[Closed] "I asked God to help me"

Somewhere in our interpretation of all these teachings we seem to have forgotten that simple bit.

Really? what about where the "love" is obscured by the killing and smiting bit? or is that just another misinteretation?

Atheism is not a belief.

Not really possible to prove the non-existence of God, so I think I do classify it as a belief.

"chosen people" "righteous"

Have you spent much time with religious people, TJ? They don't all talk like that. It does say that kind of thing a lot in the Bible, but then you're onto the subject of how literally one interprets the Bible, which I believe has been discussed at some length already 🙂

The fundamentalist atheists are an active and highly vocal subset of atheists who object to a great many things, not the least of which is being described as 'fundamentalist atheists.

Bit like errr.... Atheists then?

Not really. I'm an atheist, and I'm arguing for religion, had you noticed?

The fundamentalist atheists are an active and highly vocal subset of atheists who object to a great many things, not the least of which is being described as 'fundamentalist atheists.

OK so there is no blowing up, crashing into things, general killing and maiming involved. They sound a lot safer to be around than the fundamental religious types.

Not really possible to prove the non-existence of God, so I think I do classify it as a belief.

In the same way as NOT believing in the tooth fairy is a "belief" I like your thinking 😀

The fundamentalist atheists are an active and highly vocal subset of atheists who object to a great many things, not the least of which is being described as 'fundamentalist atheists.

Bit like errr.... Atheists then?

Not really. I'm an atheist, and I'm arguing for religion, had you noticed?

No. How does that make any sense?

Mitch, for the vast majority of human existance, religion has been forced on to societies as a means of control.

Finally, people are now, in a very small number of places, allowed to question this.
Not surprising that they use a vocal, erudite public figure as a means of shorthand when expressing their views.
Sound familiar?

The big difference is that no one is claiming that Dawkins will give them eternal life or absolve them of their sins.

The fact that when told to think for themselves, some people miss the point by a mile is again a wonderful and ironic example of human falability, or evolution in action, as you prefer.

How could it not make sense?

I don't believe in God, but I strongly object to the mis-interpretation of religious teachings and beliefs apparently for the sole purpose of insulting people's intelligence. Not very nice, and also pretty friggin feeble from an intellectual point of view.

How could it not make sense?

I don't believe in God, but I strongly object to the mis-interpretation of religious teachings and beliefs apparently for the sole purpose of insulting people's intelligence. Not very nice, and also pretty friggin feeble from an intellectual point of view.

So where does the "fundamentalist atheist" bit come in that you were refering to?

I thought you were saying that all atheists are "an active and highly vocal subset of atheists who object to a great many things"..?

If not, then please accept my apologies and ignore my last few posts.

nasty bunch of zealots determined to force their views on others

If not, then please accept my apologies and ignore my last few posts.

Apology not required 🙂

And I really, really dont have a problem with that rusty - we should question things, that's healthy. My sole objection is to being labelled as stupid for believing in God. We're not all fundamentalist, creationist homophobes, and I, for one, dont take the bible literally, and I dont automatically do what the bloke in the pointy hat tells me to do. I'm very much aware that this is 'cherry picking' with regards to Catholicism, but I think I can live with that. 🙂

Mitch, for the vast majority of human existance, religion has been forced on to societies as a means of control.

I am sorry that's bollocks, Homo sapiens emerged around 200,000 years ago. First written word is around 600BC, so how on earth can you say for the majority of human existence religion has been used to control society? As we don't actually have a clue what happened for the vast majority of our species existence on this planet.

As you are an atheist please provide some facts to backup your statement as without proof nothing can exist.

Or do you want to change that to

for the vast majority of *MY* existance, religion has been forced on to societies as a means of control.

In the same way as NOT believing in the tooth fairy is a "belief" I like your thinking

Of course, so therefore it naturally falls to those who say there's no tooth fairy to prove that there's no tooth fairy.

Doesn't it....

No. In the absence of any means of proof, we are all free to believe as we see fit. And there's really no point in arguing about it or slagging each other off.

END OF THREAD.

Booyah!

If you don't like to read it, don't. The idea that one is supposed to keep ones widely held, mainstream and inoffensive views to oneself just to protect your little mind is quite ridiculous.

Yes you should ram it down our throats and insists that it is not offensive as another person dies of AIDS whilst you wage holy war against the Infidels for your god or gods

read an interesting book on religion, which pointed out that many fundamentalist atheists are so because they can't believe that there is anyone or anything in the world more important than them ...

yes that right anyone who disagrees with god is almost certainly an ego manic who thinks the world resolves around them… Obviously when you have no actual arguments to put forward to support your view you should do the rational thing and slur all those who disagree with your view in an ad hominem attack….i am pretty sure this is what Jesus would do

also pointed out that many fundamentalist atheists justify there beliefs by highlighting the extremists in religions (such as the god hates fags lot) to justify there extreme Ego belief system.

From http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/my-new-years-eve-dream-ab_b_37567.html?

They're dogmatic. Their movement is based on a piece of dogma which can't be challenged without enraging them.

Has this man read any holy book. ..what an odd argument he seems confused between an atheist and a person of faith

Fundamentalist atheists think they already know, without study.

I did not read any further as that point is BS you cannot reasonably accuse those who don’t adhere to the big sky fairy as the ones who don’t study. To be fair both sides study but neither has any evidence so take your pick have some faith or assume it is not real.

Not really possible to prove the non-existence of God, so I think I do classify it as a belief.

You cannot prove a negative so the list of beliefs you must have is limitless as the set includes everything made up that has no actual evidence to support it
Not a wise way to live your life IMHO

In the absence of any means of proof, we are all free to believe as we see fit.

In the absence of any means of proof, we are all free to believe as we see fit

Strange how the religious keep asking the atheists to "prove" the absence of their ridiculous deity thing, then.

A sort of desperate fall-back position.

You atheists are no different to people banging on about how 29ers are stupid without ever having ridden one.

By that argument I'm qualified to say Christians are stupid. (-:

I read an interesting book on religion, which pointed out that many fundamentalist atheists are so because they can't believe that there is anyone or anything in the world more important than them

Pro-religion text in "making things up" shocker. Does the author provide any evidence for this? Or does she just know that most people reading it will be used to disregarding a need for evidence in favour of "it's in a book so it must be true."

The core of all fundamental teachings is the same and they often cross reference each other.
If we took one thing from all these teachings it would have to be:- LOVE ALL.

That's a lovely thought. It's a pity that the practice doesn't seem to quite work like that. Perhaps it'd be more accurate to say "LOVE ALL (so long as they're like us or we can make them like us)".

Not really possible to prove the non-existence of God, so I think I do classify it as a belief.

We've done this before. It's not a belief, it's an absence of belief, which might sound pedantic but it's an important distinction. For example, do you think that there aren't tiny pink unicorns in your skirting board? Would you call that a belief?

Strange how the religious keep asking the atheists to "prove" the absence of their ridiculous deity thing, then.

prove it! 😆

[img] [/img]

That's a lovely thought. It's a pity that the practice doesn't seem to quite work like that. Perhaps it'd be more accurate to say "LOVE ALL (so long as they're like us or we can make them like us)".

Cougar - how many of the world's population would you estimate follow a religion? Of those, how many would you consider extreme/intolerant? How many are co-existing with others of different/no-faiths? How many areas of conflict are based on religious views (really not the rhetoric?)? If all religious people are determined not to love others and prefer to impose their beliefs on others through whatever means necessary, why are we not in a constant state of war? How many irreligious societies are capable of intolerance/violence/genocide etc?

Strange how the religious keep asking the atheists to "prove" the absence of their ridiculous deity thing, then.

A sort of desperate fall-back position.

Never heard that one.

The thing is, Woppit and others, there are lots of complete cocks who are religious. Also lots who are atheists.

Don't confuse being a cock with being religious - they are NOT the same thing.

Yes you should ram it down our throats and insists that it is not offensive as another person dies of AIDS whilst you wage holy war against the Infidels for your god or gods

How can you conflate an open minded and reasonable Christian with some idiot in Africa on an ego trip? Makes no sense.

You cannot prove a negative so the list of beliefs you must have is limitless as the set includes everything made up that has no actual evidence to support it
Not a wise way to live your life IMHO

Straw man. No-one is interested in the limitless set - the existence of pink unicorns in the skirting board is not important. However the question of the existence of God is quite important to many people.

If someone started talking to me about pink unicorns as if it were really profoundly important to them, I wouldn't argue with them. However if they got angry with me for not believing, I would.

And I really, really dont have a problem with that rusty - we should question things, that's healthy. My sole objection is to being labelled as stupid for believing in God

How do you feel about the Mormons and the whole magic spectacles thing? Or the Scientologists with this stuff:

A Scientology spokesman has confirmed that Scientologists believe that mankind's problems stem from brainwashed alien soul remnants created millions of years ago by genocidal alien overlord Xenu. The admission follows years of attempts to dismiss the story, first leaked by defectors, as anti-church propaganda.

A core doctrine of Scientology belief is that freeing the human body of attachment to alien soul remnants, or Thetans, created by Xenu when he kidnapped millions and brought them to earth for a fiery execution, is key to achieving spiritual progress and relief from worries. ®

Genuine question btw.

So TJ, given that you feel religion should be "in private behind closed doors" and the organised church is some kind of mailcious indoctrination device - how would you see the church's central role in the fight against totalitarianism ?
Specifically I'm thinking of the election of the Bishop of Kraków, Karol Wojty?a, as Pope.
His subsequent pilgrimage to Poland and famous speech calling for the respect of religious traditions and advocacy for freedom and human rights triggered widespread support for Solidarno?? in Poland and the PSC in UK.
Even more relevant was the role of the Church of St Nicholas in Leipzig and it's support for the Monday Demonstrations which eventually became the centre of peaceful revolt against Communist rule.
Would you have supported Left wing toatalitariansim and it's religious persecution, or be one of those stood in the street facing down troops with only a lighted candle and religious faith for your protection ?

a thing of great beauty....

[img] [/img]

Best religious thread post ever, hilldodger.

A Scientology spokesman has confirmed that Scientologists believe that mankind's problems stem from brainwashed alien soul remnants created millions of years ago by genocidal alien overlord Xenu. The admission follows years of attempts to dismiss the story, first leaked by defectors, as anti-church propaganda.

A core doctrine of Scientology belief is that freeing the human body of attachment to alien soul remnants, or Thetans, created by Xenu when he kidnapped millions and brought them to earth for a fiery execution, is key to achieving spiritual progress and relief from worries. ®

Sounds reasonable to me unless you have proof that it is not the case?

So TJ, given that you feel religion should be "in private behind closed doors" and the organised church is some kind of mailcious indoctrination device - how would you see the church's central role in the fight against totalitarianism ?

Churches (the Catholic church at least) have often been on the side of the oppressors/establishment throughout history, there will obviously be some exceptions though.

molgrips -Have you spent much time with religious people, TJ? They don't all talk like that.

No they don't say out loud they are superior but what you don't want to see is the assumption of superiority that underlies all abrahamic faiths. All that emphasis on a sinner repenting, the drive to convert, the assumption that morals come from god and without a belief in god one can have no morals, the belief they have a right and a duty to spread the word. Its all based on the assumption that to be a believer is to be a better person than an unbeliever.

Hilldodger - thin argument. A little influence for good when it suits them that you overstate does not alter the harm they have done - as on previous debates on this I accept religions can do good as well. A hungry and homeless TJ has been fed by them.

Rich, I'm happy to change that to 'the vast majority of documented human existance'.
Happy now? 😀

And I think you'll find that the universe appears, at the moment, to revolve around Simon Cowell, not me.

Mitch, I would never call you stupid for believing in God.
I would argue that there is no rational, repeatable evidence for the existance of any kind of supernatural phenonema, including a belief in a supreme being.

How you choose to interpretate the data is entirerly up to you.

Hilldodger, replacing one tired, worn out means of oppression and indoctrination with another is a victory for no one.

We've done this before. It's not a belief, it's an absence of belief, which might sound pedantic but it's an important distinction. For example, do you think that there aren't tiny pink unicorns in your skirting board? Would you call that a belief?

If you believe. It's a belief.

If you believe there is no creator, then that is what you believe in: your belief.

I've never not believed in tiny pink unicorns because they have never been brought to my attention. To not have a belief is to be free of any thought to believe in. Completely empty.

If you believe the Universe to be as science describes it. Then that is your belief.

If you believe yourself to be doing everyone else a favour by rudely telling everybody that your idea of our existence is much betterer than theirs, then that is also your belief.

Etc.

Beliefs make up the self. Something that is absolutely at the center of all of our opinions, religious or otherwise.

They are what we are.

Wojtyla is a fine example of an apparently intelligent mind over thrown by dogma.

After the attempt on his life and subsequent recovery, he claimed that a magic invisible female fairy called "Our [i](sic)[/i] Lady of Fatima" (with whom he had, apparently, a "special" relationship) had protected him by suspending the laws of physics and deflecting the course of the bullet.

One wonders, if this odd entity is that powerful, why she didn't deflect the bullet to miss him completely, thereby saving the team of medical experts the bother of fighting for 11 hours to do the actual hard work.

So now whe're back to the bladder kicker-about with the same sort of silly notion as the former wearer of the magic hat...

TandemJeremy - Member

Hilldodger - thin argument. A little influence for good when it suits them that you overstate

I guess the citizens of Poland and the former GDR may feel otherwise !!

Shouldnt there be quotes around some of that Woppit you little rascal! 😉

butcher - Member

If you believe the Universe to be as science describes it. Then that is your belief

Good point, I would be certain that almost all people who accept "science as truth" have no way of validating most of it's claims.
So yes, scientific fact is for almost all people a belief system.

😆

Good point, I would be certain that almost all people who accept "science as truth" have no way of validating most of it's claims.
So yes, scientific fact is for almost all people a belief system.

Sort of, but with the key difference that science is all about questioning (not always how it's taught in schools mind you) - not just blindly following your interpretation of an old book, even when it's clearly misguided and harmful.

None of the religion defenders going to comment on the Scientology beliefs? Let's be honest, you think it's pretty daft don't you, but of course there is no comparison with Christianity because it's been around for a couple of thousand years and therefore has legitimacy.

I'm not a fan of being a dick to people for no reason btw, I was raised as a Christian and lots of my family are practising Christians. However, I see no reason why Christianity should be above criticism, and religion is still foisted upon people constantly. It seems to be most of the whinging from religious leaders about persecution etc is based on the fact that religion has enjoyed an extraordinarily privileged position in society, and now that is starting to wane slightly they don't like it.

Good point, I would be certain that almost all people who accept "science as truth" have no way of validating most of it's claims.
So yes, scientific fact is for almost all people a belief system.

There may be a belief that the empirical method is the method by which we find truth . More accurately if is about eliminating infinite error like believing in pink unicorns or gods when we have no evidence they exist

What they find are not beliefs they are "facts".
Assuming this method is best may be a belief but there is also a lot of evidence to support this belief.

Furthermore you can get them to change their mind by having better evidence and this is not possible with a believer in religion. They have decided IRRESPECTIVE of the evidence a scientist has decided ONLY because of the evidence. we are not tied to gravity by Faith in a diety for example but you will need to disprove it empirically

Butchers post above is guilty of the fallacy of equivocation re using FWIW

[img] [/img]

surfer - Member
Shouldnt there be quotes around some of that Woppit you little rascal!

Ah! Well spotted.

With apologies to the good Professor, then... 😉

grum - Member

Sort of, but with the key difference that science is all about questioning

Try telling that to a scientist trying to get a non-conventional set of experimental data past the much beloved "peer review system"

Litle side story about "scientific questioning"....

...a while back I was working with an unfashionable "New University" (ie ex polytech) trying to get a modest little paper published that went against the orthodoxy.
We were rejected by journal after journal withour even being sent for review....

...so, tagged a colleague from MRC Cambridge as an author and got him to submit on his organisation's headed paper - Bingo, accepted in the top ranked journal on "editors discretion"

Science as questioning truth and objective reality my ass 😆

No they don't say out loud they are superior but what you don't want to see is the assumption of superiority that underlies all abrahamic faiths. All that emphasis on a sinner repenting, the drive to convert, the assumption that morals come from god and without a belief in god one can have no morals, the belief they have a right and a duty to spread the word. Its all based on the assumption that to be a believer is to be a better person than an unbeliever.

Erm, not quite. Well, not really at all.

"Emphasis on sinner repenting" - one of the absolute core belief of Christianity is that there is NOTHING that WE can do to make ourselves better in the eyes of God. So no amount of repenting makes you a "superior" person

"Drive to convert" - I'll agree that most Christians would love to share their faith, but this is very rarely now done as a 'concersion' drive. The vast vast majority of churches will use things like Alpha courses etc to invite people to learn more about Christianty. If someone chooses to accept an invitation OF THEIR OWN FREE CHOICE, you can hardly say that is any different to inviting people to a lecture on Darwinism.

"only a believer can have morals" - your right in your first statement that most Christians would believe morals come from God, but it is absolutely incorrect that they think you can only be moral if you are believer. That is clearly evident in the world and really requires no further discussion!

Do some Christians believe they are 'superior' to others? Sadly, probably yes. Is it a basis for the entire faith as you keep claiming? Absolutely 100% not. I realise I'm a touch biased ere, but I honestly can't see how it would be possible to think that if one has done enough research to thoroughly dismiss the religion.

I was really trying not to bite ... but I've failed.

butcher
I do not think that word means what you believe it means.

No matter how much you believe it means that, it will not change the meaning of the word.

Absence of belief, is not belief.
Atheism, is not a religion
Failing to collect stamps, is not a hobby.
Baldness, is not a hairstyle.

It would be churlish to mention that the ease with which you change the meanings of words to suit your own arguments, and then imply that everyone who merely disagrees with your definition is some sort of fundamentalist grammatarian, is a perfect metaphor for what passes for reason in the rest of your befuddled brain.

Cougar - how many of the world's population would you estimate follow a religion? Of those, how many would you consider extreme/intolerant?

You're missing my point. I'm not talking about people's actions, I'm talking about religious teachings. The suggestion was that most religious texts promote a 'love all' philosophy, I was positing that perhaps that's not entirely accurate. Many religions are intolerant in nature; arguably, by design. If a core tenet of a faith isn't to encourage others to join you (or more insidiously, discourage them from not doing) then it has a lesser chance of survival. If a teenage Muslim girl decided that actually, she was going to denounce Islam and become a Roman Catholic, what do you reckon would be the reaction of her family and community?

The fact that, as you say, the vast majority of people are largely tolerant of others' beliefs and cultures is a credit to out modern societies; but it's happened despite religion, not because of it.

How many are co-existing with others of different/no-faiths?

You said it yourself. We co-exist, it's hardly peace and love and kittens. Come back to me when Mr Khan next door and I are exchanging Christmas cards and I'm popping round for Eid dinner. We're getting there but we're not yet the big happy melting pot that we'd like to think.

How many irreligious societies are capable of intolerance/violence/genocide etc?

You're perilously close to a straw man, there. Plenty are capable of it, a cause is a cause after all, one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. I'm struggling to think of anyone who's attempted genocide in the name of atheism though; generally, terrorism is fuelled by a belief system, and atheism is not a belief system, it's an absence of one (hence why I said earlier that this was an important distinction).

If someone started talking to me about pink unicorns as if it were really profoundly important to them, I wouldn't argue with them. However if they got angry with me for not believing, I would.

a thing of great beauty....

A white child with blonde hair and blue eyes. No wonder they thought he was the messiah, he wouldn't exactly have been inconspicuous in the middle of Israel.

No they don't say out loud they are superior but what you don't want to see is the assumption of superiority that underlies all abrahamic faiths

I'm aware of that, of course. But there's a big difference between the doctrine as 'spelled out' (which it really isn't) in the bible and the opinions and beliefs of the practitioners. The bible hasn't changed much in centuries, but Christianity has evolved beyond recognition in many areas.

A little influence for good when it suits them that you overstate does not alter the harm they have done

I really struggle to link atrocities commited in the name of religion with religion itself. I cannot see this as a valid leap.

Is football responsible for football hooliganism?

The fact that, as you say, the vast majority of people are largely tolerant of others' beliefs and cultures is a credit to out modern societies; but it's happened despite religion, not because of it

In general, yes, but I think that there's a strong argument that a lot of our tolerance and acceptance could derive (eventually) from the teachings of that bloke from Galilee, what's his name now?