[Closed] Creationist religious nutjob on R4 "One to One 9.30am"

well, apart from Woppit who seems to be determined to be controversial) is saying that imagination is bad.

Don't think I actually said that, old boy.

It's when imagination then gets trotted out as fact and pressure groups try to get it taught in science lessons that we have a problem.

I imagined that you did!

If no-one told you about god, it's highly unlikely that you'd spontaneously come up with a religion on your own

How did religions come about in the first place then?

Maybe they really were talking to God?

Oh, stoppit. You're worse than me. 😉

Don't think I actually said that, old boy.

Cheerfully withdrawn. Apologies.

Why's that then?

Er, eh? Because it's not science?

Sorry, I'm utterly stunned by that question and I'm a bit speechless (quiet at the back). You can't [i]really[/i] be that hard of thinking surely, I must've misunderstood your question? What do you mean?

You know what's especially weird: transubstantiation*.

[url= http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/communion.pn g" target="_blank">http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/communion.pn g"/> [/img][/url]

*Just Catholics, not all Christians, etc.

it's highly unlikely that you'd spontaneously come up with a religion on your own
...
How did religions come about in the first place then?

That's not quite what I meant, poor wording on my part. What I meant to say was, "it's highly unlikely that you'd spontaneously come up with [b]an already established [/b]religion on your own." Eg, an tribe on an island isolated from the rest of the world isn't likely to come up with a belief system that looks exactly like Christianity or Islam.

Which, sort of dispels the idea of us all being god's children; if we were, we'd have come up with mostly similar religions in isolation. That isn't the case; religion (historically) has spread largely by force and invasion.

it's highly unlikely that you'd spontaneously come up with an already established religion on your own

If all human knowledge was wiped out tomorrow another civilisation, somewhere in the universe, will come up with the same scientific laws but, if they have them, completely different religions.

Precisely, yes.

If all human knowledge was wiped out tomorrow another civilisation, somewhere in the universe, will come up with the same scientific laws but, if they have them, completely different religions.

Ahhh Penn Jillette!!

>It's when imagination then gets trotted out as fact and pressure groups try to get it taught in science lessons that we have a problem.

>Why's that then?

Er, eh? Because it's not science?

Sorry, I'm utterly stunned by that question and I'm a bit speechless (quiet at the back). You can't really be that hard of thinking surely, I must've misunderstood your question? What do you mean?

Apologies, it's Sugar Thursdays where I spurt things out thinking everyone is able to read my mind and know exactly what angle I'm approaching discussions from...

I've forgotten my point, really. It's basically semantics about your use of the word 'imagination' and your use of the concrete morality of 'right and wrong' in a world where everything is relative.

I'll shuffle away now 🙂

Oh, with reference to the 'creating a religion from nothing and having it different to our established religions' - all you have to do is take one culture's 'bad thing' and call it 'Satan' for instant conversion.
[url= http://ffrf.org/publications/freethought-today/item/13492-the-pirahae-people-who-define-happiness-without-god ]Unless you're The Pirahã, the happiest group of people in the world (measured by time spent smiling) who reject God that is[/url].

molgrips - Member
What's wrong with inventing your own religion? All varieties of Christianity were invented at some point.

This.

Pretty much what you have to do if you want to get through this thing sane..

You need something, some logic, to have worked out as close as you can from all the mumbo jumbo what you think it is all about and what happens after, I seriously think everyone deep down needs to have some form of belief even Atheists do believe this is it and it's game over, very brave of them, or very bravado depending on your own viewpoint I guess.

Ahhh Penn Jillette!!

I heard Ricky Gervais say it first (in [url=

interview[/url], I think), but he may have got it from Penn Jillette.

I've forgotten my point, really. It's basically semantics about your use of the word 'imagination' and your use of the concrete morality of 'right and wrong' in a world where everything is relative.

In which case, I'm glad that a) you can't remember because that looks pedantic and complicated, and b) you're not completely hatstand.

(Just, y'know, a little bit.)

even Atheists do believe this is it and it's game over

Again, atheists all disbelieve the existence of any god. That is all. Being an atheist saying nothing about a person's belief about what happens after death.

he may have got it from Penn Jillette.

Google would suggest it's from "God, no!" by PJ. The quote is,

If every trace of any single religion were wiped out again and nothing was passed on, it would never be created exactly that way again. There might be some other nonsense in its place, but not that exact nonsense. If all of science were wiped out, it would still be true and someone would find a way to figure it out again. Without hype, Lot's salt-heap ho would never be thought of again. Without science, the Earth still goes around the sun and someday someone will find a way to prove that again.

Which is what I was trying to say, only written by someone more intelligent.

(Just, y'know, a little bit.)

Which is what I was trying to say, only written by someone [s]more intelligent[/s] with time and an editor.

Eg, an tribe on an island isolated from the rest of the world isn't likely to come up with a belief system that looks exactly like Christianity or Islam

True, although pagan style beliefs are quite comparable.

Without hype, Lot's salt-heap ho would never be thought of again.

We're back to the bible again. Lot only appears in the bible. If you consider the bible as fables, parables and instructive stories* as well as some mis-told history, then it doesn't matter one bit. God and Jesus could still be there, even if Lot didn't exist.

As many Christians do

miketually - Member
even Atheists do believe this is it and it's game over
Again, atheists all disbelieve the existence of any god. That is all. Being an atheist saying nothing about a person's belief about what happens after death.

Surely the two are linked God's caveat being do what I say or you'll be in trouble when we meet, Atheist retorting that we can do what we like because there is no God therefore no-one to get us in the afterlife, in fact there is no afterlife. Could be wrong here but assumed the two went hand in hand.

So what do atheists think happens when it's game over in this earthly plane?

Atheist retorting that we can do what we like because there is no God

I don't know if this is a sly reference to it being impossible to have morality without god, but if it is then you're wrong and not getting away with it. (-:

So what do atheists think happens when it's game over in this earthly plane?

Again, you're confusing atheism with a belief system. There is no atheist bible to tell us all what to think. Atheists believe whatever they want to believe; I expect most don't believe in an afterlife or take the more agnostic "who knows" stance, but some probably believe we come back as lower life forms like cows or beetles or youtube commenters.

So what do atheists think happens when it's game over in this earthly plane?

Did you do biology in school? 🙄

Atheist retorting that [s]we can do what we like because[/s] there is no God therefore no-one to get us in the afterlife

FIFY or are you saying Atheist have no morality?

(I don't normally do this but,)

Sixundred and sixty six!

So what do atheists think happens when it's game over in this earthly plane?

I doubt anyone has asked them all. There is no atheist mantra (other than make-believe isn't real).

Did you do biology in school?

Biology classes in my school didn't cover the Immortal Soul, I dunno where you went to school!

If every trace of any single religion were wiped out again and nothing was passed on, it would never be created exactly that way again. There might be some other nonsense in its place, but not that exact nonsense. If all of science were wiped out, it would still be true and someone would find a way to figure it out again. Without hype, Lot's salt-heap ho would never be thought of again. Without science, the Earth still goes around the sun and someday someone will find a way to prove that again.

Yeah, but we'd have no history either, the story of Henry VIII and his six wives would never be retold, doesn't mean its not true. I'm not saying that PJ is wrong, but he's chosen a poor example, i think

[s]Atheist[/s] Christian retorting that we can do what we like because [s]there is no God therefore no-one to get us in the afterlife, in fact there is no afterlife[/s] God will forgive us

Surely the two are linked God's caveat being do what I say or you'll be in trouble when we meet, Atheist retorting that we can do what we like because there is no God therefore no-one to get us in the afterlife, in fact there is no afterlife. Could be wrong here but assumed the two went hand in hand.

Buddhists are atheists but believe in something that happens after death.

Biology classes in my school didn't cover the Immortal Soul, I dunno where you went to school!

Who said anything about an immortal soul?

It's when imagination then gets trotted out as fact and pressure groups try to get it taught in science lessons that we have a problem.

Not a problem if there are folks trying, folks try all kinds of stuff, there's a lot of variety. The problem would be if they were successful.

Who said anything about an immortal soul?

folks try all kinds of stuff, there's a lot of variety

You have heard of "opportunity cost" ?

Not a problem if there are folks trying, folks try all kinds of stuff, there's a lot of variety. The problem would be if they were successful.

"Attempted murder".

You have heard of "opportunity cost" ?

"Attempted murder".

You may well have been the victim of attempted murder, just not known it, has it bothered you?

Prepared to pay that cost for some democracy

What are you talking about ?

The problem would be if they were successful.

Or, as already stated, if their beliefs propped up the mutilation of children genitals, homophobia, subjugation of women, wars, etc.

I know people like to advertise religion as being harmless, but that doesn't really stand up to even the minutest of scrutinees.

miketually - Member

Buddhists are atheists but believe in something that happens after death.

Never done Buddhism (didn't like Orange) but are you not forgetting that Buddah fella is he not a form of deity they believe in?

I also recall reading it was a branch of the Hindu faith anyway so hardly atheism in the way our post modern liberal pseudo intellectuals view the atheist belief.

*Re incarnation, multiple planes of enlightenment achieved through repeat visits, was the one that did it for me..

*Some convincing anecdotal and semi-scientific hypnotherapy experiments still have the door open on this one.

You may well have been the victim of attempted murder, just not known it, has it bothered you?

I'm really not sure where you're going with this. "Attempted murder" is a crime, it's illegal. I mentioned it as a counterexample to your suggestion that it's fine to try anything you like so long as you don't succeed.

Obviously I can't be concerned about something I'm not aware of. But how does this relate back to the original topic? You're saying it's ok to try and teach religion in science lessons so long as no-one finds out? What?

that Buddah fella is he not a form of deity they believe in?

He's their founder and "spiritual leader," not a deity.

scuzz - Member

Who said anything about an immortal soul?

Indeed, Cotic's lifetime warrenty only covers the Soda...

snort.

Never done Buddhism (didn't like Orange) but are you not forgetting that Buddah fella is he not a form of deity they believe in?

As above, Buddah's not a god.

An atheist might believe anything, apart from that a god or god exists.

IIRC, "[i]Famous Atheist[/i]" Sam Harris believes that the mind may live on after death and there are [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism ]atheist Christians[/url].

To me, Atheist Christianity seems like a logical next step for woolly liberal Anglicans, then all that stuff about prayer, resurrection and God can be dismissed as historical, cultural and/or allegorical.

I'm really not sure where you're going with this. "Attempted murder" is a crime, it's illegal. I mentioned it as a counterexample to your suggestion that it's fine to try anything you like so long as you don't succeed.

Yeah, but not really that useful a comparison when compared to lobbyists or campaign groups pushing for their view to be included in the curriculum. The opportunity cost aspect is really the point that if we remove the scope for those people to push that point, we also remove that right for ourselves. yes, there is a small cost, but it is not really harmful. All part of life's variety. My point, which folks seemed to object to was that if some people want to campaign for certain changes to the curriculum, then fine, let them.

So, when people pay homage to him, and 'pray' to him. Is that not a bit goddy?

and for some he was the incarnation of a 'cosmic force' which also sounds a little familiar

Most Buddhists, especially western Buddhists, [b]don't spend much time worrying about whether gods exist or not - it's just not an important question to them. [/b]Buddhism is essentially about living one's life so as to gain enlightenment; there may or may not be some gods or spirits around,[b] but they're not of any real importance.[/b]

For Buddhists nothing is permanent. A person changes continuously, there is no element of a person that is permanent. And just as there is a causal connection between the events that make up a person's life, so there is a causal connection between each of their lives.

Amazed at the stamina of posters on here - for the atheists, why bother? With such a clear-cut case, I cant see the reason to want to ram it home so much?

I was a born again Christian and work evangelising through drama and music at festivals and universities. But then I realised two things. One is was make believe and had no grounding in fact or supported theories unlike evolution. Secondly it was just bad on so many levels. Judgemental, homophobic and sexist to name but a few. So I don't believe and I am far happier for it.

...for the atheists, why bother?

...the mutilation of children genitals, homophobia, subjugation of women, wars, etc.

I care, you may not.

So, when people pay homage to him, and 'pray' to him. Is that not a bit goddy?

I've just put the end of a pen in my mouth, that doesn't make it a chip butty.

...the mutilation of children genitals, homophobia, subjugation of women, wars, etc.

How very STW: "next time, it could be a kid's genitals!" Useful for religion threads and Jimmy Savile discussions.

for the atheists, why bother?

Lots of reasons, globally. Nationally: the established church, bishops in the Lords, faith schools, influence on policy. In our house: I have two kids and a (wooly, liberal, Anglican) Christian wife and want them to see both sides.

I care as well Tucker, but find addressing cultural rather than religious ones as the best route!

But its not the specifics behind the question, I reckon that the vast majority of posts here are from atheists and or agnostics but cant see what is the point that needs 700 or so posts to prove.

I've just put the end of a pen in my mouth, that doesn't make it a chip butty.

not very useful. unless you put the pen in your mouth because you thought it was a chip butty.

I don't say that makes him a god, but it would seem that some folks view him very much like a god

That's 'chip butty' and 'attempted murder' if this is about point scoring then i don't want to play

The problem with

My point, which folks seemed to object to was that if some people want to campaign for certain changes to the curriculum, then fine, let them.

and

for the atheists, why bother?

is that if people lobby and other people don't bother, we end up with things like this

[img] [/img]

getting into schools. (This is an extract from a home schooling resource, you can find the original .pdf [url= http://homeschoolcafe.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/byg_tm.pdf ]here[/url].)

[url= http://www.11points.com/Books/11_Eye-Opening_Highlights_From_a_Creationist_Science_Textbook ]Here's an insight into another teaching aid[/url]; this one did make it into a school.

Fortunately, there are people "[url= http://io9.com/5976112/how-19+year+old-activist-zack-kopplin-is-making-life-hell-for-louisianas-creationists ]bothering[/url]."

And finally, if you think that these are small isolated fringe cases and no-one really thinks that way, have a browse on this [url= https://www.facebook.com/darndestthings ]Facebook group[/url] to see what happens when people don't "bother".

Right, talk amongst yourselves for a bit, I'm going to and make tea and find something to kick.

Amazed at the stamina of posters on here - for the atheists, why bother? With such a clear-cut case, I cant see the reason to want to ram it home so much?

A very good question, only a shallow understanding of theology is evident in the discussion with the result it is rather puerile, but I guess those with little to occupy themselves can while away some time.

I just can't stand it when people are accusing others of people simple-minded when they themselves are being simple minded. They are slagging off something they don't really understand, because they in many cases they don't understand it properly.

Which is hugely ironic given the subject matter.

[img] http://imgur.com/9pulGVY [/img]

[url= http://imgur.com/9pulGVY ]bread of life[/url]

They are slagging off something they don't really understand, because they in many cases they don't understand it properly.

Indeed. What's really needed is an authoritative book on the subject.

A very good question, only a shallow understanding of theology is evident in the discussion with the result it is rather puerile, but I guess those with little to occupy themselves can while away some time.

Theology is bunk.
I'm sorry, but it's only of import as a means of attempting to justify the unjustifiable.

It's an intersting insight into human nature - no more.

only a shallow understanding of theology is evident in the discussion

Feel free to enlighten us, the best discussions are the ones where people learn things.

but Cougar, those aren't affecting mainstream schools, those are things you have to opt into. People will be able to buy stuff like that no matter what. It isn't part of the national school curriculum, is only approved by schools way out there which aren't accepted by the mainstream. We can't dictate what people can and cannot teach their children. We can bother to stop it from entering our national systems, and frankly if we don't bother enough about our kids education to counter it rather than ban it then ...well.

I disagree with all the "unless you have a doctorate in theology you can't discuss the fine nuances of the cosmological/ontological arguments" sort of thing.

I don't need to study at the finest tailors in the world to state "the emperor has no clothes".

Theology is bunk.

Oh yes?

Is it because you don't think God exists? Hamlet didn't exist, we know that, but we still study it.

Oh, and according to wiki:

Theology (from Greek ???? meaning "God" and ?????, -logy, meaning "study of") is the systematic and rational study of religion and its influences and of the nature of religious truths

Seems a perfectly reasonable and quite interesting thing to study to me.

It isn't part of the national school curriculum,

Well no, I'm aware that this is largely an American phenomenon at the moment and nothing to do with the UK curriculum.

However, there are plenty of church-funded schools here in the UK. [url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/jul/17/creationist-groups-approval-free-schools ]There's a story here[/url] about a few of them, for instance.

If you are really interested in learning about any religion then I suggest you borrow some books from the library, there are plenty available. From a CofE perspective, Rowan Williams has written some excellent ones. Rebutting all the misconceptions on here would be immensely time consuming and probably futile.

I said it was an interesting insight into human nature. 😀

Back to Buddhism for a tad, having had a quick reminder wiki, it was as I indicated an offshoot of the early Hindu teachings and again from a quick scope, one of the differences between one arm of Hinduism and the Buddist view of Karma is wether or not a supreme being influences Karma or not.

Either way yes I guess technically you could argue Budhists as Atheist to a degree, but they do have an alternate and complex value set not unlike Hinduism, derived from a Teacher who appears to be of a similar period or slightly pre dating Jesus Christ, who's teachings could be argued have been construed differently by a largely more ignorant following and used to promote an entirely different Agenda than those that promoted the teachings of Buddha.

It was a long time ago I got into all this, (about the same time as the Beatles), but Karma does nobody any harm and the mysticism of the East is far more complex than the crude teachings of Abraham and Islam, so I tended to give it house room, plus the anecdotal proof of reincarnation in experiments lent a little more to the teachings in my mind back then, so the study of it all does no harm imv, better study Hinduism and Buddism than bloody Islam, but then the curriculum these days is so Political and those poor down trodden Muslims need appeasing, constantly.

Theology if that's what this is, isn't entirely bunk, if you mix in a little spiritualism and scientific experimentation..

Rebutting all the misconceptions on here would be immensely time consuming and probably futile.

It'd be quicker than me reading all those books, and I'll wager a lot more interesting.

Tell you what, just pick one misconception, whichever you think is the most major one perhaps, and rebutt that. Shouldn't take too long at all.

Rebutting all the misconceptions on here would be immensely time consuming and probably futile.

Oh, go on.
It took us ages to post them all, the least you can do is put in a bit of effort. 😉

Jesus Christ, is this still going? 😀

Rebutting all the misconceptions on here would be immensely time consuming and probably futile.

Ok just show us some physical evidence for god then we can apologise and convert

In the the amount many of you have spent and no doubt will spend posting on the subject you could have read a lot of books which is what I intend to do now, albeit it is a detective novel - not Father Brown alas.

Cougar - Member
Rebutting all the misconceptions on here would be immensely time consuming and probably futile.
It'd be quicker than me reading all those books, and I'll wager a lot more interesting.

Tell you what, just pick one misconception, whichever you think is the most major one perhaps, and rebutt that. Shouldn't take too long at all.

Rebutt [url= http://reluctant-messenger.com/reincarnation-proof.htm ]Re incarnation proof experiments[/url]

igrf > I may be misinterpreting you, but you seem to have confused "study" with "promote". We learnt about the third reich in History at school, but no-one came along and tried to get us to sign up the East Lancashire Hitler Youth.

I don't see any harm in studying Buddhism, or Islam, at an academic level; ie, R.E. It's quite possible to teach R.E. in a secular manner, just swap "Jesus did this" with "Christians believe that Jesus did this" and we have a winner. The bonus of that is that multi-faith R.E. is a breeze, you can cover all the major religions then. Hell, and if any of the kids fancy buying into it, they can make an informed choice rather than default to the one they've been given by their parents.

but Cougar, those aren't affecting mainstream schools, those are things you have to opt into. People will be able to buy stuff like that no matter what. It isn't part of the national school curriculum, is only approved by schools way out there which aren't accepted by the mainstream. We can't dictate what people can and cannot teach their children. We can bother to stop it from entering our national systems, and frankly if we don't bother enough about our kids education to counter it rather than ban it then ...well.

Some of the potential sponsors of free schools were planning on having creationism taught in science lessons until some people "bothered" - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/nov/30/free-schools-creationism

There have also been some concerns raised about teaching of creationism as fact in Vardy Academies.

In the the amount many of you have spent and no doubt will spend posting on the subject you could have read a lot of books

So that's a 'no' then?

[img] [/img]

but then the curriculum these days is so Political and those poor down trodden Muslims need appeasing, constantly

Er, well, when you are a perfectly reasonable follower of a benign major religion and everyone starts to think you are a rabid terrorist, then I think you need a bit of protection. Nothing to do with politics, it's just common bloody decency.

You obviously don't understand the word futile, Wilfred Owen wrote a very fine poem about WW1 entitled futility, I suggest you read it, it is on the internet.

And that's the biggest misconception on this entire thread? Oh, right, I see what you mean.

I understand the word just fine, thanks. What I don't understand is the point in swanning in going 'I know more than you, and I'm not telling you, read some books.' Doesn't really advance the discussion, y'know?