having to post in 'bite sized chunks' sorry.
discussing moral values and judgements particularly in the societal context. I must mention here that dogma based on religiion is to me is a personal anathema.
Belief in a deity is not a scientific hypothesis - you only test scientific hypothesis with scientific reearch and inquiry, that is what science is for. I wouldn't use a holy book, belief or artefact to justify or challenge an assertion from a scientific perspective. It would be pointless. Use the right tool for the right job!
And how do ethnic differences arise anyway? Often when groups don't mix because they're of different religions
I would suggest that people end up with different religions BECAUSE they're of different ethnicities.
Saying 'it's religion's fault' is an oversimplification.
I am certain that atheism is not the rejection of belief - it is the absence of belief in deities. Several times people have said on this very thread that atheism is an absence of belief full stop. Pretty sure Dawkins et al are fairly vocal regarding their position that their scientific 'beliefs' are more factually correct than a religious belief. This is where I am with Molgrips! I must also say that I was not as clear as I should have been, 'atheist beliefs' is a bit of a lazy shorthand - I should really say beliefs held by atheists that do not relate to a deity - so my apologies for that. I did not say at any point that here on STW people were articulating arguments against belief with scientific fact x or y - it was a general comment coming from discussions in the pub, workplace and some portions of the media...
No views should be above ridicule. People (people, NOT views) should be protected from seriously offensive attacks like racist language, incitements to violence and the like. But view should have no special protection, no matter what those views are.
On the subject of war/conflict and religion I am saying not that war/conflict on any non-religious or religious pretext is fine - far from it. What I am stating is that people have sometimes used religion as an excuse to forment conflict when actually the cause is related to power, greed, resource poverty etc...
For me my faith related belief does not conflict with my committment to scientific knowledge and inquiry. The teaching of creationism from anything more than a metaphorical position is to me slightly crazy... I don't take any religious tome, creed or moral position as literal or for granted. My moral position may be distantly related to my family background in terms of Hinduism and Christianity but I have not accepted any moral teaching without review. My beliefs are more about doing a few negative things as you can, trying to give more than you take and realising on a daily perspective how unimportant I am compared with the mass which is the rest of humanity. In fact my beliefs are more 'humane' than anything else and I have challenged them frequently...
I feel that if you don't want to be held to ridicule, don't be ridiculous. That's not just regarding religion, but generally. If you told me you believed the moon was made of cheese, you'd get the piss taken, and rightly so.
I reject absolutely that religion (or a lack thereof) can demand some sort of special exception to this. And besides, if your 'faith' is threatened by a little bit of gentle teasing, you might want to reconsider how strong that faith actually is.
Pretty sure Dawkins et al are fairly vocal regarding their position that their scientific 'beliefs' are more factually correct than a religious belief.
That's semantics - a religious belief is a belief in something without evidence (or in spite of the evidence), a scientific belief is backed up by evidence which can be tested and challenged.
I also would not[b] argue that organised religion in practise is a force for good in this world either - hence why my beliefs are personal and informal.
Please don't think I am oversensitive about faith, it doesn't need my defence. Common decency in terms of respect for others and their positions is what I care deeply about. Where our positions differ we should not be disrespectful or try and minimise the humanity of others. By the same token religious beliefs and standards should not be forced on anyone.
Yes it is semantics - but incorrectly applied - I think not...
For me my faith related belief does not conflict with my committment to scientific knowledge and inquiry.
With respect, the only person who seems to be labouring under the belief that it does, is your good self. You seem to be attributing standpoints to others which are largely fictional, then arguing against them.
We're not silly. We all know that not all theists are young Earth creationist loonies. That doesn't mean we can't debate said loonies though, and you shouldn't really feel the need to be getting offended on their behalf.
molgrips,
You've not understood what I've written.
True there will be prior reasons for dispute - that's why I used 'may not be incipiently'. What binds people in acting violently to resolve these differences, more than anything else is religion. Religious sectarianism acts as a fuel and underpins attitudes and behaviours.
Yes it is semantics - but incorrectly applied - I think not...
Trust a religion thread to stir up anti-semantic views.
Trust a religion thread to stir up anti-semantic views.
🙂
Speaking of semantics, there's also a difference in what people mean by "respect". I respect the church's view that they don't want to hold gay marriages. But what they mean is that we should respect their views by not letting [i]anyone[/i] marry gay people.
"I feel that if you don't want to be held to ridicule, don't be ridiculous. That's not just regarding religion, but generally. If you told me you believed the moon was made of cheese, you'd get the piss taken, and rightly so."
Couger hey .... Errrm ... Honest question, as I may have misinterpreted your post... are you implying religious people are ridiculous ?
But view should have no special protection, no matter what those views are.
So therefore normal social constraints apply to discussions about religion. As in, be nice and considerate to each other! This is what I've been trying to say all along.
What binds people in acting violently to resolve these differences, more than anything else is religion
Is that another way of saying this:
What I am stating is that people have sometimes used religion as an excuse to forment conflict
Cos it's hardly religion's fault if nutters use it to further their own causes, is it?
I feel that if you don't want to be held to ridicule, don't be ridiculous
That's a tautology. You may think someone's being ridiculous, that person probably doesn't. It's entirely subjective and cannot be used as a basis for attack. Many theists probably think atheism is ridiculous. Your position is not special in the context of theism because it's unprovable, and especially not in the context of organised religions because they are about so much more than simple explanations of world origin etc.
Common decency in terms of respect for others and their positions is what I care deeply about.
Amen! Er, I mean.. yes, absolutely!
So therefore normal social constraints apply to discussions about religion. As in, be nice and considerate to each other! This is what I've been trying to say all along.
Social constraints are fine - it's when those social constraints become legal constraints that there's a problem. I don't insult religious people because it's rude, but it should not be against the law to do so.
I respect the church's view that they don't want to hold gay marriages.
I don't. That's bigotry. Where any church's views conflict with what secular society generally believes, then secular society needs to impose its collective will. I don't respect working mens' clubs which don't want women in, and rejection of homosexuality by a church is on a par with that.
And this is where we get back to social vs. legal. The church can be bigoted in its beliefs if it likes - but it cannot be bigoted in its actions.
Ben with you on all your points on this page! I think I should have just said at the start: accept others have different beliefs and that people don't always agree! Personally I am all for gay marriage - the idea that a loving and committed relationships are only for heterosexuals is bloody lunatic!
Trust a religion thread to stir up anti-semantic views.
*claps*
Cougar - those types annoy me too!
I don't insult religious people because it's rude, but it should not be against the law to do so.
Is anyone arguing otherwise?
Cos it's hardly religion's fault if nutters use it to further their own causes, is it?
nutters? Do you mean nations of people's over millennia? You can't reduce it to nutters!
Say it how you want molgrips - there are irreconcilable differences between various man made religions that attach to and animate existing disputes.
Couger hey .... Errrm ... Honest question, as I may have misinterpreted your post... are you implying religious people are ridiculous ?
Coug[b]a[/b]r. And, no; I thought my second sentence covered that, sorry if I wasn't clear.
I think [i]some religious beliefs[/i] are ridiculous, but that's not the same thing as thinking all religious people are. If you'll excuse the "some of my best friends are black" argument, a guy at work is one of the most intelligent, science-driven people I've ever met, and he also happens to be a Christian. He's many things, but he's not ridiculous.
You may think someone's being ridiculous, that person probably doesn't. It's entirely subjective and cannot be used as a basis for attack. Many theists probably think atheism is ridiculous.
Sure. And I'd expect them to ridicule me accordingly. Challenging viewpoints is healthy, it's a learning experience.
Your position is not special
Exactly my point.
Is anyone arguing otherwise?
People who argue that religion should be above criticism, for example, or who argue that blasphemy should be a criminal offence, or indeed that offending anyone should be a criminal offence. Dunno if that's you or not 🙂
Bloody nogod botherers. Can't stand fundimentalists.
Fundi? Nah. There are thousands of gods and religions past and present. We just reject one additional one compared to most theists.
People who argue that religion should be above criticism, for example, or who argue that blasphemy should be a criminal offence, or indeed that offending anyone should be a criminal offence
Is anyone arguing so on this thread?
In other news, the sky is blue.
Challenging viewpoints is healthy
Challenging viewpoints is one thing. Tearing into someone's deeply held beliefs for no apparent reason other than sport is not.
If a Christian came on here and tried to convince me that God existed, I'd have a nice discussion and justify MY OWN position. However that's never happend on here that I've seen, and it's also never happened in real life.
However it seems a weekly occurrence that people on here queue up to complain about how stupid religious people are.
On this thread? No idea, I've not been paying attention. However it's one reason why atheists can be a bit touchy at times.
Can't stand fungimentalists.
behold the mushroom god - keeps his followers in the dark and feeds them a lot of sh*t
Challenging viewpoints is one thing. Tearing into someone's deeply held beliefs for no apparent reason other than sport is not.
Agreed.
If a Christian came on here and tried to convince me that God existed, I'd have a nice discussion... it's also never happened in real life.
I can put you in touch with one if you like?
He comes round our house at least once a month, knows my wife and daughter's name, drops off various leaflets, books and videos and asks us if we looked at the last ones yet.
Any attempt at "nice discussion" is met with more leaflets.
He'll keep coming if you keep encouraging him like that.
My missus made the mistake of engaging with him in conversation early on.
As a doctor she wanted to understand his religious concerns about blood transfusions.
That was all the encouragement he ever needed. 😕
Is there some kind of powder I can get to spread across the path? Or do I need to find the nest?
Any attempt at "nice discussion" is met with more leaflets.
😆
Richard Dawkins was once asked: "What if you found you had died and met god?"
He replied (good humourdley, something which some suggest he can't actually manage): "Well, I'm sure we could have a nice, scientifically-based discussion to sort out where he fits into our understanding of the quantum universe and then move on to the next interesting thing..."
So for all the pillaring that Dawkins has given God... Dawkins thinks that on meeting God they'd have a nice discussion
Cool
Isn't god supposed to be forgiving these days?
Isn't god supposed to be forgiving these days?
He is. But I'm not sure about Dawkins.
Is there some kind of powder I can get to spread across the path? Or do I need to find the nest?
Yes, tell them you've just converted to Islam.... or that you're Catholic. One or the other normally does the trick 😉
Ro5ey - MemberSo for all the pillaring that Dawkins has given God... Dawkins thinks that on meeting God they'd have a nice discussion
No. He's an atheist.
Isn't god supposed to be forgiving these days?
Depends on your faith Cougar, God can also be downright judgemental for those that like it that way. 🙂
No. He's an atheist.
No, he's agnostic.
Depends on your faith Cougar, God can also be downright judgemental for those that like it that way.
If I'd known there was going to be spankings I'd have signed up years ago.
