Unfortunately, people like my sister will just avoids me. I don't doubt that there are others on the SF who are similar personalities-wise and just avoids conflicts by ignoring a thread.

Cyclone, can you understand the futility of discussing the concept of colour, with a blind man?

yes I can.
Can you imagine the futility of trying to counter faith with logic.
Yet still, it amuses me to try time after time.

Did you imagine possibly that our posts crossed over? You do understand that the forum is asyncronous?
You quoted my post in your reply.

Like I said to someone else recently, how about you try emotions, there even less tangible and harder to explain, so maybe you can claim that loving someone is without evidence.
Actually, loving someone means making them happy and being you at the same time. I'm sure that there is a 'way', method, to make yourself fall in love. It's just that it's very hard to fine tune it. That is all. Cos everyone go about it headbutting things and learning and changing things all the time. Each experience leaves us to become a different kind of person.

Obviously, your body plays a role too. Your hormones are rife when young, and less so when older. So what you feel as a teenager may not be felt again when you're older. There is SO many permutation that it makes love a rarity in this life time ! :D :thumbsup:

yes I can.
Can you imagine the futility of trying to counter faith with logic.
Yet still, it amuses me to try time after time.

Indeed I can my good fellow, and it is most clear from your posts, how strongly you favour reason and logic.

Though I don't quite see the logic in wanting to counter faith with logic?

There are I think, strengths and weaknesses, good and bad, with all points of view; logic being no exception. It's wonderful that you're the way you are, and that everyone else is the way god made them too. Diversity is a truely wonderful thing.

Please note: my stance on the 'god issue' is officially 'uncatagorised'.

In which case there is simply no such thing as a delusion. As whatever someone believes there is no possibility of ever proving it to be false.

Thats not exactly the case is it. There are certain things which are provable and denying them could be seen as delusional. However in the case of an unproven and unprovable then there can't be a delusion as there is no objective fact to be deluded about.

No it isn't. You can only hold one of multiple exclusive views. If logic supports one of those views, despite the impossibility of disproving the others, you stop believing them. To do otherwise is to ignore what logic there is in support of an alternative and to sit on the fence for ever.

However what we are talking about here is a state where there are two cases (god exists and god doesnt exist) neither of which are logically provable. If you support one of these views you are not doing it by logic but by persdonal belief.

So?

So - religious thought is not entirely divorced from rationality and intelligent thought as yo0u seemed to claim.

Belief in the superioty of an artist is based on an internal value judgement that you make. It's subjective not objective and even so is based on something. It's not without evidence.
Preference for food is based on the evidence of your senses. Preference for a football team must be based on something (wouldn't know, hate the game).

And belief systems are also subjective. There is no absolute external reference for them leading to the conclusion that they must be subjective and based on the 'evidence' of ones feelings.

Ultimately even if you can find an example where people aren't rational in what they decide. Does that somehow make irrationality correct? I don't think so, it just proves that humans aren't always rational.

Perhaps you would prefer subjective to irrational then. The point I was making was that irrationality (subjectivity if you prefer) makes up a much larger part of our lives that science or rationality.

Believe without evidence is delusion. If you believe that Leeds are going to come top of the championship (despite hating football) this is a delusion. There's no evidence to support it and plenty to discount it. Probably doesn't mean that 25% of the leeds fans wouldn't tell you that they will.

Belief in something that is an impossibility may be construed as delusional. Belief without evidence is just that - belief without evidence. Delusion is defined as a false belief. In the case given your leeds fan would have a belief that is unlikely not delusional. If however the fail to win the championship and your leeds fan believes that they have then it becomes delusional.

Indeed I can my good fellow, and it is most clear from your posts, how strongly you favour reason and logic.

Though I don't quite see the logic in wanting to counter faith with logic?

It's a shame that Cyclone also ignored the fact I came to faith through reason and logic.

...religious thought is not entirely divorced from rationality and intelligent thought... :)

Maybe the ultimate answer to these dilemmas.....God/No God? Creationism/Evolution? etc is to simply have a "Religion" Group on SF and let the proponents of each religious belief debate in mutual harmony. :) Church, Chapel, Mosque Services etc could be organised on-line, unofficial Forum Meets could be arranged (trips to Stonehenge) etc for like-minded people and so on :)

Anyone believing in a specific Faith (or sub-division of it.....there are many, many of those in each religion) would be able to post on the Group of his/her own belief and would not be allowed to post contra-views on any other Faith's/Sects Section! :)

You see, all can be accomodated without unpleasantness from the "unbelievers". Total harmony will reign.

To quote Max Bygraves from many moons ago "Good idea son!" :) :cool:

You keep trying to suggest that anything internal to your head is without evidence.
Despite the fact that we don't fully understand the brain, that doesn't mean that subjective decisions are made without evidence.
You have taste buds, they transmit signals to your brain. I'm sure that someone somewhere is studying how/why we decide to like one thing and dislike another.

Like I said to someone else recently, how about you try emotions, there even less tangible and harder to explain, so maybe you can claim that loving someone is without evidence.

Actually I was hoping you would come back with this line of reasoning! Now if you take an adherant going through their choice of devotions then they have profound (and very measurable) changes in their brain activity. Now given our case here of an externally unprovable situation of the existance / non existance of god doesn't this evidence of changes of brain activity mean it is more logical for them to be an adherant than not?

I didn't ignore that fact SupraSteve. I haven't seen the post i'm afraid.
Despite my godlike powers I do have to do a bit of work, please give me a link to it and i'll happily read it.

Actually I was hoping you would come back with this line of reasoning! Now if you take an adherant going through their choice of devotions then they have profound (and very measurable) changes in their brain activity. Now given our case here of an externally unprovable situation of the existance / non existance of god doesn't this evidence of changes of brain activity mean it is more logical for them to be an adherant than not?

Not really, it just proves that having a strong belief in something causes brain activity.
I'm sure that the same activity can be seen in people of all religions (and they can't all be correct right).

Going back to your earlier post, it's not a) god exists, b) god doesn't exist.
Normally these discussions start with a) god made the world, where there are quite a few alternatives, rather than just b) no he didn't.

Shoeshine, good idea !

Afterall, there is a time and place for everything.

Actually, I understand Cyclone's strong logical inclination, if you work as a coder, and you encounter foundation of logics, then you would also understand where he is coming from. However, if I debate and discuss such concepts with the likes of my parents who don't know of such topics, they will see me as antagonising them and demeaning them in many ways. Socially, it may not be acceptable as such.

To me, it's very simple:
1) You either socially discuss things on a very superficial level which allows you to understand each other as beings.
OR
2) You debate and discuss indepth any topic/subjects by way of facts, theories, postulated or derived ideas. It's very enjoyable cos it's a very creative ideas and environment. That's why people enjoy 'debating' as such.

I'm personally from a science background, and had been taught to think and discuss things like example 2). So I understand it.

It's a shame that Cyclone also ignored the fact I came to faith through reason and logic.

:)

Excellent! though he wouldn't be Cyclone had he not ignored that fact.

This thread begs the questions:

What exactly is faith?
What exactly is logic?

Who can answer this?

I mean a real answer, not just something googled, but one found though self-introspection and self-analysis.

Are we not better off if we let go of both faith AND logic?

Faith is something of a falacy, by it's very nature, it implies faith in some 'thing'. Such is the working of the human mind, it needs a tangliable something that can be grasped. We intuitively know this to be the case. This is not to say that a dependency on logic fares any better.

Here's another question, and I'm honestly not leading anywhere with it (this isn't the BNP thread so it's not as easy to do that ;)) but do we think logic is limited? I mean in the possibilities it opens or the train of thouhg it allows someone to follow? e.g. Would science have 'worked out' as much as it has using logic alone as a basis? Innocent, genuine question.
I guess it depends if you just decide that logically something cannot be explained therefore 'voodoo'/[insert your own personal alternative here] did it, which would obviously be rubbish.

Not really, it just proves that having a strong belief in something causes brain activity.
I'm sure that the same activity can be seen in people of all religions (and they can't all be correct right).

That assumes an objective rather than a subjective position. We're talking about belief here and belief is about the most subjective thing you can have - so if your going to accept changes in brain activity as evidence for preferences then you have to equally accept it for evidence of belief.

Going back to your earlier post, it's not a) god exists, b) god doesn't exist.
Normally these discussions start with a) god made the world, where there are quite a few alternatives, rather than just b) no he didn't.

Where was that defined? I though we were talking about belief non belief in god - I don't remember anyone mentioning a starting point of 'god made the world' before now?

but do we think logic is limited?

Hell yeah, well I do, I believe logic is extrememly limited in scope. Though it's certainly not bad or evil or anything. It's just limited. Still, it very much has it's place and it's purpose.

Likewise, I'd like to pose the question, what is faith, and what are it's limitations?

You asked BJ in your opening thread, "Atheists - why are they always giving it 'all that'?"

My own thoughts are that they feel insecure.

You asked BJ in your opening thread, "Atheists - why are they always giving it 'all that'?"

My own thoughts are that they feel insecure.

What do you think atheists feel insecure about?

What I personally do detest are the, (sorry to quote you here Zamo), "I object" stance on issues which, as I see fit, has no business of the average joe blogg. I personally find this very off, to say the least. Maybe to me, I see it as extremely rude and antagonising. It's different if a person wishes to discuss and debate about his own personal issues, and to explore the topic of religion with the general public. However, it is rude to insinuate, and to criticise a person's personal beliefs. It's a small difference between the two examples, and it's an important one !
So it is OK for you to "detest" my beliefs but not for me to "object" to other peoples beliefs?!? :suspect:

If a person is religious, and he works his way round the set rules. Then what is the problem ? The point about diets, you don't want to kill someone with a certain food type if they have allergies, so why not give food to those that needs it ? Set meals can be set meals. Either they choose what they can eat, or they will starve. I think those who are religious will have their own mats. It's a personal thing. :rolleyes:
If you were an employer you'd know! Like I said, if it doesn't effect anyone else then it's OK. If a manager has to start arranging cover because of someones religious beliefs then that persons beliefs has ceased to be a personal matter hasn't it?


I don't object. I disagree with you. Clothing to me, I see it as an expression of oneself. How can what I wear hurt another person ? On what grounds or level ? It is not physical. It is not emotional. It is not even mental.

I find that people who make demands that others should 'do as I say' too intrusive. :gag:
When women cover up because of their religion then it is not about personal expression is it? We are talking about the veil here, and to me that is a sign of someone following an extreme version of Islam. I find the beliefs of extreme Islam offensive. Despite that I haven't said it should be banned I just expect tp be able to say I object to it and what it stands for.

What is truly objectionable is that as we speak there are people who are killing, raping and torturing others because they have a different religious belief. Do atheists or agnostics going around killing off people for having different beliefs? No.

I fully respect peoples entitlement to hold personal beliefs provided they keep them personal. Anything else I object to. If that offends some people then it is too bad.

You asked BJ in your opening thread, "Atheists - why are they always giving it 'all that'?"

My own thoughts are that they feel insecure.
Explain?

Isn't it those who require the emotional crutch of a made up god to mollify the fear of the unknown that are truly insecure?

What do you think atheists feel insecure about?
It is only the feeling I get, but I have been dealing with the public all my life and for example if someone were to bypass their electric meter they will give the man from the YEB a load of verbal, if someone is renting their TV and they want a new one they will ring up the company and give them a load of grief until they get a new TV. It always seems to me as though people who are constantly having a 'go' at something either have something to hide, (they have bypassed the meter) something they fear (they may get found out and prosecuted) or they want something to which they may not be entitled (they may be paying for an old TV but they want a new one for the same price so they make out it is always going wrong).

In other words they are not altogether confident in their position so shouting for their own team helps them to feel more secure and the more supporters they can gather round them, all shouting for the same thing makes them feel more secure as a group. But you only need to do this, in my opinion, if you feel insecure or unsure with what you have. Otherwise you would just go on your way and perhaps even make the man from the YEB a cup of tea and talk about football. Basically I think that people who are giving it all 'this' either feel insecure or they have something to hide.

Most atheists I have seen or met don't go shouting or promoting anything. I would say its the other way round?

So it is OK for you to "detest" my beliefs but not for me to "object" to other peoples beliefs?!? :suspect:
No, you are entitled to your belief, and I am also entitled to my belief. Do you belief in human rights ? It is just that, the example that you gave are not what I would consider as being 'tolerant' of others. That is all. We may be in agreement in principles, but the examples that you gave, to me, I constitute it as infringing on someone's rights. I take it you believe in personal rights as a human, right ?

If you were an employer you'd know! Like I said, if it doesn't effect anyone else then it's OK. If a manager has to start arranging cover because of someones religious beliefs then that persons beliefs has ceased to be a personal matter hasn't it?
Does it mean that you are an employer ? I've worked in family businesses, and yes, I hear employers talk about employees, if that helps anything to understand where I am coming from. A happy working environment is not just about being fair to all.

It is not fair to ask a diabetic employee to eat food in the canteen which are loaded with sugar. However, it is fair to state that, employees' attires must match that of the company's image and branding. (I've seen this written in manuals before.)

Anyway, do you have specific examples in mind ? Well, it boils down to the employer's ethics, right ? Do they want to keep a work Vs life balance. There is no stopping the employee to take annuals off if its an important event in their life. It's living with the rules and working around it, isn't it ? If they took it for religious reasons, will you object as an employer ?

When women cover up because of their religion then it is not about personal expression is it? We are talking about the veil here, and to me that is a sign of someone following an extreme version of Islam. I find the beliefs of extreme Islam offensive. Despite that I haven't said it should be banned I just expect tp be able to say I object to it and what it stands for.
Well, to me, I see you objecting to women wearing certain clothes. Now, does that sound okay to you ? Does it ? I only associate it as 'clothing'.

Clothing = personal choice
Religion = personal choice
Personal choice = nothing to do with you.

Sorry, but I really don't agree with you. I don't. When has a veil become a sign of 'extreme Islamic beliefs' ? I don't know why, but to me, it is a ludicrous idea. Maybe in your mind, you think this is what they are saying by doing what they are doing. However, what if you were wrong to think this ? What if a woman wore it to reaffirm her beliefs, and wish to have peace in the world by doing something more altruistic ?

It is something that some people want to do, cos it reaffirms their faith. Well, if you were religous, you would know. Buddhists don't eat meat on certain days to affirm their faith, and they do it because they want to be altruistic. If you think that people are making a political stance when wearing a veil than a religious one, then I'm sorry to say that, I really don't agree with you at all.

What is truly objectionable is that as we speak there are people who are killing, raping and torturing others because they have a different religious belief. Do atheists or agnostics going around killing off people for having different beliefs? No.
Yes they do. Maybe you don't want to see it. Many people in China because of poverty, (and we know how heavy the government clamps down on cults and big religious groups which are not mainstream), they will kill a person for you. The chances of the person being atheist, and would kill a man is kinda high.

I fully respect peoples entitlement to hold personal beliefs provided they keep them personal. Anything else I object to. If that offends some people then it is too bad.
You hold too simplistic a view. That's just my opinions.

What is truly objectionable is that as we speak there are people who are killing, raping and torturing others because they have a different religious belief. Do atheists or agnostics going around killing off people for having different beliefs? No.
Is everyone involved in the Iraq war (not ust those with guns, the decision makers, too) religious then?

No-one who follows (<--- this word has key meaning to mypoint) Christianity thinks killing someone else is ever justified. Yes people may have misinterpretted or twisted (Lord knows how as it's a flipping commandment for starters) the true meaning of the Bible and of Christian belief, but that was humans doing, and when they have done so it has been in complete opposition to the religion they claim to follow.

I believe in multiple truths - e.g. we all go see a film: I think it's worthless rubbish, Grahame loves it, Hecate thinks it was good in places but would have benefited from a big-name star in a cameo role. All views are TRUE in some way, and each person experiences a different version of the truth. Beliefs and ideology are like this - that's why humankind will never agree on everything.

Why is religion used as an excuse for a man's own action ? Has he no responsibility to his own actions ? The question is more directed at Zamo, but I'm opened to opinions too.

My real reason for being on here is that although people have had a good secular education and many have gone onto higher education and have done very well for themselves, I feel there hasn't been the same amount of effort put into their religious education.
To be fair though, I'd have run a mile if someone tried to tell me what to believe.
If you're talking about knowing about a religion, so that one isn't ignorant or worse still - fearful of the matter - then that's fair enough, if you're talking about being taught to believe in a religion, I personally think that's totally wrong. Even though I may be convinced of my own faith, I'd only want my kids to know about it, not to force my beliefs on them and tell them what to decide & believe. As such I'd be extremely weary about sending them to a C of E school for example.

Which did you mean - instruct or educate? :)

Why is religion used as an excuse for a man's own action ? Has he no responsibility to his own actions ? The question is more directed at Zamo, but I'm opened to opinions too.
It's easy to think you're doing the right thing (e.g. the Christian wars from centuries ago) - or know you're not but claim that you are (e.g. arguably 9/11, Taliban, etc) - if people don't fully know a religion?

To be fair though, I'd have run a mile if someone tried to tell me what to believe.
If you're talking about knowing about a religion, so that one isn't ignorant or worse still - fearful of the matter - then that's fair enough, if you're talking about being taught to believe in a religion, I personally think that's totally wrong. Even though I may be convinced of my own faith, I'd only want my kids to know about it, not to force my beliefs on them and tell them what to decide & believe. As such I'd be extremely weary about sending them to a C of E school for example.

Which did you mean - instruct or educate? :)
I'm the same as you, in as much if someone tells me to do something, I usually do the opposite. I have always been like that, it is something in my nature, and this is why shoeshine is wrong when he says I have been indoctrinated, because if religion had been shoved down my throat then I would more than likely be the biggest atheist it is possible to be.

If you want to know anything, or if you think I may be able to help, then please feel free to ask.

I have just said to shoeshine that I don't feel insecure, just the opposite. And if you think about all the abuse I take, I need to be confident in my position, otherwise I would run away and hide.

My real reason for being on here is that although people have had a good secular education and many have gone onto higher education and have done very well for themselves, I feel there hasn't been the same amount of effort put into their religious education.
I was a little bit confused when you used the word 'insecure' to describe atheists. I was. However, now that you've given me an example of what you mean. I understand you more. I don't agree that is why atheists are doing it. For example, because you used the word 'insecure' to describe those non-believers, you've already wound up a lot of people, and it isn't because people don't believe in Christian, and want to fight with you about that. It's more a case of you labelling atheists as insecure people. lol

Actually, I can see why you're kind of defensive here on the SF. Cos I do see that not many will be so forthright in their religious beliefs. Maybe you are the only one here. Well, with regards to Christianity anyhow. So kudos to you. Maybe the people who wants to know, will read the threads.

I actually find that I'm in agreement when you said that, there is an emphasis on a secular education but not on religious education. Well, I think that R.E. was part of my studies too. However, maybe not many will talk of religious as passionate as they do politics in this country. If we do, then maybe we will understand where we're coming from. Whether we're believers or not. Or of different religion or faith.

I was a little bit confused when you used the word 'insecure' to describe atheists. I was. However, now that you've given me an example of what you mean. I understand you more. I don't agree that is why atheists are doing it. For example, because you used the word 'insecure' to describe those non-believers, you've already wound up a lot of people, and it isn't because people don't believe in Christian, and want to fight with you about that. It's more a case of you labelling atheists as insecure people. lol

Actually, I can see why you're kind of defensive here on the SF. Cos I do see that not many will be so forthright in their religious beliefs. Maybe you are the only one here. Well, with regards to Christianity anyhow. So kudos to you. Maybe the people who wants to know, will read the threads.

I actually find that I'm in agreement when you said that, there is an emphasis on a secular education but not on religious education. Well, I think that R.E. was part of my studies too. However, maybe not many will talk of religious as passionate as they do politics in this country. If we do, then maybe we will understand where we're coming from. Whether we're believers or not. Or of different religion or faith.
Thank you Bago. :)

Why is religion used as an excuse for a man's own action ? Has he no responsibility to his own actions ? The question is more directed at Zamo, but I'm opened to opinions too.
Fundamentally good people can be tricked and cohersed into doing things that are wrong.

Does it absolve the individual of any personal responsibility? No.

Does it absolve those tricking and cohersing of any responsibility? No.

Fundamentally good people can be tricked and cohersed into doing things that are wrong.

Does it absolve the individual of any personal responsibility? No.

Does it absolve those tricking and cohersing of any responsibility? No.
What do you do if the politicians use religion as a reason to go to war and you are one of the conscripts?

I'm the same as you, in as much if someone tells me to do something, I usually do the opposite. I have always been like that, it is something in my nature, and this is why shoeshine is wrong when he says I have been indoctrinated, because if religion had been shoved down my throat then I would more than likely be the biggest atheist it is possible to be.

Thanks for clearing that up Grahame :thumbsup:

Actually, I can see why you're kind of defensive here on the SF. Cos I do see that not many will be so forthright in their religious beliefs. Maybe you are the only one here. Well, with regards to Christianity anyhow. So kudos to you. Maybe the people who wants to know, will read the threads.


Very well said indeed, Bago.

Grahame - I just wanted you to know I'm very impressed with how you've stood up for your beliefs on this thread and others, and I support you wholeheartedly. It must be hard-going at times when you're up against so many closed minds who seem to have huge chips on their shoulders. Methinks the atheists doth protest too much.

I think you're doing a marvellous job. Good on you.

StarSparkle :)

This thread has taken some considerable pruning. If it decends into a pit again it will not be restored and bans will be issued.

In other words they are not altogether confident in their position so shouting for their own team helps them to feel more secure and the more supporters they can gather round them, all shouting for the same thing makes them feel more secure as a group. But you only need to do this, in my opinion, if you feel insecure or unsure with what you have. Otherwise you would just go on your way and perhaps even make the man from the YEB a cup of tea and talk about football. Basically I think that people who are giving it all 'this' either feel insecure or they have something to hide.

Most atheists I have seen or met don't go shouting or promoting anything. I would say its the other way round?

HOLD IT

I have something very important to ask.

Why can't people just accept that other people have different views to them? and be ok with that? Is that so hard for people to do?

Very well said indeed, Bago.

Grahame - I just wanted you to know I'm very impressed with how you've stood up for your beliefs on this thread and others, and I support you wholeheartedly. It must be hard-going at times when you're up against so many closed minds who seem to have huge chips on their shoulders. Methinks the atheists doth protest too much.

I think you're doing a marvellous job. Good on you.

StarSparkle :)
Thank you StarSparkle. I also think "the atheists doth protest too much." :thumbsup:

HOLD IT

I have something very important to ask.

Why can't people just accept that other people have different views to them? and be ok with that? Is that so hard for people to do?

It's simple narrow mindedness. Some people think that their belief system is the one true way and don't have the flexibility to accept that they may actually be wrong!

That assumes an objective rather than a subjective position. We're talking about belief here and belief is about the most subjective thing you can have - so if your going to accept changes in brain activity as evidence for preferences then you have to equally accept it for evidence of belief.

I don't need brain scan evidence for it. I know that people believe.
Believing something doesn't make it correct though.




Where was that defined? I though we were talking about belief non belief in god - I don't remember anyone mentioning a starting point of 'god made the world' before now?
I thought we were in a thread that asked why aetheists 'give it all that', i'm not sure how we ended up on teh god/no god argument again.

Actually, sometimes debates are also a form of social interaction, as much as it is a learning process on topics, and subjects.

I believe in multiple truths - e.g. we all go see a film: I think it's worthless rubbish, Grahame loves it, Hecate thinks it was good in places but would have benefited from a big-name star in a cameo role. All views are TRUE in some way, and each person experiences a different version of the truth. Beliefs and ideology are like this - that's why humankind will never agree on everything.

on a subjective issue that's right.

On an objective issue, it can't be there is just one 'truth' and everything else is wrong.

Most atheists I have seen or met don't go shouting or promoting anything. I would say its the other way round?
You won't believe me when I say this, but in normal everyday life I don't think you would know I'm a Christian, it isn't something you normally talk about, but when I read the posts on here I feel I need to defend my faith.

HOLD IT

I have something very important to ask.

Why can't people just accept that other people have different views to them? and be ok with that? Is that so hard for people to do?
Hold it? Hold what ? This can of coke ?

Ok, I hope you're not gonna ask me to marry you.

I think that you will find that people DO accept differences and views. However, if we all accept each other, where and how will people interact ? What will we talk about ?

HOLD IT

I have something very important to ask.

Why can't people just accept that other people have different views to them? and be ok with that? Is that so hard for people to do?

If everyone did that this forum wouldn't be half as entertaining as what it can be sometimes.

It's simple narrow mindedness. Some people think that their belief system is the one true way and don't have the flexibility to accept that they may actually be wrong!
Nah, it's because i'd feel bad if I let someone else be mislead when I could have helped them out.

You asked BJ in your opening thread, "Atheists - why are they always giving it 'all that'?" My own thoughts are that they feel insecure.

As my original response to this appears to have been deleted ... I don't know why ... I'll say it again - that'll be you then? Feeling insecure? It's bound to make you feel insecure as there isn't a shred to evidence to back up this idea of "God".

You are constantly going on about religion on here, you never seem to post about anything else and appear to think that religious people deserve "special pleading" and consideration.

In my book that makes you the one that feels insecure, as you're basing your entire life on unsubstantiated faith?

It's simple narrow mindedness. Some people think that their belief system is the one true way and don't have the flexibility to accept that they may actually be wrong!
I know you won't believe me, but I am quite happy to "live and let live."

What I find really upsetting is the way people say the most awful things about Christianity. Then I feel I have to stand up and defend my faith. If people did not attack Christianity you wouldn't hear from me.

Nah, it's because i'd feel bad if I let someone else be mislead when I could have helped them out.

Surely you mean I would feel bad if someone doesn't conform to my belief system because I believe that to be correct?

As my original response to this appears to have been deleted ... I don't know why ... I'll say it again - that'll be you then? Feeling insecure? It's bound to make you feel insecure as there isn't a shred to evidence to back up this idea of "God".

You are constantly going on about religion on here, you never seem to post about anything else and appear to think that religious people deserve "special pleading" and consideration.

In my book that makes you the one that feels insecure, as you're basing your entire life on unsubstantiated faith?
No Ruby. Look on me in the same light as Cassius Clay defending his title.

You won't believe me when I say this, but in normal everyday life I don't think you would know I'm a Christian, it isn't something you normally talk about, but when I read the posts on here I feel I need to defend my faith.

Why do christians have definitive features or special clothing or something??
Not just yourself, some religious people in general?
Just not seen or heard atheists in Town spreading the word or knocking on peoples doors asking this that and the other??
Most atheists I have met don't go shouting or promoting anything?

I don't need brain scan evidence for it. I know that people believe.
Believing something doesn't make it correct though.

However by your earlier argument this brain activity is evidence for subjective statements and that is what we have here as there is no objective truth only a choice between (subjective) belief systems.

I thought we were in a thread that asked why aetheists 'give it all that', i'm not sure how we ended up on teh god/no god argument again.

I would say pretty much from here (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1689372&postcount=35) on in!

You think the existence of god is subjective? An odd position to take.

Surely you mean I would feel bad if someone doesn't conform to my belief system because I believe that to be correct?

is an absence of a belief system a belief system? Stretching it a little bit.
But no, i mean that i'd feel bad if someone were sucked into a religion, much like most people would probably feel bad if a friend were sucked into a cult or scientology for example.

Now, for extra marks maybe someone can define the difference between a religion and a cult.

Why do christians have definitive features or special clothing or something??
Not just yourself, some religious people in general?
Just not seen or heard atheists in Town spreading the word or knocking on peoples doors asking this that and the other??
Most atheists I have met don't go shouting or promoting anything?
Sorry King Rat. I made a typo. I meant to say, "You won't believe me when I say this, but in normal everyday life you wouldn't know I'm a Christian, it isn't something you normally talk about, but when I read the posts on here I feel I need to defend my faith." :thumbsup:

Do atheists have a faith to promote?

You think the existence of god is subjective? An odd position to take.

Belief in the existance (or non existance) of god is subjective. There is no empirical evidence as to an absolute existance or non existance so if you are claiming either existance or non existance you are arguing form a position of belief and so subjective.

What I find really upsetting is the way people say the most awful things about Christianity. Then I feel I have to stand up and defend my faith. If people did not attack Christianity you wouldn't hear from me.

I totally agree with you on this. I'm horrified by some of the things people say on here about Christianity in particular. They wouldn't dare in a million years attack Islam in that way. Christianity is seen as a soft touch.

As I said before, I admire you for your stand on this, Grahame.

StarSparkle

I know you won't believe me, but I am quite happy to "live and let live."

What I find really upsetting is the way people say the most awful things about Christianity. Then I feel I have to stand up and defend my faith. If people did not attack Christianity you wouldn't hear from me.

You seem pretty keen to jump into anything mentioning evolution feet first, no need to defend your religion then... So why did we hear from you?

is an absence of a belief system a belief system? Stretching it a little bit.

But you don't have an absence of belief system - you believe in the non existance of god which is empirically umprovable and so must be a belief.

Belief in the existance (or non existance) of god is subjective. There is no empirical evidence as to an absolute existance or non existance so if you are claiming either existance or non existance you are arguing form a position of belief and so subjective.

Lack of evidence is good enough in most any other subject to make peoples minds up. Hence the lack of support for goblins, ghoolies, fairies and father christmas. Why not for god. No evidence, no existance.

But you don't have an absence of belief system - you believe in the non existance of god which is empirically umprovable and so must be a belief.

where's the system though.

I totally agree with you on this. I'm horrified by some of the things people say on here about Christianity in particular. They wouldn't dare in a million years attack Islam in that way. Christianity is seen as a soft touch.

We don't get a lot of chance to be fair, anything negative said about Islam on here gets the chop pdq.

I'm even handed about all the abrahamic religions, I condemn them all equally.

You seem pretty keen to jump into anything mentioning evolution feet first, no need to defend your religion then... So why did we hear from you?
As I recall the debate was about evolution versus creation?

The theme being that everything is due to evolution. It was another attack on Christianity.

Lack of evidence is good enough in most any other subject to make peoples minds up. Hence the lack of support for goblins, ghoolies, fairies and father christmas. Why not for god. No evidence, no existance.

I hate to point this out to you but there are plenty of people who believe in goblins, ghoolies, fairies etc. And once again lack of evidence ISN'T evidence for an opposing point of view it is only lack of evidence.

Sorry King Rat. I made a typo. I meant to say, "You won't believe me when I say this, but in normal everyday life you wouldn't know I'm a Christian, it isn't something you normally talk about, but when I read the posts on here I feel I need to defend my faith." :thumbsup:

Do atheists have a faith to promote?

No, so why do think their insecure?

where's the system though.

You have a world view devoid of god(s) and the supernatural. Theres the system.

Do you believe in them?

Grahame - not everything is about christianity, honestly in a debate about evolutionary theory, nobody was giving religion any thought at all until you popped up 'to defend' it from us godless scientists.

Actually, that is quite untrue. Islam is getting the rap now in this country. I can't believe you said that SS.

Anyhow, leaving the pettiness behind.

I can't believe my joke about insecurity got pulled ! >.< !!
*shakes fists* :gag: :hihi:

You have a world view devoid of god(s) and the supernatural. Theres the system.

Well, i'm sure we could get deep into the semantics of believe and lack of believe and what is and isn't a system. But it's bed time for me.
We can analyse what a system is in the morning.

No, so why do think their insecure?

Oh dear. Grahame had already explained himself previous on a thread before it got pulled. His argument is quite plausible, and it is his own opinions anyhow. I think you missed it cos you were not here to read at the time, but to me it was quite plausible. Cos it was how he viewed things. I think I told him that insecurity is not really what atheists will feel.

I actually made a joke on the insecurity thing and laughed it off, cos it sounded so farfetched from what I really feel as an atheist !

No, so why do think their insecure?
Put it this way King Rat. I'm 62 years of age now and in my fairly long life so far, I have made a few major mistakes, but those mistakes have enabled me to prove God. I have a lot to thank God for and the way he brought me through the mistakes I made. Looking back I can see the hand of God in my life, and for me that is proof enough that God exists.:)

They say that if you have never had something then you don't miss it, so perhaps the atheists who have never known God don't feel insecure because they have never known what it is like to be held in the palm of his hand. But I know that if I turned my back on God, after all these years of knowing him I would feel the same grief as loosing a loved one. I would feel lonely, afraid, insecure, helpless, and without hope for the future. If the atheists are honest this is their lot, and it isn't much.

I totally agree with you on this. I'm horrified by some of the things people say on here about Christianity in particular. They wouldn't dare in a million years attack Islam in that way. Christianity is seen as a soft touch.
It would seem you’ve missed the ‘Islam mega threads’ which are chock full of people saying things about Islam many of them highly critical

As I recall the debate was about evolution versus creation?

The theme being that everything is due to evolution. It was another attack on Christianity.
To say that complex life forms like us are a result of evolution is not ‘an attack on Christianity’ anymore than it’s an attack on any of the multitude of other creation myths out there it is simply to state the conclusion of logical reasoning based on overwhelming observable evidence.

The theory obviously contradicts both the contradictory orders of creation given Genesis and no doubt a great many other creation myths as well and many theists tend to get very upset about this but it’s absurd to say that the theory of evolution is an ‘attack’ on anything. Darwin didn’t set out to attack Christianity he simply went where the evidence led him, it’s not his fault that the evidence overwhelmingly contradicts what your unsubstantiated beliefs.

You asked BJ in your opening thread, "Atheists - why are they always giving it 'all that'?"

My own thoughts are that they feel insecure.
On what grounds do you make this claim?

All the atheists I'm aware of on this board seem secure in their world view and well able to defend it rationally in debate, they certainly don’t feel the need to demand that people who challenge their beliefs should be banned which is surely the height of insecurity.

The same is true of athiesm - there is no logical or scientific argument for the adoption of athiesm. The best that can be proved via science and logic is agnosticism - i.e. unproved and unprovable. The adoption of any faith position (theistic or atheistic) is based on personal conviction and belief rather than logical argument.

Just last week you trotted out this same line. I strongly suggested then that your thinking was confused and even offered to send you the God Delusion from Amazon so that you could see where you are going wrong. To date, you have declined to take up that offer, even though you said you would be happy to do so, and continue to post these base errors. Why can you not pick up what is clearly one of the most important books on these issues in a decade or more and objectively evaluate your opinions? I even offered to gift wrap it!!! Surely, as the scientist you profess to be, there is nothing to be frightened of in challenging and extending your knowledge and understanding? I sincerely believe you wouldn’t trot out these lines if you just had the courage to do so.

Put it this way King Rat. I'm 62 years of age now and in my fairly long life so far, I have made a few major mistakes, but those mistakes have enabled me to prove God. I have a lot to thank God for and the way he brought me through the mistakes I made. Looking back I can see the hand of God in my life, and for me that is proof enough that God exists.:)

They say that if you have never had something then you don't miss it, so perhaps the atheists who have never known God don't feel insecure because they have never known what it is like to be held in the palm of his hand. But I know that if I turned my back on God, after all these years of knowing him I would feel the same grief as loosing a loved one. I would feel lonely, afraid, insecure, helpless, and without hope for the future. If the atheists are honest this is their lot, and it isn't much.

What mawkish, emotive drivel.
I am an atheist and feeling lonely, afraid, insecure, helpless and without hope for the future, does not in any way shape or form describe 'my lot'.
How presumptuous of you!
If you require the psychological crutch of religion to get you through your life, good luck to you. But what shocking arrogance to presume that your life is better than my life because of it!
Unwittingly, you've exposed in your post the deep, fundamental and divisive nature of religion that elevates the believer above the non-believer- why not go the whole hog and remind me that I am unclean, untouchable, and destined to burn for eternity? Your next step, as the Christian religion instructs you, would then be to pity me and even to pray for my soul! What sanctimonious rot! Dear oh dear.

Just last week you trotted out this same line. I strongly suggested then that your thinking was confused and even offered to send you the God Delusion from Amazon so that you could see where you are going wrong. To date, you have declined to take up that offer, even though you said you would be happy to do so, and continue to post these base errors. Why can you not pick up what is clearly one of the most important books on these issues in a decade or more and objectively evaluate your opinions? I even offered to gift wrap it!!! Surely, as the scientist you profess to be, there is nothing to be frightened of in challenging and extending your knowledge and understanding? I sincerely believe you wouldn’t trot out these lines if you just had the courage to do so.

Perhaps you should just explain why this line of thinking is incorrect rather than simply pointing me at (un?)holy writ?

By the way - in the extending knowledge and understanding about this book perhaps these reviews would be of interest to you:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html
http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7803

They say that if you have never had something then you don't miss it, so perhaps the atheists who have never known God don't feel insecure because they have never known what it is like to be held in the palm of his hand. But I know that if I turned my back on God, after all these years of knowing him I would feel the same grief as loosing a loved one. I would feel lonely, afraid, insecure, helpless, and without hope for the future. If the atheists are honest this is their lot, and it isn't much.

You do talk some pious claptrap.

They say that if you have never had something then you don't miss it, so perhaps the atheists who have never known God don't feel insecure because they have never known what it is like to be held in the palm of his hand. But I know that if I turned my back on God, after all these years of knowing him I would feel the same grief as loosing a loved one. I would feel lonely, afraid, insecure, helpless, and without hope for the future. If the atheists are honest this is their lot, and it isn't much.

You do talk some pious claptrap.

Strewth Carcrash, without the quotes on the opening paragraph I thought you were "coming out" so to speak

Strewth Carcrash, without the quotes on the opening paragraph I thought you were "coming out" so to speak
And with the second paragraph, I thought he'd gone mad and started talking to himself :hihi:

...All the atheists I'm aware of on this board seem secure in their world view and well able to defend it rationally in debate, they certainly don’t feel the need to demand that people who challenge their beliefs should be banned which is surely the height of insecurity.
Exactly. I really don't understand the references to insecurity, fear and protesting too much, simply because a particular view is staunchly defended. Those on the other side of the debate are defending their views with equal vigour. Are they protesting too much too? Are they feeling insecure and fearful in their beliefs, especially as it is a belief they defend, something which requires only belief and faith in order to accept certain phenomena.

Perhaps you should just explain why this line of thinking is incorrect rather than simply pointing me at (un?)holy writ?

By the way - in the extending knowledge and understanding about this book perhaps these reviews would be of interest to you:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html
http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7803

I have done before and can't be bothered to again.
Shocking as it may seem to you, I've also taken note of reviews - why wouldn't I? Any critique is, in my mind, useful and expands understanding. You, on the other hand can't be bothered to read the book, and consequently I really can't see that there's anything more to say. Ignorance must be bliss.

Since when has any atheist used their beleifs to brainwash people, fight in wars, kill themselves? This topic tilte and some posts are about religious people Hating Atheists, not atheists giving 'it all that' It seems to me that religious people need to Hate or fight for their beleifs otherwise the religion wouldn't be worth bothering with in the first place.

I have done before and can't be bothered to again.

A link to where you have explained it would be fine

Shocking as it may seem to you, I've also taken note of reviews - why wouldn't I? Any critique is, in my mind, useful and expands understanding. You, on the other hand can't be bothered to read the book, and consequently I really can't see that there's anything more to say. Ignorance must be bliss.

As I've said I'm quite happy to read the book - just haven't got round to it yet. However I really don't see the flaw in the logic of my argument that the existance of god is scientifically and logically unproven and unprovable so any position taken other than that of agnosticism is faith. It seems a reasonable and rational viewpoint to me - not one taken from any extremem or faith and using the tools of science and logic so wheres the problem with it?

Is God Delusion now the Bible of Atheists?
The gospel according to Stephen Hawkins.

Since when has any atheist used their beleifs to brainwash people, fight in wars, kill themselves?

Maoist China and Stalinist Russia did a pretty good job!

This topic tilte and some posts are about religious people Hating Atheists, not atheists giving 'it all that' It seems to me that religious people need to Hate or fight for their beleifs otherwise the religion wouldn't be worth bothering with in the first place.

Hardly. Religion is a contiuum and as such the extremes don't really represent it. For the vast majority of people religion is a neutral thing that is paid lip service to, for a tiny minority at one end of the continuum it is a spur to make great evil, and for a tiny minority at the other end of the continuum it is used as a spur to do great works. To claim that al religious people need to hate or fight for their religion is patently absurd!

Maoist China and Stalinist Russia did a pretty good job!

Indeed! Any how would those regimes be described? Yet for some reason religions that practice the same dogmatic methods of control and governance are meant to be "respected"!

Since when has any atheist used their beleifs to brainwash people, fight in wars, kill themselves?
Erm.... why did we go to war with Iraq?
Why did we have 2 world wars?
Sorry, I can't think of any bigger examples than that.
You can't blame everything on religion [more specifically man's incorrect interpretation of their religion (as I explained before Christianity is very clear on the subject of violence - don't do it, ever)], so please don't try to.

Maoist China and Stalinist Russia did a pretty good job!

Thet were dictators werent they?, Just like religion dictates to people how to think and believe.

Hardly. Religion is a contiuum and as such the extremes don't really represent it. For the vast majority of people religion is a neutral thing that is paid lip service to, for a tiny minority at one end of the continuum it is a spur to make great evil, and for a tiny minority at the other end of the continuum it is used as a spur to do great works. To claim that al religious people need to hate or fight for their religion is patently absurd!

Out of all of the wars and trouble in the world religion is always there as an excuse or the main purpose of why the war started in the first place.

Perhaps you should just explain why this line of thinking is incorrect rather than simply pointing me at (un?)holy writ?

By the way - in the extending knowledge and understanding about this book perhaps these reviews would be of interest to you:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html
http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7803
Both links provide excellent reads, I quite enjoyed those, thanks Neil! I'm not sure why withnail has such a problem with them, and you pointing them out to him(?), they do seem to point out huge errors in Richard Dawkins' thinking and criticism of religion.
For the record, I haven't read the book in question, but would be perfectly happy to.

Out of all of the wars and trouble in the world religion is always there as an excuse or the main purpose of why the war started in the first place.
Please explain to me how the world wars started as a result of, or because of some connection to, religion, as I must have missed the link.

Erm.... why did we go to war with Iraq?
Why did we have 2 world wars?
Sorry, I can't think of any bigger examples than that.
You can't blame everything on religion [more specifically man's incorrect interpretation of their religion (as I explained before Christianity is very clear on the subject of violence - don't do it, ever)], so please don't try to.
So you think Bush and Blair are atheists?!?!?

You are right, you can't blame everything on religion. Nobody has said religion is the root of all evil... just a fairly big chunk of it!

Both links provide excellent reads, I quite enjoyed those, thanks Neil! I'm not sure why withnail has such a problem with them, and you pointing them out to him(?),
(my bold)
Which part of Shocking as it may seem to you, I've also taken note of reviews - why wouldn't I? Any critique is, in my mind, useful and expands understanding. is causing you comprehension problems?

So you think Bush and Blair are atheists?!?!?

You are right, you can't blame everything on religion. Nobody has said religion is the root of all evil... just a fairly big chunk of it!
No of course they're not, but did they go to war because Christianity told them to? Equally, no.

Thet were dictators werent they?, Just like religion dictates to people how to think and believe.

They were dictators yes - but leaders of athiestic regiemes which went as far as killing priests etc. for the simple 'crime' of being priests.

I'm a little confused as to this religion dictating how people think and believe - from where I stand it appears to me that religion is a belief structure that you either buy into or don't. I can't say that religion has ever dictated to me despite being brought up a Roman Catholic.

Out of all of the wars and trouble in the world religion is always there as an excuse or the main purpose of why the war started in the first place.

The World Wars? Vietnam? Korea? Iraq (twice)? Rwandan and Congolese wars? Kashmir conflict?

(my bold)
Which part of is causing you comprehension problems?
Why would a well written critique, which according to withnail himself is "useful and expands understanding", cause him to spout phrases such as...

"I have done before and can't be bothered to again."
"Shocking as it may seem to you..."
and "Ignorance must be bliss."

...seemed pretty harsh TBH, all evildrneil did was say 'I'll read your book but in the meantime you may be interested in these add-ons to it'.

Maybe I just think politeness is a necessary part of a friendly debate, and others don't.

Mod Note: Keep personal snipes and insults away from this thread please. If more appear the thread will be removed once again....and not to return this time.

Mod note:

OK, I'm going to give the same warning that I gave on a similar thread. Let's just keep this thread nice and respectful.

From this point on any bickering or bad attitude will lead to an instant Forum holiday without warning. I trust that's clear.

Thanks.

They were dictators yes - but leaders of athiestic regiemes which went as far as killing priests etc. for the simple 'crime' of being priests.

I'm a little confused as to this religion dictating how people think and believe - from where I stand it appears to me that religion is a belief structure that you either buy into or don't. I can't say that religion has ever dictated to me despite being brought up a Roman Catholic.



The World Wars? Vietnam? Korea? Iraq (twice)? Rwandan and Congolese wars? Kashmir conflict?

Made a typo, nearly always there! just like politics is which is usually influenced by unrational thinking and religion which are pretty much along the same lines.

I think this qoute sums up religion..

With or Without religion you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

I think this qoute sums up religion..

Without religion you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

Or politics, or a different point of view even...

You know the ones: always banging on about how religion is the root of all evil, how everyone should read the teachings of their Messiah, Richard Dawkins... they like to give it a bit of 'that' don't they?

Personally, I consider myself to be a semi-agnostic Buddhist-Spiritualist with Anglican leanings, although I also regularly read the Koran. Should these atheists be allowed to preach their faith in science, while condemning all religion as 'mythological mumbo-jumbo'?

Just remember its cause they beleive they answer to no one!!!
LOL
:thumbsup:

Is God Delusion now the Bible of Atheists?
The gospel according to Stephen Hawkins.

That would be Richard Dawkins, not Stephen Hawking.
And no, a much better read than the bible.

If anyone here has read the God Delusion, I'd love to discuss and/or debate the issues raised in it with you, particularly if you are a theist. For those who haven't, sorry, but entry to this seminar is based on having completed the required reading.....

However I really don't see the flaw in the logic of my argument that the existance of god is scientifically and logically unproven and unprovable...
I agree, but for consistency's sake I think that should be "not disprovable" rather than "unprovable" (a logical proof is nonsensical in this context - Pascal's wager was an exercise in hedging his bets; the hypothesis of the existence of God would require empirical evidence either way - which, being a supernatural entity, It has neglected to provide). I've said before that I've reached the position of accepting that no deity was necessarily required for life to arise, but that doesn't exclude the possibility that I may be wrong. My position regarding the creation of the Universe is similar but based more on faith (that is, I have a hunch that no deity need necessarily have ever intervened in the Universe at any point, but that does not exlude the existence of one).
Spiritual faith can be (no doubt) extremely beneficial and rewarding in its place, but can be detrimental when it is taken as something more than just belief. When faith-based hypotheses are given equal footing to hard-won scientific theories, it's time to worry.

No of course they're not, but did they go to war because Christianity told them to? Equally, no.


George Bush: 'God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1586978,00.html

on a subjective issue that's right.

On an objective issue, it can't be there is just one 'truth' and everything else is wrong.
For example? My point was that for beliefs and ideology, there are multiple truths.

For example? My point was that for beliefs and ideology, there are multiple truths.
There are many different viewpoints (including atheism), but I wouldn't say any of them are truths.

There are many different viewpoints (including atheism), but I wouldn't say any of them are truths.
Surely one ( and only one) of the following propositions, is true;

-There exists at least one god.
-No god or gods exists.

For example? My point was that for beliefs and ideology, there are multiple truths.

Where knowledge ends, religion begins.

Surely one ( and only one) of the following propositions, is true;

-There exists at least one god.
-No god or gods exists.
Of course. However, a proof either way is hard to come by. In fact, as I've said before, it is impossible to come by.
I can satisfy myself that no deity need necessarily have intervened at any point in the history of the Universe, and personally I don't believe in any such deity (largely because what I've just said). I also accept that, despite the non-necessity of any such deity existing at any point in history for the state of the Universe (including everyone on The Sheffield Forum) to be as it is now, such a deity may yet exist, and I may be wrong. However, I don't mind being wrong, so that's OK. The actual truth is in a pot of gold at the end of the epistemological rainbow.

As Mr D said about e**lution

“Although much remains obscure, and will long remain obscure, I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and dispassionate judgement of which I am capable, that the view which most naturalists entertain, and which I formally entertained – namely, that each species has been independently created – is erroneous.”

Hence - If species were not independently created then what need of a creator? We are not specially created. The earth is not the centre of the universe. The Universe is older, larger and more complex than any religion has ever hinted at.

Therefore (in this goose's thinking) some people may want to think "there is a god", but when I was a kid I thought the Stork delivered babies

There are lots of things you could believe in. Some give comfort (eg after death, nice heavan), other scare you (believing in being possessed by demons)

But - all these other "non provable ideas" are just that - one in a very, very long list of things you COULD believe in... UFOs, giant space wombats, a race of super-geese ruling the USA etc etc etc

I cannot disprove em - but it dont mean they are not silly ;)

..

Where knowledge ends, religion begins.

Where knowledge ends trite platitudes begin would seem to be more apt...

Where knowledge ends trite platitudes begin would seem to be more apt...
Touche. I must admit to not finding the relevance, perhaps Green Web could clarify?

this thread seems epic sad i've come in so late.
anyroads anyone seen this about religion?

www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2006/delusional-p1.php

think clip says it all. enjoy

this thread seems epic sad i've come in so late.
anyroads anyone seen this about religion?

www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2006/delusional-p1.php

think clip says it all. enjoy
The video is a spoof and a parody and completely irrelevant.

The video is a spoof and a parody and completely irrelevant.
A spoof? A parody of what precisely? Wasn't staggeringly well argued, but it tried to put a point across.

how can you parody religion exactly? it does a very good job at being daft on its own.

how can you parody religion exactly? it does a very good job at being daft on its own.
Surely you've seen 'Life of Brian'.

pumatic, i sit corrected

STOP!

People who believe in god, are right.

People who do not believe in god, are also right.

Exactly. I really don't understand the references to insecurity, fear and protesting too much, simply because a particular view is staunchly defended. Those on the other side of the debate are defending their views with equal vigour. Are they protesting too much too? Are they feeling insecure and fearful in their beliefs, especially as it is a belief they defend, something which requires only belief and faith in order to accept certain phenomena.
Perhaps other Christians have more sense than me and leave well alone. They are secure in their faith and don't need to bother. I'm only one person and I'm trying help. The atheists are doing all the protesting. Including yourself.

STOP!

People who believe in god, are right.

People who do not believe in god, are also right.
I mentioned something along those lines earlier and everyone ignored it because they prefer to maintain their polar stances on the whole 'God / no God' debate. Philosophically speaking, I find this to be the most interesting aspect of the whole argument!

Perhaps other Christians have more sense than me and leave well alone. They are secure in their faith and don't need to bother. I'm only one person and I'm trying help. The atheists are doing all the protesting. Including yourself.

So you're not secure in your faith? With the amount of argumenting you've been doing, it would seem very, very insecure indeed. The dog doth protest too much, methinks.

As for the God/No God thing... of course it's polar. Completely opposite viewpoints. Reconciliatory as your view may be it isn't rational. Blue cannot be both black and pink at the same time.

(Unless you go into semantic arguments about what 'God' actually means, of course. For the sake of maintaining this polar view lets call it a theistic God)

As for the God/No God thing... of course it's polar. Completely opposite viewpoints. Reconciliatory as your view may be it isn't rational. Blue cannot be both black and pink at the same time.

(Unless you go into semantic arguments about what 'God' actually means, of course. For the sake of maintaining this polar view lets call it a theistic God)
No, but the music of Robbie Williams can be s*** and amazing at the same time (so I'm told). Russian Language can be gobbledigook and poetry at the same time. Both perceptions are equally valid, and neither can be called 'wrong'. It's only by accepting that there are multiple truths perceived by the millions of very different people on this lump of rock that we can get a clear picture of Humanity at this point in time.

It's not a solution to the argument, but it's worth mentioning.

personally as i dont have a belief system i have no beliefs to be secure in, i rather have a dis-belief system summed up by the battle cry "prove it" and find people who believe - in anything, a deity or an absence of a deity - a bit mad.
surely you can have a 'good suspicion' of something but to go the whole hog and believe without evidence is well ...delusion.

Perhaps other Christians have more sense than me and leave well alone. They are secure in their faith and don't need to bother. I'm only one person and I'm trying help. The atheists are doing all the protesting. Including yourself.
I haven't spotted any protesting by those on the opposite side of the debate to you. Only points made, points defended and points countered.

Think of another topic that you had a strong view about. Something which you really believed in and cared about. For me, that might be cruelty to animals. If anyone started a debate which the statement 'cruelty to animals is a good thing', I would counter that view strenuously and defend my own view on the subject with vigour.

Would you accuse me then of 'protesting too much'? Suggest that I was not secure in my views on that subject?

In this debate, only the subject matter differs.

No, but the music of Robbie Williams can be s*** and amazing at the same time (so I'm told). Russian Language can be gobbledigook and poetry at the same time. Both perceptions are equally valid, and neither can be called 'wrong'. It's only by accepting that there are multiple truths perceived by the millions of very different people on this lump of rock that we can get a clear picture of Humanity at this point in time.

It's not a solution to the argument, but it's worth mentioning.
Those are examples of subjective human opinion or perception, which aren't part of a scientific debate. People may have the opinion that every word in the 'insert religious text' is true, but it's the evidence that counts when deciding whether something is empirically, factually correct or not. Having an opinion which is directly contradictory to empirical evidence is a diagnostic criteria of insanity.

Yes - how do we even know we exist? How do you know you're not a chicken dreaming he's a horse, dreaming he's a human?

Those are examples of subjective human opinion or perception, which aren't part of a scientific debate. People may have the opinion that every word in the 'insert religious text' is true, but it's the evidence that counts when deciding whether something is empirically, factually correct or not. Having an opinion which is directly contradictory to empirical evidence is a diagnostic criteria of insanity.
So, scientifically speaking, how does one measure the presence of a God in the Universe? Assuming a team of scientists are asked to come up with a machine or chemical formula that will prove (or disprove) the existence of a Deity, how do they go about it? (I'm playing Devil's Advocate, but it's an interesting question)

This thread's already been pulled for pruning once - please deal with the personal stuff via PM.

So, scientifically speaking, how does one measure the presence of a God in the Universe? Assuming a team of scientists are asked to come up with a machine or chemical formula that will prove (or disprove) the existence of a Deity, how do they go about it? (I'm playing Devil's Advocate, but it's an interesting question)

I'm not sure you could - science is a tool for measuring / explaining / examining the natural world and god is well supernatural!?

I'm not sure you could - science is a tool for measuring / explaining / examining the natural world and god is well supernatural!?
So science and supernatural stuff are incompatible? But if God made the world, he surely made science as well? But:

Those are examples of subjective human opinion or perception, which aren't part of a scientific debate... Having an opinion which is directly contradictory to empirical evidence is a diagnostic criteria of insanity.
If God is not measurable by science, how can science determine it's existence? In fact, what use is science for discussing God at all? Now I'm really confused...

So, scientifically speaking, how does one measure the presence of a God in the Universe? Assuming a team of scientists are asked to come up with a machine or chemical formula that will prove (or disprove) the existence of a Deity, how do they go about it? (I'm playing Devil's Advocate, but it's an interesting question)

It's a very interesting question, and I'll do my best to answer.

Allora... so far nothing has been measured that would seem to suggest the presence of a God. And quite a bit has been measured, actually. Applying for instance SETI algorithms which seek the mark of an intelligent designer in radio waveforms etc. to datasets from natural situations shows that they're by and large quite unequivocally random and show none of the expected features of intentionally designed systems.

Disproving the existence of a God is impossible, all we can say is that we've looked and not found one yet. By the same principle, proving the existence of fairies is impossible, all we can say is that we've looked and haven't found any yet. I'm a deist myself, after a fashion, in that I believe there has to be an underlying cause for everything, some reason for the Universe to be here. I just believe that the deity is more likely to take the form of some kind of natural laws rather than an intelligent being (by the argument that whatever designed this must have been more complex and thus warrants a designer itself, a cycle I can't see an end to).

Theism, in the case of all massive organised religions that I know of, incorporates a lot of mythology that in some cases (e.g. Christianity) basically defines the religion, but which doesn't hold up to scientific scrutiny in any way shape or form. For people to base their existences on mythology does irritate me.

The existence of a deity does not prove the theistic trappings that religions try to surround this fundamental point with. I am quite capable of believing that a deity exists without believing that the world is 5000 years old, all the important stuff happened on this planet 2000 years ago, the deity is a conscious, anthropomorphic entity with a special interest in humanity etc... all just arrogant, egotistical crap that has all the hallmarks of an imaginative fictional story with an archaic mindset. I'm prepared to believe that e.g. the bible was a great writing of it's time, and that it carries helpful philosophical messages, but these must be divorced from the question of the existence of a deity, and certainly in no way does something being written in a book offer evidence for its existence!

Not all theisms can be right, the only point they share which can be right is that a deity of some sort exists. Of course it does, when you define it as the underlying reason for everything.

Another reason I don't believe that the major monotheistic religions in particular are anywhere near correct is that at one point, everything that happened was ascribed to them. Now, many of the things that used to be put down to religion have been shown to have other explanations. There's therefore a great precedent for mass religion to be proved wrong, and extrapolating from this I can see no reason why it won't more or less all be demonstrated to be wrong (again, with the one exception of the existence of a deity).

So, scientifically speaking, how does one measure the presence of a God in the Universe? Assuming a team of scientists are asked to come up with a machine or chemical formula that will prove (or disprove) the existence of a Deity, how do they go about it? (I'm playing Devil's Advocate, but it's an interesting question)

I don't think that Crayfish wasn't suggesting that the existence of God could be determined empirically (I'm sure most people here realise that!). However, 'alternative' hypotheses to natural events that are grounded in faith and which run counter to hard-won scientific theory are quite clearly ridiculous, and even dangerous. As I've said before, my personal atheistic position is about as non-polar as it can be: I have arrived at it by satisfying myself that no deity (even if one does exist) need never have necessarily intervened in any phenomenon in, or the history of, the Universe. Even if I am wrong, it makes absolutely no difference to the rest of the world. However, when particular ideologies with religious rather than humanitarian roots threaten to adversely affect human societies, we have a problem. Creationist textbooks, for example, suggest that there is no chance of a runaway greenhouse effect, because of the checks and balances which God makes on his Earth (it's the Abrahamic God - apparently he's a bloke). Do you not think this is the real issue, not whether we can empirically prove the existence of God?

He already answered for himself. That proves one thing: the existence of other minds...

I want noodles!

So science and supernatural stuff are incompatible? But if God made the world, he surely made science as well?

I would have said so. If science is "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena" then you need a set of observable phenomena to explain which I'm not sure you have in the case of the supernatural?

If God is not measurable by science, how can science determine it's existence? In fact, what use is science for discussing God at all? Now I'm really confused...

I don't think science can prove the existance of god - the transcendant and supernatural are just not within it's remit.

I want noodles!

:o have you been touched by his noodly appendage?

You know the ones: always banging on about how religion is the root of all evil, how everyone should read the teachings of their Messiah, Richard Dawkins... they like to give it a bit of 'that' don't they?

Personally, I consider myself to be a semi-agnostic Buddhist-Spiritualist with Anglican leanings, although I also regularly read the Koran. Should these atheists be allowed to preach their faith in science, while condemning all religion as 'mythological mumbo-jumbo'?

To be honest i have yet to hear of any war starting over atheisam
( if thats a word).Now religion that's one bugger that's started many .

personally I do not believe in a god, I don't usually tell people as I prefer to allow people to make their own mind up, I may be incorrect in this viewpoint but l cheerfully accept my fate if I am as it is my decision based on the evidence as I see it.

I do not have a problem with other people believing in a god, I assume they have weighed the matter carefully in their own minds and have come to this conclusion after much deliberation as I did, the fact that I arrived at a different conclusion is neither here nor there, we disagree on this issue is all and I can live with that.

what I do have a problem with is religious zealots, fundamentalists and fanatics who upon learning my viewpoint attempt to force their viewpoint upon me and when this fails they redouble their efforts, or regard me as (on one occasion I heard an anglican bishop on national tv say this) "A beast of the field" or something less than human because I dont subscribe to their viewpoint, and therefore undeserving of compassion, love or even the right to exist, the minor detail that I'm gay as well just adds fuel to the fire

the majority of people who have a religious viewpoint who I have talked with are perfectly fine with the fact that I'm not one of them, it's the extremists who are the problem, it's the extremists who try to force their interpretation of what they think their god wants for the world on the rest of us

for example in the US fundamentalist christians are schooling their children at home so they don't learn the same things as you and I about biology, astronomy or any of the other sciences that pose difficult problems for the fundamentalist viewpoint of christianity, some of these children then go to secular colleges and obtain science degrees, none become scientists, they do however form an abnormally large part of the administration and control the purse strings of the 'real' scientists, a fair number of president bush's scientific advisors have this sort of background

it's a similar thing to the religious control the ayatollahs have, if you look you can find examples everywhere, even among atheists, richard dawkins is someone I admire but there are times when he espouses an antireligious viewpoint that I think he pushes too far and becomes fanatical himself

all it takes are a few extremists in positions of authority and the rest of us become cattle or cannon fodder to be sacrificed to the controlling viewpoint, that is what must be prevented not the fact that people have different views about religion

no one is right, no one is wrong, we are just different

So science and supernatural stuff are incompatible? But if God made the world, he surely made science as well? But:

If, being the operative word here.

If God is not measurable by science, how can science determine it's existence? In fact, what use is science for discussing God at all? Now I'm really confused...

God hasn't been measured by science yet. That's not to say that this won't occur in the future, but it seems improbable as it's looked in the obvious places and found bugger all. Science is useful for discussing any phenomenon it has examined as it uncovers evidence for, or demonstrates a lack of evidence for that phenomenon when applied. In this case, a substantial, indeed overwhelming lack of evidence has been demonstrated.

Some interesting points indeed - it seems that everyone agrees that science probably wouldn't know where to start measuring the presence of a deity.

Religion aside, (we'll assume for now that all organised religion is made-up clap-trap - yes even the Buddhists for now, sorry) technological science is currently incapable of studying the existence of a creator. But is humankind incapable? There is a field of study called Philosophy (wiki clicky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy)) which is much better equipped to ask the question 'Does God exist'. But even history's greatest thinkers have no conclusive evidence either way, and here we are in the year 2006...

Mod note: (post deleted)

King Rat, let's not start trolling eh?


To everyone:
You've probably all noticed that this thread is receiving a lot of Mod Team attention.

2 people have already received instant bans, so let's not turn the entire thread into the Valley of the Banned. We won't be warning people, we'll just be hitting the red button mark "BAN"

I haven't spotted any protesting by those on the opposite side of the debate to you. Only points made, points defended and points countered.

Think of another topic that you had a strong view about. Something which you really believed in and cared about. For me, that might be cruelty to animals. If anyone started a debate which the statement 'cruelty to animals is a good thing', I would counter that view strenuously and defend my own view on the subject with vigour.

Would you accuse me then of 'protesting too much'? Suggest that I was not secure in my views on that subject?

In this debate, only the subject matter differs.
You would be right to make a stand against cruelty to animals and I would be behind you all the way, just as I would be for any good cause, and I believe good, as in loving you neighbour, is better than killing your neighbour, and I hope you will be behind me in that because that is what I believe.

Lets go completly daft. I have not seen the wind but I believe it exists.Who has seen the wind.

Lets go completly daft. I have not seen the wind but I believe it exists.Who has seen the wind.

Iv'e seen the Wind In the willows does that count?

Some interesting points indeed - it seems that everyone agrees that science probably wouldn't know where to start measuring the presence of a deity.
Why not, science is simply the study of the universe, if there were deities in the universe why wouldn’t we be able to detect them or at least their actions?

Religion aside, (we'll assume for now that all organised religion is made-up clap-trap - yes even the Buddhists for now, sorry) technological science is currently incapable of studying the existence of a creator. But is humankind incapable? There is a field of study called Philosophy (wiki clicky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy)) which is much better equipped to ask the question 'Does God exist'.
Why would philosophers be better equipped than scientists to answer the question of whether deities exist or not?

But even history's greatest thinkers have no conclusive evidence either way, and here we are in the year 2006...
That’s hardly surprising as philosophers tend not to that concerned with evidence, if they were they’d be scientists.

Mod note: (post deleted)

King Rat, let's not start trolling eh?


To everyone:
You've probably all noticed that this thread is receiving a lot of Mod Team attention.

2 people have already received instant bans, so let's not turn the entire thread into the Valley of the Banned. We won't be warning people, we'll just be hitting the red button mark "BAN"

Whats trolling?

Wasn't aware I have said or done anything wrong?

I mentioned something along those lines earlier and everyone ignored it because they prefer to maintain their polar stances on the whole 'God / no God' debate. Philosophically speaking, I find this to be the most interesting aspect of the whole argument!

This thread grows way too fast, it's easy to miss stuff!

Yeah, what I was saying, is that if you believe there is a god, then (for you) there is, equally, if you believe there is no god, then (for you) there is not.

There is no absolute concrete 'how it actually is' reality. It just doens't work that way. Ultimately, everything is subjective (though it's all much of a oneness, objective / subjective). Reality, actually is what you believe it to be.

Ok I hear you say, "yeah yeah, and I believe I have £1,000,000 in the bank, let me check, no, no I don't, your theory is crap!". Well, actually, no, you didn't actually believe you had the money in the bank now did you? C'mon, be honest with yourself.

However, on deeper and more subtler levels of your being, and your 'map of reality' you do actually buy in to stuff, and this buying in to stuff is what sparks the creative force of the cosmos, of which you are part and parcel, inseperable infact.

The only way to go, is to abstain from belief, and to directly percieve for yourself, your own connection with all that is, a sense of oneness if you will. I say, it is good (for some) to let go of all 'pre-packaged' religious notions and concepts, and look no further than yourself, look within, and there you will find for youself what you're really looking for.

Trolling is being antagonising for the sake of antagonism. i.e. don't wind people up basically.

I personally never really believed in trolls. Cos maybe I've seen many heated threads online in the Internet, but... for the sake of social ettiquettes, if you don't shout at a person the first time that you meet them. Then equally don't write things which are provocative to strangers who may read it differently. I think that sums up trolling.

Why not, science is simply the study of the universe, if there were deities in the universe why wouldn’t we be able to detect them or at least their actions?

That rather depends on your definition of god - most religions (at least as far as I'm aware) hold god as being transcendent not a part of the material universe. If this were the case then science could not provide evidence as to his / her / it's/ their existance.

Trolling is being antagonising for the sake of antagonism. i.e. don't wind people up basically.

I personally never really believed in trolls. Cos maybe I've seen many heated threads online in the Internet, but... for the sake of social ettiquettes, if you don't shout at a person the first time that you meet them. Then equally don't write things which are provocative to strangers who may read it differently. I think that sums up trolling.

Thanks for that Bago, I can't even remember what I typed originally but as far as I am aware I wasn't trying to be antagonising or causing problems, obviously someone else saw it different or it could of been a spelling/grammar error I suppose which can make a difference if you're relying to a post.

That rather depends on your definition of god - most religions (at least as far as I'm aware) hold god as being transcendent not a part of the material universe. If this were the case then science could not provide evidence as to his / her / it's/ their existance.
If something isn't part of the universe and it's actions can't be detected in what sense can it be meaningfully said to exist?

If something isn't part of the universe and it's actions can't be detected in what sense can it be meaningfully said to exist?

Thats not part of the material universe i.e. not a material entity but a spiritual one. Also an adherant would probably claim that the actions of god can be detected - in the presence of the universe!

Thats not part of the material universe i.e. not a material entity but a spiritual one.
And we know this spiritual universe exists how?

Also an adherant would probably claim that the actions of god can be detected - in the presence of the universe!
All such claims are utterly worthless with nothing significant to distinguish them from or recommend them over the multitude of rival creation myths out there all of which are contradicted by masses of evidence and established scientific theories.

And we know this spiritual universe exists how?

We don't. We also don't know that is doesn't exists so once again it's down to your personal delief systems.

All such claims are utterly worthless with nothing significant to distinguish them from or recommend them over the multitude of rival creation myths out there all of which are contradicted by masses of evidence and established scientific theories.

Having had no-one around at the birth of the univesrs what actually happened is rather open to debate. Did the big bang pop into existance in violation of physical laws? Was it started by god? No-one knows for sure so once again it's down to your belief system.

We can however show that many aspects and events of theistic mythology contravene known physical laws and well evidenced factual knowledge. Again, deism is rational, theism is not. That's a point I feel I'm hammering home but it seems like maybe it needs the hammering.

King Rat - don't worry about it too much. It was just something that was probably best left unsaid at that particular moment, but more because of other people than you. :)

We can however show that many aspects and events of theistic mythology contravene known physical laws and well evidenced factual knowledge. Again, deism is rational, theism is not. That's a point I feel I'm hammering home but it seems like maybe it needs the hammering.
I can't believe you're STILL going... :P
I recall the last long thread about Christianity or something like that, which you started.

Okay, quoting what you said above, and please do excuse me for not reading the entire thread. Give me examples of theistic mythology which contravene known Physical Laws.

We can however show that many aspects and events of theistic mythology contravene known physical laws and well evidenced factual knowledge. Again, deism is rational, theism is not. That's a point I feel I'm hammering home but it seems like maybe it needs the hammering.

I'm not actually going to argue with this as I don't subscribe to a relegion (as I've said before I believe in god but don't believe in religion!) so I'm afraid your gonna have to find an adherant to debate that with!

We don't. We also don't know that is doesn't exists so once again it's down to your personal delief systems.
Nor can we disprove the existence of Henry the immaterial pink dragon which lives in my sock draw, who is always right and he assures me that no spiritual universe exists.

People are of course free to believe whatever they like but if all they have to 'back up' their beliefs is the impossibility of proving negatives then that's very, very weak.

Having had no-one around at the birth of the univesrs what actually happened is rather open to debate. Did the big bang pop into existance in violation of physical laws? Was it started by god? No-one knows for sure so once again it's down to your belief system.
It's a rather one sided debate though on the one side you have materialists with theories which fit with the rest of science, have predictive ability and so forth. In the opposing corner you have theists who have nothing but baseless claims which make no useful predictions, explain nothing and which generally contradict established scientific knowledge.

No-one knows for sure but reason and evidence overwhelmingly suggest a material universe with no supernatural creator.

If only I had a bigger hammer.

Actually, it is pointless for me to argue with an adherent because debate is based on rational argument and counter-argument, while subscription to a theistic religion requires an incomplete ability, or willingness, to rationalise.

But there is some method to the seeming madness behind this strategy, as the irrationality inherent in their attempts at debate exposes the fact that adherents of theism are indeed partially or completely illogical. More for my own interest than anything else, at the end of the day. Still confuses me how approximately five-sixths of the world population manage to believe despite the evidence.

I'm sure there are some interesting lines of scientific enquiry in there somewhere. But I'm not a sociologist. Going to stick with my proteins, they manage to keep themselves in an understandable (if complex) kind of order.

At the end of the day, a religious believer who enters the realm of religion do so for spiritual reasons, and to obtain peace within one's soul. They don't enter it for logic, and rational reasons. (Well, okay, there are some religious believers who are also scientists, and they search for such answers in their entire life time. But that's by and by.)

So... to take religious believer and make them discuss religion by logic seems almost illogical, you know ? Analogy is, A is not even on B's wavelength. So, how will A ever understands B ? Unless A learns about the wavelength that B is already on, and vice versa.

Nor can we disprove the existence of Henry the immaterial pink dragon which lives in my sock draw, who is always right and he assures me that no spiritual universe exists.

People are of course free to believe whatever they like but if all they have to 'back up' their beliefs is the impossibility of proving negatives then that's very, very weak.

Why do they need to 'back up their beliefs'? As far as I can see the only time you really need to provide objective evidence to back up your belief is when you are trying to convince other people of their validity - whih puts the onus of proof on the evangelist.


It's a rather one sided debate though on the one side you have materialists with theories which fit with the rest of science, have predictive ability and so forth. In the opposing corner you have theists who have nothing but baseless claims which make no useful predictions, explain nothing and which generally contradict established scientific knowledge.

No-one knows for sure but reason and evidence overwhelmingly suggest a material universe with no supernatural creator.

What in science denies the posibility of the existance of god? And what evidence suggests a material universe with no supernatural creator?

At the end of the day, a religious believer who enters the realm of religion do so for spiritual reasons, and to obtain peace within one's soul. They don't enter it for logic, and rational reasons. (Well, okay, there are some religious believers who are also scientists, and they search for such answers in their entire life time. But that's by and by.)

So... to take religious believer and make them discuss religion by logic seems almost illogical, you know ? Analogy is, A is not even on B's wavelength. So, how will A ever understands B ? Unless A learns about the wavelength that B is already on, and vice versa.

My entire cut and thrust is that theism is irrational. I'm discussing empirical fact, not human opinion. I really don't give a flying **** what some overblown, baselessly egotistical quasi-monkey thinks should be the case.

Do you accept that some humans who have encountered adversity in their lives, will in some ways find a 'higher being' which will give them a sense of peace within themselves ?

Do you accept that some humans who have encountered adversity in their lives, will in some ways find a 'higher being' which will give them a sense of peace within themselves ?
I prefer to think of it more a higher piece to give them a sense of been, personally :hihi:

That rather depends on your definition of god - most religions (at least as far as I'm aware) hold god as being transcendent not a part of the material universe. If this were the case then science could not provide evidence as to his / her / it's/ their existance.


How very convenient.

I'm not actually going to argue with this as I don't subscribe to a relegion (as I've said before I believe in god but don't believe in religion!) so I'm afraid your gonna have to find an adherant to debate that with!

Ah yes, the God of the Gaps concept. Pity you haven't read Dawkins's deconstruction of it.

Nor can we disprove the existence of Henry the immaterial pink dragon which lives in my sock draw, who is always right and he assures me that no spiritual universe exists.

People are of course free to believe whatever they like but if all they have to 'back up' their beliefs is the impossibility of proving negatives then that's very, very weak.

.

Precisely.
Consider the two conversations:
A
"I have a pink dragon called Henry living in my sock drawer.'
"Really. Could you prove to me that he exists?"
"No. But you can't prove he's not there. And anyway, he exists outside the realm of your science."
"Rrrrrright. You just wait there and I'm going to call the doctor, OK?"

B
"There is a God who created this world and if you don't do as he says, you will burn for eternity in hell."
"Really. Could you prove to me that he exists?"
"No. But you can't prove he's not there. And anyway, he exists outside the realm of your science."
"Rrrright. You just wait there and I'll go and ask the government to fund some schools based on your beliefs, shovel some more of my tax money into hospital chaplains rather than medicines, refrain from saying anything that might offend your religious sensitivities and on and on."

Actually scenario A used to happen in the UK. I've read this in another forum though.

Some cultural beliefs or maybe part religious in ideas.

Man used shoe to hit paper doll, and curses the evil to leave. i.e. basically he's superstitous, and believes the idea of Good Vs Evil.

This is against the majority of beliefs known in the UK, or religious beliefs. So he was taken into the mental asylum. Whereas where he was from, people do it as an everyday act. Cos they all believe the same thing. Psychology or sociology papers were written on cultural and religious beliefs thereafter.

The mere act of institutionalising the guy kind of made him nuts, apparently.

Just to try to move this all on a bit, and taking one of Bago's ideas a little further:


What would happen if a man with no name from Manchester turned up at Granada Studios tomorrow morning claiming to be the Son of God and asking to be put on air?

Would he be refused?

What would happen if he turned up each day with more followers than the day before?

What you suggested just reminded me of some movie plot.

They'll call him a nutter, of course !
Well, the majority of society will think he is nuts. Cos noone behaves like that.

For the religious community, they will question his identity, his background. What has he got to prove himself ? Does he have anything to link with the old artefacts which they built their religion on ? Does he have any other 'signs' which will make him tie-in with the ideas which fit the specific religion's mould ?

If he turns up with more people each day than before. It's considered as a cult, especially if this guy is unable to prove himself to any specific religion, and the communities of those groups do not accept him. They will deny that he is real, and therefore he will be seen as a cult follower....and subjected to whatever punishments, the society throws at cults. Depending on how extreme and forceful this guy appears to the majority. (I'm thinking of that Japanese cult example years ago.)

Why do they need to 'back up their beliefs'? As far as I can see the only time you really need to provide objective evidence to back up your belief is when you are trying to convince other people of their validity - whih puts the onus of proof on the evangelist.
If they are quitely content to live their lives without bothering other people with their beliefs then theists have absolutely no need whatsoever to back up their beliefs. If however they interfere in other peoples lives by: knocking on my door to try and convert me* (as a pair of theists did just last week), stopping me shopping on their ‘sabbath’, interrupting ‘Today’ every morning with 5 minutes of drivel, stopping same sex couples from marrying, trying to take control of women’s bodies and so forth as theists do in this country then they certainly need to back up their beliefs.

What in science denies the posibility of the existance of god? And what evidence suggests a material universe with no supernatural creator?
Nothing that I’m aware of denies the ‘posibility of the existance of god’ (that is god in the abstract most specific deities have a good deal of specific evidence against them) however many things in science show god to be extremely improbable, occam’s razor and the theory of evolution for example.

*Incidentally I have never ever had an atheists knock on my door and attempt to convert me, I have never been accosted by atheists in the street who try to covert me, atheists have never pushed their literature through my letter box uninvited, they never passed a law forcing me to sit through a lesson in atheism every day when I was at school…. Theists on the other hand have done all of the above and more, as such the premise of this thread and complains in it about ‘evangelistic’ atheists coming from theists seem more than a little hypocritical.

Okay, quoting what you said above, and please do excuse me for not reading the entire thread. Give me examples of theistic mythology which contravene known Physical Laws.
Ok let’s see how about Jesus raising the dead, walking on water, feeding 5000 people with 5 loaves and 2 fish, both the creation myths in Genesis, the dividing of the Red Sea, bushes that burn without being consumed, talking snakes, changing the genetic makeup of goats by putting sticks in the water they drink….

Just to try to move this all on a bit, and taking one of Bago's ideas a little further:


What would happen if a man with no name from Manchester turned up at Granada Studios tomorrow morning claiming to be the Son of God and asking to be put on air?

Would he be refused?

What would happen if he turned up each day with more followers than the day before?

Excellent career opportunity for someone there Tony!

It's funny you should mention the walking on water bit, cos I'm sure that I've come across an article recently in this year which says that scientists have now proven how Jesus managed to walk on water. It was a simple idea. Nothing which beat the existing current Physical Laws or Principles.

[Added] I found this on the BBC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4881108.stm

Also this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walking_on_water

"It is also possible to create the effect of walking on water, by having the walker step onto an object that is submerged just below the surface of the water. One example of this is Ron Barassi's involvement in the 2006 Queen's Baton Relay, where he traversed the Yarra River on a pontoon that was just beneath the water's surface."

Sorry, but I had to laugh at this. Not very PC but...
(Apologies to those who are believers!)

"It was reported on August 30, 2006 that Evangelist preacher Franck Kabele told his congregation he could repeat the biblical miracle. Kabele walked out to sea from a beach in the capital Libreville in Gabon, west Africa and drowned.[1]"

It's funny you should mention the walking on water bit, cos I'm sure that I've come across an article recently in this year which says that scientists have now proven how Jesus managed to walk on water. It was a simple idea. Nothing which beat the existing current Physical Laws or Principles.
That guy 'proved' nothing he said that it was possible Jesus was walking on a small patch of hard to sea ice which could feasibly form under rare conditions, he most certainly didn't prove that Jesus did so and his account of how it could be possible doesn't match the events described in Matthew 14.

But this is the ironic parallel with Christianity, AND science.

Christianity says: Jesus walked on water. Why ? How ?
Science says: Speed is distance over time. Why ? How ?

How can you prove "Speed" ? It is a theory. You accepted the theory of Speed. You accepted its definition. So, equally, why can a Christian not accept Jesus ? His existence was proven by the Turin Shroud, and various bibles, or rather, old scriptures which the bible was based on.

With Speed, you now can prove its existence when you move something over a period of time. You accept these experiments as 'fact'. Why can the experiment of walking on water, not be accepted ? Christians believe in God, when they see that his work is proven. Some people asks God in their prayers, and then they are answered. So therefore in their mind, he exists. It is merely that simple. They believe in the concept of God as 'something', to which they can communicate with. When God shows them the answer, Christians can see it. So therefore they believe it. Just as much as you believe in "Speed". It's an idea.

Btw, I understand what you are asking. i.e. No-one has ever seen (in this life time) that Jesus can walk on water. Therefore you think it is not a 'fact' as such. However, no-one has seen 'Speed' either.

Speed and Jesus/God are intangible things. To me anyway, they are just 'ideas'. (Ok, maybe Jesus could historically BE a real person. But God isn't.)

You walk around everyday believing that science works, you see examples of it and it makes you happy to know this. It is what you live by.

Some Christians walk around everyday, seeing creations of God, it makes them happy to know this. It is what they live by.

What is the difference which one you choose ? :confused: