[Closed] I suppose it'll be the atheists next, then...

What is the pay like and what do I have to do?

If i have to defend you from claims of being rude about believers then I think I may be your man as I can relentlessly argue anything to death and never give up 😉

You seem to have mellowed but you did do it - as did i
Its not so much what we say but how we said it

I'm not sure you post hate, I think you think all religious people are stupid and post as much.

You think I think, eh? Show me. Oh, wait - you're too busy...

Yep, I am. And I don't want to get involved with that.

Are you denying that you think religious people are stupid?

Wrong. Atheists BELEIVE there is no god.

Nonsense, you're just projecting onto others.

Everytime I read stuff like that, I breathe a sigh of relief that I live in England. Being told that your responsible for it raining by some dried up old coffin dodger hardly compares to some of the ****ing cruelty that goes on

Wrong. Atheists BELEIVE there is no god.
Nonsense, you're just projecting onto others.

Seriously?

Seriously?

Yep, I did not realise that you either had to believe or not believe?

Everything is a belief. Some things just have more proof than others.

The existence of God is unknowable - impossible to deny with any certainty. So whatever position you take is a belief. I don't believe the evidence is sufficient to convince me of the existence of God, so I believe that He does not exist. That makes me an atheist.

For reference:

be·lieve [bih-leev]
verb (used without object), be·lieved, be·liev·ing.
1.
to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so: Only if one believes in something can one act purposefully.
verb (used with object), be·lieved, be·liev·ing.
2.
to have confidence or faith in the truth of (a positive assertion, story, etc.); give credence to.
3.
to have confidence in the assertions of (a person).
4.
to have a conviction that (a person or thing) is, has been, or will be engaged in a given action or involved in a given situation: The fugitive is believed to be headed for the Mexican border.
5.
to suppose or assume; understand (usually followed by a noun clause): I believe that he has left town.

molgrips - the absence of belief is not the same as belief.

I really can't believe you're trying to argue this AGAIN.

You're getting belief mixed up with faith. I can't believe you're going on about this AGAIN.

I believe my wife took my kid to school and did not leave her at the park on her own.

Answer these two questions:

1) Do you believe there is a god?

2) Do you believe there is no god?

Fair enough, I tend not to use the term "atheist" as to me that defines me as not being religious.

If I have to fill out a form and there is a question about religion and none of the options are "None" then I leave it blank.

Fair enough, I tend not to use the term "atheist" as to me that defines me as not being religious.

Ok then you are agnostic or areligious. Atheism means a specific belief that there is no god.

Oh.. hehe.. the dictionary cops out:

a·the·ism [ey-thee-iz-uhm]
noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

the absence of belief is not the same as belief.

That's what I was trying to express.

Ok then you are agnostic or areligious. Atheism means a specific belief that there is no god

FFS, it's "nothing".

No molgrips I'm not. 🙄

I think there is almost certainly no god, based on available evidence.

That is in no way equivalent to believing there is a god however many times you say it.

Wiki too:

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.

So we're both right.

I'm with molgrips on this one.

As we do not know everything about the Universe, we don't even know what we don't know, then it is impossible to state that there is no God with 100% certainly. Therefore it is a "belief".

1.
to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so:

Seems quite straightforward.

Answer these two questions:
1) Do you believe there is a god?
2) Do you believe there is no god?

1) I think it's very unlikely
2) I think it's very unlikely

If you really can see how that's different to religious belief then in afraid I can't help you - but it's a failure to grasp basic logic on your part.

I think there is almost certainly no god, based on available evidence.

That is in no way equivalent to believing there is a god however many times you say it.

I'm not sure what you mean there. I don't think you believe in God, I think you believe there is NO God.

1) I think it's very unlikely
2) I think it's very unlikely

Those aren't answering the questions. They are yes or no questions.

If you really can see how that's different to religious belief

FFS. It's different to RELIGIOUS belief, but it's not different to BELIEF.

You are conflating the two.

Those aren't answering the questions. They are yes or no questions.

FFS it's precisely answering the question. I'm sorry that doesn't fit with the spurious point you're trying to make. 🙄

The absence of belief is not belief. This is basic logic I'm afraid.

I suppose it'll be the atheists next, then...

Yup, then anyone else they dislike or can demonise.

For the record, I'm speaking as a Humanist who does not like humans.

FFS it's precisely answering the question. I'm sorry that doesn't fit with the spurious point you're trying to make.

No it's not. I asked if you believe there is no god. I'd answer yes. Why can't you answer it?

The absence of belief is not belief. This is basic logic I'm afraid.

So you don't know if there's a god, then?

No it's not. I asked if you believe there is no god. I'd answer yes. Why can't you answer it?

Ok, if you can't cope with a nuanced view, my answer would have to be no, I don't believe there is no god.

I think it's very unlikely there is a god, unless someone shows me some evidence that suggests otherwise. If you really can't see the distinction between that and 'believing there is no god' (using the word believe to make spurious parallels) then you're either a bit thick or being deliberately obtuse, or pretending that you can't see the distinction to try and win an argument.

So you don't know if there's a god, then?

No I don't, but I think it's extremely unlikely.

mol, ask yourself the difference between belief and thought. I don't believe anything. I tend to think things. Thoughts are usually based on something, and tend towards validity the more evidence underpins them. Though quantity is not the only signifier.

molgrips - Member

I said that atheists BELIEVE that there is no god. Which is true, that's what defines atheism.

Oh not this again. The reason people think "atheists believe there is no god" is because the language for this and the modern definitions are theist, and therefore approach everything from the point of view of faith and belief. As if there's a god shaped hole in the brain that needs to be filled with [i]something[/i]. Atheist actually means "without god".

Atheism isn't belief, it's the lack of belief. In the same way that an empty bucket isn't full of awater. The default state is absence- if you add something to it then you have a belief, if you don't then you still have nothing.

(if you believe the default state is belief, then of course you frame everything in terms of belief)

There are those who do fervently believe there is no god, evangelical disbelievers. Disbeliever's a good word, not the same as unbeliever, that catches the distinction. Atheist and antitheist would do the same.

The only thing that confuses it is that there's even a word for it. We don't need a word for an absence, just a "none of the above" tickbox. We are (mostly) cyclists. Other people aren't acyclists, who own notbikes to fill their bicycle shaped hole. They're just people who don't do that thing you do.

Everyone else needs a word for the thing they do.

Exactly NW - well put.

molgrips try logically rebutting NW's argument - you can't.

Anyway, to drag us back onto the topic of Christianity/religion/governtment/homsexuality -

I don’t believe that Christianity in and of itself can be used to justify homophobia. However, it is clear to me that ignorance of what the Bible actually says, and the context in which it says it, lead to all kinds of phobias and ‘isms’ that were never intended.

The four Gospels and the book of Acts make no mention of homosexuality; given that these five books are the only ones in the Bible that give a ‘first hand’ narrative of Jesus’ and the early church’s teaching and activities, wouldn’t they deal with homosexuality if it was an issue for God? It frustrates the heck out of me that Christians get uptight about an issue that isn’t even mentioned by Jesus, and yet completely fail to get uptight about things he bangs on and on about, such as respect, tolerance, equality, justice, poverty, suffering, death etc etc.

Most of the references to homosexuality in the rest of the Bible are set in the context of religious cults. What the Bible condemns is straight people going to pagan temples and having sex with prostitutes. We’re not even certain of some of the words used in the New Testament that are translated as ‘homosexual’. One of the words literally means ‘man-beds’, which could mean ‘a man who beds other men’, or it could equally mean ‘a promiscuous man’. The other main word literally means ‘soft’, it could refer to effeminate men, or it could refer to a person who is morally weak.

Plucking sentences out of their Biblical context in order to justify cultural and anthropological responses to homosexuality and to oppress people groups is an abuse of scripture.

That being said, we must realise that here in the UK we are at the forefront of Western liberal thinking, more forward looking than most of Europe and the USA even. Remember a few years ago when the French government debated homosexuality? There were riots on the streets. Over here a few people wrote letters or signed petitions, but among the general population changes to British law have been welcomed.

Remember also that homosexuality was only decriminalised in England & Wales in 1967, Scotland in 1980 and N. Ireland in 1982. The ban on homosexuality in the British Forces was only lifted in 2000. The aversion to homosexuality, much like racism, can be explained as an anthropological/evolutionary response. But that doesn’t mean that homophobia is acceptable; we are not animals controlled by our instincts, we have intellect and imagination and can use those to overcome our instinctive responses.

No one could go through a mainstream Bible college in this country today without questioning 19th/20th Century Christian attitudes to sexuality. But whilst the UK is charging headlong into post-modernity (perhaps even post-post-modernity!) much of the rest of the world, especially religious people, is stuck in modernity. In modernity, rules and regulations and oppression of dissent is good, and there can be one single moral ‘right’, with no tolerance or respect for other people’s views and experience. Whereas in post-modernity dissent and individualism is tolerated and respected, and ‘your opinion’ is just as valid and relevant as ‘my opinion’.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that many Christians fall into the trap of reading their cultural expectations into the Bible, rather than allowing it to speak into their culture. An individual’s sexuality really has nothing to do with anyone else, and certainly nothing to do with government. Sadly though it will be a long time before much of the world arrives at the point of tolerance and respect that the UK has. Perhaps I should stick all the above in an email to the Catholic Bishop of Nigeria, do you think he’d listen?

I've not read all of that; once Woppit and Molgrips starts throwing dictionary definitions and arguing about semantics I start to lose focus.

A lot of the discussion of atheism is based on the view of atheists as being Christopher Hitchins and Richard Dawkins. In fact, we've moved on from their, necessary, contributions and there is some really interesting discussion of this on the Humanists' website.

I tend to agree with Alom Shaha on a lot of points and his article [url= http://rationalist.org.uk/articles/4516/defining-yourself-by-what-you-dont-believe-seems-pointless ]Defining yourself by what you don't believe seems pointless[/url] is a good starting point, as are the other articles in the series. I like this quote:

I have joked in more than one of my public talks that I am far more likely to be friends with someone who believes in God than I am with someone who votes Tory. But the joke is grounded in a truth: there are more important things to consider than whether or not someone has religious faith when choosing not just friends but allies in the battles we face to make the world a better place.

I'm [i]married[/i] to someone who believes in God...

Thanks for explaining the lack of something not being the opposite, however of course I fully understand this.

But you miss my point, which is that I don't agree with this statement:

Atheism isn't belief, it's the lack of belief.

I am arguing that Atheism IS in fact the belief in the NON-existence of God. However having looked it up it seems that both of our definitions are acceptable.

So there's no argument.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that many Christians fall into the trap of reading their cultural expectations into the Bible, rather than allowing it to speak into their culture.

Absolutely. An excellent post kja78, thanks. You make a similar point to one that I've made in the past which is that people act as societies, and whatever their religion might be is just a veneer; it gets used as an excuse. Most religions are therefore not actually resposible for many of the bad things that people do.

So there's no argument.

This is STW and this is a religion there. There [i]is[/i] an argument.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that many Christians fall into the trap of reading their cultural expectations into the Bible, rather than allowing it to speak into their culture.

Hence why they allow divorcees to remarry.

...and wear garments made of 2 different materials.

[img] [/img]

But you miss my point, which is that I don't agree with this statement:

No we understand your point, it's just that it's wrong.

No it's not.

Mike and NW, do you actually know what the Bible says about those issues and the context in which it says it, or are you just quoting someone else's ignorance?

Plucking sentences out of their Biblical context in order to justify cultural and anthropological responses to homosexuality and to oppress people groups is an abuse of scripture.

Mike and NW, do you actually know what the Bible says about those issues and the context in which it says it, or are you just quoting someone else's ignorance?

I know what Jesus specifically says about divorce, yes.

Yes, JY I am!

Really Mike? Jesus says that in cases where one partner has committed sexual immorality the other is not committing adultery if they get remarried - Matthew 19:9. Additionally when he meets the woman at the well, who has been married 5 times and is currently living with a man she is not married to, he says nothing at all to condemn her, instead he has a spiritual conversation with her - John 4.

Jesus says

Nope.

Jesus [s]says[/s] saves

You've no idea what Jesus said Woppit 🙂

Kja, interesting posts. Pace yourself though.....

He didn't say "Jesus said". Pay attention.