Religious peope complaining about angry aetheists (sic) is pretty similar to car drivers complaining about militant/angry bike riders, who haver to put up with cars cutting them up and threateningtheir lives all the time.
Those bloody Go-Pros shine the light of [s]science[/s] scrutiny where they're not welcome.
Any evidence for a god yet?
There is very clear evidence tbh but you choose not to see it, stop being narrow minded and the murky water will clear quickly
Any evidence for a god yet?
Nope, there is, however, an overwhelming body of evidence that people are sometimes dicks.
But I know you're gonna forgive them 😀 People have been acting like dicks way before anyone understood the truth, perhaps there is a link.. open your mind and the answers will come
Too many 'militant' atheists have read a bit too much Dawkins, which seems to turn them into dicks.
the reason aetheists get angry is that they have to put up with their lives being affected so much by religion - terrorism, wars, and in some countries someone without any belief is worse than a terrorist FFS.
You can be against religion-based terrorism, religious privilege and blasphemy laws whilst simultaneously not being a dick on the internet.
Same with militant cyclists - I have a bike cam but I don't act like a dick to everyone who drives a car.
Language is difficult. Using a word with pejorative connotations is inflammatory and unhelpful.
'Irrational', while it can probably be defended on a purely logical basis, is insulting and in the context of its original use in this thread probably deliberately so.
Not deliberately so. I was using the words in their literal sense but I accept [i]once again[/i] that it was poor communication from me and that the effect taken was not what what I intended and for that I both accept the blame and apologise.
theocb - Member
Any evidence for a god yet?
There is very clear evidence tbh but you choose not to see it, stop being narrow minded and the murky water will clear quickly
Excellent!
Care to share it?
Excellent!Care to share it?
yes, I too would like to see that very clear evidence.
despite this to many[ car drivers] you will still just be a militant cyclist just like some of those who criticise religion will get name called as militantI have a bike cam but I don't act like a dick to everyone who drives a car.
Its not helpful to any meaningful debate as you would then just defend being a militant cyclist rather than be able to explain why its needed to improve road safety etc.
Ditto here we discuss what is a militant atheist rather than the reason for them
Personally, I'm happy to suspend discussion whilst I await (with baited breath) theocb's final and clinching clear evidence for the existence of a god.
A historic moment indeed. ..
...anyway the links are all over the place in that Guardian article linked in the OP. The YouGov poll (it's usually a good idea to look at what journos are interpreting) link goes straight to researchers' mugshots, the link to the researchers goes to comments on the article. This doesn't inspire much confidence in the content and conclusions of the piece, which also don't square with my anecdotal experience (the latter being that most religious folk don't discount scientific theories on religious grounds).
So, helmet cams - what would jesus do?
So, helmet cams - what would jesus do?
Post videos on YouTube of the righteous smiting of internet dicks ?
I'd watch that.
Its not helpful to any meaningful debate as you would then just defend being a militant cyclist rather than be able to explain why its needed to improve road safety etc.
Ditto here we discuss what is a militant atheist rather than the reason for them
Equally, the tone adopted by some on religious threads results in the thread being about the tone adopted by some of the participants rather than on anything meaningful.
Just popping out for a ride into the as-yet unexplored Guadolfeo valley.
Really looking forward to theocb's next post.
Unless I come across a god whilst out, in which case I may get to the Nobel prize before him...
Unless I come across a god whilst out, in which case I may get to the Nobel prize before him...
If you come across a beardy guy in sandals wearing a helmet cam, i'd give him a wide berth if i were you.
why is any of it to be taken literally?
Good question. Lots of things have value that are not literal truth. People spend a lot of time studying literature or even film. The things in American Beauty did not happen, but there is good meaning in it.
How can a fact be impolite?
Because that's how people are.
Fiction can indeed be useful Molly, who has disputed this?
The problem is , unlike American Beauty, they dont think its fiction.
FWIW the parable of the sower is amongst my favourite works of fiction ever and the NT is, in general, a great read. Its not true but yes its decent fiction you can learn from
Pretty sure the religious claim a little more for Jesus mind.
the tone adopted by some on religious threads results in the thread being about the tone adopted by some of the participants rather than on anything meaningful.
Aye its definitely their fault they get name called just like its your fault for carrying the camera 😉
The religious never get called militant [ or intolerant] despite them all believing the only way to save my soul and avoid an eternity in hell is to follow the word of the book that even they dont believe all of
I am not sure that is really any less militant or any more tolerant of others views
I always like basing things on my interpretation of "what would jesus do"
But the fact I, as a non religious person, have my interpretation which differs from many Christians interpretation is a problem in itself. In as much as my interpretation would have jesus as a much more accepting and tolerant person than a lot of Christians seem to be.
What would be causing that to happen ?
The religious never get called militant [ or intolerant] despite them all believing the only way to save my soul and avoid an eternity in hell is to follow the word of the book that even they dont believe all of
"The religious" don't all believe that hell exists, let along that the only way to avoid it is to believe every word in the Bible.
The religious aren't a homogeneous group.
WHAT?How can a fact be impolite?
Because that's how people are.
I have no idea what you even mean there
The religious never get called militant
Of course they do. Some of them. I cringe at the words 'them/they', even though I just used one. That's the thing with 'groups', unless they are an actual group/org with a mission-statement and/or common MO (ie Westboro Baptists) then any debate directed at 'atheists' or 'the religious' is nonsensically generalising, to the very detriment of meaningful discussion. Debate about [s]cyclists[/s] [s]immigrants[/s] [s]transgender people[/s] [s] atheists [/s] [s] the religious [/s] non-existent 'groups' would be better addressed to existing organisations. Or else just address the individual. That we do not customarily do these things is the failing of all debate, especially the internet. We're most all guily of glib generalising. Wait.. argh.
I always like basing things on my interpretation of "what would jesus do"
But the fact I, as a non religious person, have my interpretation which differs from many Christians interpretation is a problem in itself. In as much as my interpretation would have jesus as a much more accepting and tolerant person than a lot of Christians seem to be.What would be causing that to happen ?
The Christians you see in the media (the guy from Christian Voice, the parents who took their kids out of that school, the ones outside abortion clinics aren't representative of most Christians. This skews our perceptions of what Christians think or believe.
They're the GoPro wielding fixie riders looking for trouble on the roads of the religious world. Most Christians are riding a bike with a basket on the front.
I struggle to resolve how 'liberal' religious people can ignore some of the literal bits of these religious 'word of god/gods prophets' texts, saying that they don't apply nowadays.
Bits like all the violent statements in the Quran and other texts, or all the homophobic stuff in the bible.
If they were the authorative 'word of god' and they haven't since been corrected by god or another (proven) prophet, then they still hold and are not open to some liberal interpretation, surely.
(I will one day phone in to Maajid Nawaz's excellent radio show for his view...)
I struggle to resolve how 'liberal' religious people can ignore some of the literal bits of these religious 'word of god/gods prophets' texts, saying that they don't apply nowadays.
Because the Bible is a collection of different texts, written by different people for differing purposes and in differing contexts. All of this is taken into account when interpreting what the text means.
all the homophobic stuff in the bible
Where's that then? IIRC, there's one reference in an epistle and it's specifically about same-sex prostitution.
If they were the authorative 'word of god' and they haven't since been corrected by god or another (proven) prophet, then they still hold and are not open to some liberal interpretation, surely.
Because, as above, the Bible [i]isn't[/i] considered to be the authoritative word of God, by many Christians. Which brings us neatly back the the poll in the article linked in the OP.
i agree its odd how many are able to just ignore the book and still believe it from what it says on creation to gay people to contraception to abortion to even what Jesus said about the OT. At least Mogg was true to what the Bible actually says. Revelation is very clear on what happens to "modernising" churches that look focus on the true word of god
In essence we have folk believing a myth and not even following the myth and we have to respect their right to do this whilst making sure we also have to have it rammed down our throat how important it is to everyone and that we need to respect the right to do this - all whilst they say I will spend an eternity in hell for not doing as they say and then lecturing me on tolerance
No i wont tolerate this and I dont know why others do
Yours
the militant
At least Mogg was true to what the Bible actually says.
Mogg also selectively follows the Bible.
Do you think Christ would vote Tory? He was quite specific on rich people and the kingdom of heaven.
I struggle to resolve how 'liberal' religious people can ignore some of the literal bits of these religious 'word of god/gods prophets' texts, saying that they don't apply nowadays.
Mostly because we're not mental.
Take the Bible as an example.... Is it the literal, unfiltered Word of God? No, of course it isn't. If such a thing existed it'd be carved forty feet high in eternal flaming letters on a mountain somewhere.
It's a translation of a translation of a translation of an interpretation of someone elses interpretaion of a highly edited collection of handed down tales which have been told and retold and altered and skewed for a thousand different purposes over a millenia.
At best, it's a loose set of guidelines contained in a series of simple parables designed to make moral points to the uneducated masses of the middle ages.
Doesn't mean that there aren't good stories and valuable lessons contained therein.
It's like looking at a Haynes Workshop manual for an Austin 7.
Almost all of the information in it will be utterly obsolete, but, at it's core, it still contains enough guidance that you could figure out the principles of how an internal combustion engine is supposed to work.
The book isn't the religion any more than the Church is.
Anybody who believes it is, in my opinion, is entirely missing the point regardless of whether they believe or not.
This thread with a bunch of athiests / agnostics quoting scripture at each other is a perfect illustration of this.
Obviously, my personal opinion only. I'm not, like, the Pope or anything.
Where's that then? IIRC, there's one reference in an epistle and it's specifically about same-sex prostitution.
Just google it multiple references in multiple books
Leviticus 18:22) (Leviticus 20:13)
Also Romans, Timothy and some others I dont recall
L 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
The Biblical view of homosexuality is not really debatable - well it is but only by ignoring scriptures
EDIT: re wealth The bible says harder not impossible to get into heaven 😉
FWIW i do agree Christ clearly rails against the inequities of capitalism and rich folk in general and those who make money form money specifically whilst saying give it all away to the poor
Yes he is also selective
Do you think Christ would vote Tory? He was quite specific on rich people and the kingdom of heaven.
I, an atheist Green Party member, have far more in common with my friend Martin, a Quaker Green Party member, than he does with Jacob Rees-Mogg, a 'Christian' Tory Party member.
It's a translation of a translation of a translation of an interpretation of someone elses interpretaion
yes, it is all a bit 'Life Of Brian', or even a lot.
Where's that then? IIRC, there's one reference in an epistle and it's specifically about same-sex prostitution.Just google it multiple references in multiple books
Leviticus 18:22) (Leviticus 20:13)
Also Romans, Timothy and some others I dont recallL 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
The Biblical view of homosexuality is not really debatable - well it is but only by ignoring scriptures
Leviticus also has rules on not rounding beards or cutting the hair on your temples, no tattoos and no eating shellfish. God hates shrimp.
Jesus said nothing about Teh Gays. WWJD?
My friend with a theology doctorate from Oxford is cool with teh gays, so I reckon Jesus would be too.
In Leviticus it says that if a man lays with another man, he should be stoned.
I think that means that homosexuality is OK, as long as you are smoking weed...
One thing I find interesting in this whole debate is religious and christian have been used as synonyms. Plenty of other religions out there. Some with the same roots and some from totally different directions. I had a very interesting discussion with some local Sikhs. Its a relatively recent religion and appears to be very tolerant of others as in one of their basic tenets is that all are equal before god. No discrimination is allowed. Being a "good person" is essential to them but trying to convert others is not allowed. Interesting bunch and I particularly like that they do not try to make others adhere to their creed.
I, an atheist Green Party member, have far more in common with my friend Martin, a Quaker Green Party member, than he does with Jacob Rees-Mogg, a 'Christian' Tory Party member.
A very good point.
I was using the words in their literal sense but I accept once again that it was poor communication from me and that the effect taken was not what what I intended and for that I both accept the blame and apologise.
Thanks TJ - good post.
but he clearly stated what he thought of the previous laws of god and he did not recant it.Jesus said nothing about Teh Gays
Loving your interpretation of that bit of Leviticus, Turner Guy.
@Mrwopsit. You are still trying to over complicate the simplicity of faith.
You cannot see the evidence because you choose not to, the faith comes first then your mind will be open.
It doesn't matter how intelligent you are or how well you can translate ancient text, without the faith you will never see the clear evidence.
The words themselves have no meaning, think of them like a magic spell if you like... with the key of faith in your heart the scriptures become a passageway to a new place.
I don't see why we can't just tear up all these books and just replace the lot with:
"Be excellent to each other."
("And party on, dude!" optional).
without the faith you will never see the clear evidence.
Evidence does not require faith (and faith does not require evidence).
If you're asserting that it does then you're fundamentally misunderstanding the meaning of at least one of those words.
the faith comes first then your mind will be open.
Said someone on Dagobah in a galaxy far, far away...
Apologies. Not mocking (too much) just tickled me as it was very [i]"That is why you fail..."[/i]
Edit : ...and what AdamW wrote, too. Being nice is A Good Thing. When was the last time you were nice to someone outside of your usual circle.
Faith is what gets people past the lack of or awkward evidence (yep the dinosaurs)
You cannot see the evidence because you choose not to
Just like the religious people on geology trips. You start by showing them molluscs up thousand meter peaks and that was the biblical flood apparently. Then you point out that the flood lasted longer than Noah lived but that can't be possible. You can even show them species evolving from the bottom of a cliff of sediments to the top, but God decided to do that for some reason apparently.
And then those who have faith accuse the geologist of not being able to see the evidence.
Show me!
