[Closed] "I asked God to help me"

Anyone know the joke of the religious guy in a flood who turns away the lifeboat and the helicopter because he believes God will save him?

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

Condoms and aids. direct actions and influence peddling by the catholic church is responsible for millions of preventable deaths. Just one example of direct harm caused by mainstream tenets of faith

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?

...many witnesses have reported Hubbard making statements in their presence that starting a religion would be a good way to make money

.
There are many documents relating to the fact that the formation of Scientology was purely a scam to make money, and to have it classified as a religion as a tax scam.

There are many documents relating to the fact that the formation of Scientology was purely a scam to make money, and to have it classified as a religion as a tax scam.

But lots of people have sincere, deeply held belief in scientology. By suggesting its a scam, aren't you just being intolerant and needlessly offensive to Scientologists?

Not really.

There is documented proof that it is a scam.

I'm not "suggesting" that it is a scam. I'm just reporting that it has been already been proven that it is.

"Muamba thanks god for his recovery" shocker ......he's from war torn Africa and like many many other Africans he most probably has very strong religious beliefs so is it so unbelievable that he makes a statement thanking god.

Condoms and aids. direct actions and influence peddling by the catholic church is responsible for millions of preventable deaths. Just one example of direct harm caused by mainstream tenets of faith

I know. But the tenet isn't 'shag without condoms' it's 'don't shag unless you are married' which is a big difference.

Do you think it's only down to religious teachings? Or do you think that perhaps men don't like wearing johnnies and are choosing this particular doctrine as a convenient excuse? Seems like people are ignoring the 'no sex before marriage' thing cos it suits them.

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

Because they know full well that the most effective way of creating followers with unquestionable faith is to have as many as possible born unto believing parents and indoctrinated from an early age. What happens when a religion promotes the family unit and is against contraception and homosexuality? Oh look, huge families of ready-made disciples.

it is absolutely incorrect that they think you can only be moral if you are believer

Yet people have expressed this view on this very forum. We're not just making it up to be controversial.

Do some Christians believe they are 'superior' to others? Sadly, probably yes.

To be fair, you can cross out "Christians" and put "people" in that sentence.

Failing to collect stamps, is not a hobby.

Brilliant. I'm writing that down.

Anyone know the joke of the religious guy in a flood who turns away the lifeboat and the helicopter because he believes God will save him?

Page two of this very thread.

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/i-asked-god-to-help-me/page/2?replies=224#post-3714909

Anyone know the joke of the religious guy in a flood who turns away the lifeboat and the helicopter because he believes God will save him?

I think you will find that Cougar posted it a few pages ago

But the tenet isn't 'shag without condoms' it's 'don't shag unless you are making babies' which is a big difference.

Sure. One of them is a lot more likely to get obeyed than the other, for a start.

It's been proved, time and again, that "don't do it" simply doesn't work, and "if you're going to do it, be careful" is far more effective. Look at drug culture as an example. In the 80s, "just say no." Today, "talk to Frank."

For all that I think of organised religion, I honestly don't believe that that Catholic 'every sperm is sacred' mantra was ever intended to be applied to a populace in the grip of a mortal STI epidemic.

It goes something like

"Atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby"

Cant recall who said it originally, may have been Dan Dennet.

I'm not "suggesting" that it is a scam. I'm just reporting that it has been already been proven that it is.

Wow. Imagine that it's been created a couple of thousands of years ago, rather than sixty. We'd never have known, and might've ended up with billions of people being sucked in and blindly believing as fact something someone made up to control and exploit the masses. Wouldn't that be terrible? Thank god no-one did that, eh.

""Muamba thanks god for his recovery" shocker ......he's from war torn Africa and like many many other Africans he most probably has very strong religious beliefs so is it so unbelievable that he makes a statement thanking god."

Exactly what point are you trying to make here?

"religious person is religious" I think.

heres a link for you all that might be more suited to this topic:
http://www.humanism.org.uk/home
http://richarddawkinsfoundation.org/

Just a reminder, your on a MTB forum.

yes that right anyone who disagrees with god is almost certainly an ego manic

Not what I said, as you seem to be confusing Ego with Ego maniac. Read up on Ego psychology, unless those scientists are wrong as well....

As for the book, if you are that anti god its well worth giving it a read as I am 99.99% sure its not what you expect it to be..... and whilst I am pretty sure it won't change your belief, its an interesting read from the human development and history angle.

Cougar - Member
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,

Blimey Cougar, they were more rhetorical questions but chapeau for answering them!! But in the interest of debate, I am not sure that I am missing your point, since you add...

Many religions are intolerant in nature; arguably, by design

To re-quote you, I am not sure that is [b]"entirely accurate"[/b] but you are stressing it as an important point and that is where I think we disagree. My questions were merely suggesting that religion and tolerance are not exclusive in fact on the basis of those questions I would argue that they are more ([b]but far from 100%[/b]) inclusive.

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?

Again how much of that is due to religious teaching rather than cultural norms. Its not that black and white, surely?

Equally come back when you and Mr Khan are actually fighting (ok, bad example given your views on religion, but you get the point I hope!). For every religious conflict I am sure one can point to examples of religious harmony. Go through villages on the West Bank and then villages in Mauritius where there will be a mosque, temple and church next to each other and what do you conclude? Still black and white?

[JY - going back a page or so, does that 'falsify' Popper completely!!!! :wink:]

Anyway, basically the religious guy drowns.

When he meets God in heaven (he goes to heaven because he's been a good religious person) he asks God:

"Dude! We had a deal. You said you'd save me. What happened?"

God replies:

"Sheesh! I sent a lifeboat and a helicopter for you. What more do you want?"

Some "Religious Conflict" from today's Times:

"Moscow. [i]Thousands[/i] joined a day of prayer called by the Russian Orthodox Church yesterday to fend off what it said was an attack on it's authority. Leaders have been accused of over-reacting to a protest by [i]three[/i] women from the punk rock band "Pussy Power"...

😆 😆 😆

My questions were merely suggesting that religion and tolerance are not exclusive in fact on the basis of those questions I would argue that they are more (but far from 100%) inclusive.

I think the problem here is that it depends on the religion. Some genuinely do promote peace and tolerance even towards non-believers - Buddhism springs to mind - but conversely you've got things like Sharia where apostasy (trying to leave Islam) carries the death penalty.

Again how much of that is due to religious teaching rather than cultural norms.

In a heavily religious society, how do you differentiate?

Its not that black and white, surely?

I see what you did there. (-:

For every religious conflict I am sure one can point to examples of religious harmony.

Oh, sure, I don't disagree. Different belief systems (and absences thereof) can coexist, my point was simply that the idea that 'all religions promote love and tolerance' doesn't always appear to hold true in practice. People can be bigoted idiots with or without divine instruction.

I think you will find that Cougar posted it a few pages ago

You think I've actually read this thread?! I have work to do! 🙄

You think I've actually read this thread?! I have work to do!

Conversation is a two-way process.

And my version was funnier.

Absence of belief, is not belief

There is no absence of belief unless the thought has not been conceived to be believed. Everyone has belief. Even if you believe it to be false.

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.

I'm using a meaning which removes any religious pretext and treats everyone evenly, under one umbrella. As human beings.

This entire thread is made up of choice words. We have a group of atheists 'debating' with another group of athiests. It's not atheism that is the subject. It's the choice words and the use of them to belittle those that disagree.

There is no absence of belief unless the thought has not been conceived to be believed. Everyone has belief. Even if you believe it to be false.

Earlier I conceived the idea of pink unicorns in your skirting board. Do you now have a belief that there aren't pink unicorns? Do you now consider yourself aunicornist?

This is the sort of weaselly logic that theists like so much, because it means that we have to substantiate and add weight to their beliefs before disagreeing with them.

This is the sort of weaselly logic that theists like so much, because it means that we have to substantiate and add weight to their beliefs before disagreeing with them.

It becomes an intellectual debate which adds legitimacy, next thing you know univeristies will be offering Phd's. Oh hang on...

Well from this thread he seems to be gathering his sheep a little more closely to him! http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/another-cyclist-dead-another-ruling-of-accidental-death
Probably too busy watching the match.

Do you now have a belief that there aren't pink unicorns?

I believe that your notion of pink unicorns is false, yes 🙂

because it means that we have to substantiate and add weight to their beliefs before disagreeing with them

Not sure that we do, to be honest. It's not possible to argue with them, or they with us.

The reason being, it's fairly easy to punch holes in the idea of a controlling benevolent God, it's also fairly easy to punch holes in the absolutist atheist position.

So what's the point?

It's fun?

also fairly easy to punch holes in the absolutist atheist position

Go on, then. Haven't seen it yet, like...

See what I mean?

They are absolutely sure that your arguments don't hold water, you are absolutely sure that theirs don't. We're back to proving each others' position is false.

Stalemate.

Not really, no.

They are absolutely sure that your arguments don't hold water, you are absolutely sure that theirs don't. We're back to proving each others' position is false.

In this instance all you have to do is substantiate your claim.

fairly easy to punch holes in the absolutist atheist position

Mr Woppit - Member

also fairly easy to punch holes in the absolutist atheist position

Go on, then. Haven't seen it yet, like...

Go on, then. Haven't seen it yet, like...

I suspect we're back to disproving a negative. It's arguably not possible to be an atheist as you can't disprove god.

It's disingenuous though. I can't disprove my skirting board unicorns, but that's no reason to start giving credence to the belief that they might be there.

I know beyond reasonable doubt that there is neither miniature pink unicorns in my skirting boards nor a god in the sky. Neither require a belief system, and both will be happily revised on the discovery of any sort of evidence to the contrary.

on the discovery of any sort of evidence to the contrary.

Presumably, that's what molgrips means by

also fairly easy to punch holes in the absolutist atheist position

If it's so easy, how come nobody's managed it?

You say God doens't exist. I ask for proof. I have not yet seen any.

Saying 'I shouldn't have to' is not any kind of proof.

I can't disprove my skirting board unicorns, but that's no reason to start giving credence to the belief that they might be there

Why though? Based on your experience and observations, and your extrapolations with regards probability. Neither of which are categorical, are they?

Why not use a better analogy like, say.. UFOs?

If it's so easy, how come nobody's managed it?

A lot of theists feel they have. You just don't agree with them...

A lot of theists feel they have

No the believe they have, they haven't presented any proof though.

Saying 'I shouldn't have to' is not any kind of proof.

molgrips if you assert something then you have to show it proof the thing exist it is not an unreasonable question or starting point - see Higgs Boson for example.
FFS You cannot prove a negative that is why you need to prove the assertion or else you can just assert anything and assume it is true because no one can disprove it

I have a Unified theory of everything on my desktop ...what you want me to show it to you ...prove i have not got it on my desk

You are a physicist are you just bored today as I cannot believe you think like this?

And my version was funnier.

Ah! That's because I didn't actually [i]tell[/i] mine. 😉

You proposed a god. I ask for evidence. You can't give any, and try to pass responsibility to me to assume the burden of proof about your own proposition.

Sad. Useless. Defeated. Pathetic.

Hope that's not too "strident"...

You proposed a god. I ask for evidence. You can't give any, and try to pass responsibility to me to assume the burden of proof about your own proposition.

Sad. Useless. Defeated. Pathetic.

Hope that's not too "strident"...

If you can explain Creation without the notion of a God I would love to hear about it. As in, how does something come from nothing?

butcher ..

As i was saying, absence of belief is not belief.
It is disbelief.

The fact that I don't accept something that you do (based on what I consider to be a lack of evidence) does not imply that I therefore "believe" the opposite or indeed that I "beleive" anything at all.

Your choice of the word belief because it "treats everyone evenly, under one umbrella. As human beings." Is exactly what I'm arguing against.

Your aim in defining belief as you do, seems to be to imply that:
I have a belief and someone else has a belief, therefore we have the same thing.

That is not the case. I do not "believe" in facts proved by science. (nor do I have "faith" in them). I am convinced by the evidence.

I can use those words loosely in that context (and many people do .. like you), but I object to it because "belief" and "faith" are bad words to use for something for which you have evidence.

how does something come from nothing?

We don't know. That isn't the same as: "We don't know, so it must have been a god."

Too easy. You're quite new to this stuff, aren't you?

molgrips if you assert something then you have to show it proof the thing exist it is not an unreasonable question or starting point

In science yes, but this isn't science is it?

I'm a scientist, but I understand that that is only one possible way of looking at the world, from a human point of view.

Scientific theories are great for explaining the mechanics of the world, but there's a lot they don't explain.

I am trying to show that for many human beings there is much more to existence than simply proof and evidence. This is not new agey spiritual waffle, it's simply something I have learned over the years.

To re-iterate, I don't believe in God nor do I believe in any kind of higher power or meaning. But such things are part of the wide spectrum of humanity.