Forum menu
religion is an irrational (in the strictest, non offensive sense) belief
To be fair I think shagging another bloke is irrational. I wouldn't do it. No offence intended.
How many quotes do you want
None.
Quotes mean nothing without context. By which I mean the interpretation provided by centuries of study.
The Bible is not the whole of Christianity. You are lamentably poor at this...
😆 Well I suppose that would very much depend on what you were hoping to achieve by it!To be fair I think shagging another bloke is irrational.
I guess some people choose to be religious. For others, they don't have the choice
This is true - I could be killed for being an atheist in a number of countries. But someone brought up in, say, Saudi Arabia could move to the UK and become atheist. They couldn't change their sexual orientation. The lack of choice is an external construct imposed by religious authorities, not something intrinsic to that person.
5.
For those that get offeneded by non beleivers criticisms of their religion, does that not mean you lack faith?For if your faith is true then it doesn't matter what anyone says you will ascend to heaven and they will face purgatory or hell so there is no reason for taking offence whatsoever, you may as be offended by the sound of a dog yapping for all the difference it will make your afterlife. The fact you feel offence means you are either unsure of your belief and you need the reassurance of all around you to confirm your lifestyle bias, or you are a zealot.
To be fair though, it's kind of a fact that Christianity kinda, you know, [u]wouldn't exist[/u] without the bible. And the years of 'study' that you allude to really just boil down to layer upon layer of opinion on top of a foundation of sand. There can be no logical outcome when the very basis is a story without evidence.The Bible is not the whole of Christianity. You are lamentably poor at this...
4. With egg fried rice.
To be fair though, it's kind of a fact that Christianity kinda, you know, wouldn't exist without the bible.
Disagree. I think it did, at first, didn't it? It's not as if someone sat down and wrote it then circulated it attracting believers? Or are you confusing it with the Book of Mormon...?
4, my MIL is a Jehova's Witness, lovely woman.
Unless we're talking about religious schools, when I'm a 5. I even start swearing about it.
5.
I guess some people choose to be religious. For others, they don't have the choice
I see both your points, but respectfully disagree. Religious belief is forced upon many people in this world, and it's entirely understandable for the people in these situations to go along with it, and just 'believe'. However, history is littered with the bodies of people who [i]chose[/i] not to conform to the status quo; to their great detriment most often. So the choice IS there, as unpalatable as it may be.This is true...
5.
[i]
What follows is an opinion. It's not aimed at anyone in particular or intended to be offensive but I'm sure it will be taken that way by some.[/i]
I find the concept of religion utterly ludicrous, and I can't comprehend that any intelligent adult would entertain what seems so obvious to me to be rubbish. I'm also of the opinion that religion is far more of a force for bad than good in the world, regardless of whether it's "true" or not. Although it's probably fair to say that in the absence of religion humanity would just have figured out some other way to justify being shits to each other.
I fully support people's right to a religion, you can believe what you want. But don't ask me to respect your beliefs, because I think they're nonsense. Just because you think it's important it doesn't mean it should be elevated to some special status ahead of what other people believe in. I can respect a person but not a belief.
Putting religion in the same category as being being gay or black is patently ridiculous
Yet we have discrimination laws in this country that pretty much do that.
I am also pretty sure that the question as to whether one is born gay is not settled, there are some studies that suggest there may be a gay gene but they are not conclusive. The good thing is that whether it is the case or not, you are protected by the law.
To be fair though, it's kind of a fact that Christianity kinda, you know, wouldn't exist without the bible.
Not true. The bible as we know it was not compiled until the fourth century. Apostolic tradition was the primary authority for the first 300 years.
[b]I can't comprehend[/b] that any intelligent adult would entertain what seems so obvious to me to be rubbish
Their failing or yours?
Semantics. I also can't comprehend why some people like to have sex with horses. Is that their failing or mine? Or should I just respect their beliefs...
This is fun, but I get the sense that my proposed 'number option system' has failed. 😛
yep. It lasted a good few pages though so well done. It's so difficult not to get drawn in
What else would you expect in a country that still has automatic places for clerics in government.Yet we have discrimination laws in this country that pretty much do that.
Seriously though; if you think about it, that's more to do with historic inertia and the difficulty in arguing against a law that protects any group of people from abuse, than any kind of logic whatsoever. I'd rather they replaced 'religious' with ginger' in that specific piece of legistlation; at least that would be protecting people who had no choice in their genetics.
Semantics
Hardly. The rhetorical form 'I can't understand why anyone would do X' is another way of saying 'X is stupid'. Where as the actual enquiring version is a genuine question and a wish to learn.
I also can't comprehend why some people like to have sex with [s]horses[/s] members of their own sex. Is that their failing or mine? Or should I just respect their beliefs
Yes.
In other words, don't judge what you don't understand.
This is fun, but I get the sense that my proposed 'number option system' has failed.
You've still got time to compile the results before they delete the thread. Not much, though.
How many quotes do you want
None.
They do say ignorance is bliss dont they
Quotes mean nothing without context.
yes without the context of its an abomination kill them its quite hard to say probably means respect gay people equally as you would anyone else...its so hard to tell as , lets be honest , its a pretty ambiguous quote.
i am genuinely just laughing at you saying that. Its not even clutching at straws its just daft 😆
As i said you do a terrible terrible job on these threads as you just dont understand the subject you just wish we were all nicer - just say that please.
Its millennia and dont forget the two minutes by you - remind us of your credentials again wont you - it must have come up a lot in your physics degree and IT career 😉By which I mean the interpretation provided by centuries of study.
Still you lecture us on the good book eh
Priceless.
He who knows not and knows not that he knows not, is a fool—shun him!
Seriously though; if you think about it, that's more to do with historic inertia and the difficulty in arguing against a law that protects any group of people from abuse, than any kind of logic whatsoever.
Not at all, why would a country with an established church wish to protect other religions? We do though.
Actually there should be a (lost count) 9.
9. Don't be a dick
The rhetorical form 'I can't understand why anyone would do X' is another way of saying 'X is stupid
No, it really isn't. I can not understand something, nucleur physics for example, without thinking it's stupid. I don't think nucleur physics is stupid but I'm not about to try and build a reactor.
"Just because" and "you wouldn't understand" don't wash with me. Like I said, believe what you like but religious beliefs shouldn't get any kind of special treatment over other irrational beliefs. I knew someone once who thought that all leather was made from monkeys hands and faces. Was I wrong to take the piss out of her or should I have respected what she "knew" to be true?
Sway between 4 and 5.
Pantheistic humanist, so I guess 4.
So as not to look complete and utter hypocrites? Seriously; that's a side effect of having a working justice system, surely. [s]I'm sure[/s] I KNOW there are MANY Christian types who would [i]really rather not[/i] afford Islam (for example) the same protections afforded to CofE, but they have to be, because, equality. Infact, I'm comfortable with saying that it's a crying shame that we have religiously funded Catholic schools in this country, [i]because[/i] it means any nutter can open a school and base it on religious grounds. And there's been some pretty dodgy religious schools around my neck of the woods recently. Couldn't have happened if this country had the balls to kick all religion out of schools.Not at all, why would a country with an established church wish to protect other religions? We do though.
The rhetorical form 'I can't understand why anyone would do X' is another way of saying 'X is stupid
No, it really isn't. I can not understand something, nucleur physics for example, without thinking it's stupid. I don't think nucleur physics is stupid but I'm not about to try and build a reactor.
The RHETORICAL form.
You wouldn't use that when talking about nuclear physics. You're telling me you're honestly unaware that there are two ways to say 'I have no idea why...' that mean two different things?
Still you lecture us on the good book eh
Ah no, no I'm not.
I am, however simply telling us to be nice to each other. That is exactly what I am doing.
You're just assuming he meant the rhetorical form, though. Leaping to take offence where there wasn't any, perhaps?
You're just assuming he meant the rhetorical form
No, I was pointing out the difference. You're assuming *I* was using the rhetorical form in my own post 🙂
Touché 🙂
My opinion, remember? You can talk about the rhetorical form if you like. I'm talking about what I wrote and what I meant, which was literally that I can't understand why someone who has been faced with the same reality I have can come to believe there is a god. I can see why people might want to believe it, but not why that desire can cause them to abandon rational thought.
But you make a good point in that in my head, I was saying that in a very reasonable thought provoking tone of voice with associated body language...
I can see why people might want to believe it, but not why that desire can cause them to abandon rational thought.
Do you want to know why? Did you ask them?
Seriously; that's a side effect of having a working justice system
It is in an Act of Parliament, that is the legislature not the justice system, but the enshrinement of these rights in legislation is a relatively modern concept so can hardly be described as historical inertia.
I don't really care whether something is a choice or genetic, historical or whatever, as I have no need to offend people because of their race, sexuality or religion. It is only people who sadly have such a need that require specious arguments to give them covering fire.
The people I don't understand (in the non rhetorical meaning of the phrase) are religious scientists. Scientists know about the scientific method, theories, standards of proof, double-blind trials etc. I don't understand how someone can be rigorously scientific in one area, then throw that away when it comes to religion.
I've tried to explain how that might work before, you (collectively) have not really got my point 🙂
Is this a "you just don't really understand it" thing?
But you're perfectly happy to offend people not in those 'protected' groups? Because the drawing of comparisons between genetics and belief offends me, (in a purely academic manner). It is comparing apples and oranges, regardless of legistlation.as I have no need to offend people because of their race, sexuality or religion.
The historical inertia that I refer to is the respect afforded to the religious institutions, just because we always have done, rather than because of any actual logic. See; tax breaks, special dispensations in law, etc.
Disagreement is a fundamental part of academic life, if you find that offensive, I suggest you will be disappointed and upset if you follow such a path.
I don't understand how someone can be rigorously scientific in one area, then throw that away when it comes to religion.
Different epistemological categories entirely.
Well, science creates stuff - microchips and vaccines and bridges and space ships - and explains reality. Religion doesn't do any of that. So yes, they are different categories.
But I don't understand how people can have such compartmentalised minds. It's illogical.
😆 Yes, and so is EVIDENCE. That's what's missing from your aforementioned comparison. 'That it is legislated thus' is just a poor appeal to authority. Legislation has a long history of being found somewhat lacking.Disagreement is a fundamental part of academic life, if you find that offensive
The people I don't understand (in the non rhetorical meaning of the phrase) are religious scientists. Scientists know about the scientific method, theories, standards of proof, double-blind trials etc. I don't understand how someone can be rigorously scientific in one area, then throw that away when it comes to religion.
I think they apply the same reasoning/logic/whatever to religion as they do to science. Apologetics is the term. C.S.Lewis certainly wrote a book about it, I'm sure others have.
I struggle to think of a better source of authority than legislation.
Mefty, click [url= https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority ]here.[/url]
I think you better reread the thread before you embarrass yourself further.
[quote=mefty ]I struggle to think of a better source of authority than legislation.
just because the law says something does not mean its true
I think they apply the same reasoning/logic/whatever to religion as they do to science
Nowhere in science does it require faith in that known but not proven - molly will get the biblical reference even if the rest of you dont 😉
just because the law says something does not mean its true
It does when you say the law says that thing!
The only thing that I'm embarrassed about is getting into a 'but someone on the internet is wrong' type exchange (someone please post the gif). I should know when to walk away.
So;
You suggested that STW has double standards because a (not very) offensive thing was said about religion.
I said; it's a valid opinion, and not offensive because it's a thread about opinions on religion.
You said but what about the gays and the blacks?
I said; not the same thing; ones a choice, the others are characteristics.
You said; they are the same because the law says so.
I said; the law has said a lot of things, doesn't make it always right.
You said; but, the law...
I said tell that to Rosa Parks.
You said; you're embarrassing yourself.
I agreed; but not for the reason that you insinuate.
I'm paraphrasing, obviously. (And I'm out, for tonight at least. Sweet dreams)
My argument is that there is a double standard because offensive remarks made against religion are tolerated, whereas equivalent remarks against other protected groups aren't. To be fair, mods have admitted this in the past because they rely on the argument, based on unsettled science, that the other areas are genetic.
Just popped in to make sure everyone is still arguing the toss. Good! Well done! Although the shed analogy from my quick skim read did make me chuckle 😀
As you were...
molgrips - MemberSaxonRider, there's a research paper in here somewhere. STW is clearly some demographic that is more hostile to religion
Astute as always Grips.
To be fair, mods have admitted this in the past because they rely on the argument, based on unsettled science, that the other areas are genetic.
Just to stir it up, but isn't there a reasonable theory that there's a God Gene, which makes humans predisposed to religion? the idea was that it did some useful things in prehistory - helping tribe cohesion, setting up a pecking order, stuff like that.
In what sense was gullibility genetically useful?
That is how you stir it up Ben 😉
I dont think there is a gene personally
Oh no, no I'm not.
You really were telling us what the bible meant [ actually you were getting confused about what it actually did say then claiming there was a context for they are an abomination put them to death which would somehow change this "unclear message"] despite your lack of knowledge
Nah you are telling us to be nice to them whilst ignoring how "un nice" they are to homosexuals, sinners, heathens- remember when denying god was actually a crime? ...unless you want to say stoning folk and telling the rest they will burn in the eternity of hell, for not doing what you think they should, is actually a "nice " message. Do you want to do that or do you want to claim that is not really what they say to once more demonstrate your grasp of the subject?I am, however simply telling us to be nice to each other. That is exactly what I am doing.
@ben never heard that but we are social beings and religion is primarily about social cohesion, its abused by people hungry for power to set religions against each other but that's another trait of human nature.
Oooft! This went downhill rapidly since I was here last.
You all know that belief in religion is a choice, right?
An expression of free will.
You can choose to believe or not believe in whatever you want. Makes no difference to me.
You can also choose NOT to be a dick about it.
Please. Choose wisely
[img] 
[/img]
Why do you assume that the other end of the scale from "practicing religious" is "anti religious"7
Would you assume that someone who does not collect stamps is "anti" stamp collecting?
Is that not a strange assumption to make?
Pigeon holing people by their attitude to your hobby and assuming that non participation implies opposition?
The fact that you see the world and others in that way probably says something about the religious mind, but I'm not a psychologist (and therefore probably an anti-psychologist?) so I can't be arsed to imagine what that might be.
Did anyone actually tally up the poll?
VMAT2 - the "god" gene.
It's a neuro-transmitter. It is understood that "spirituality" is measurable, and the tendency is heritable, and partly the heritability is attributed to VWAT2. the gene acts on hormone levels, and spiritual people are "generally" optimistic, perhaps a survival trait...
Could be bollocks though, it is after all, just a pump...
Jam there was an article about religion in New Scientist that argued Religion as in organised religion confirs an evolutionary advantage at the point where humans begin to settle in cities ie the start if settled farming and organised warfare . it gives a larger scale bond and cohesion over the tribal extended family bonds of the past , intestingly it also bonds to and cements the power structures that keep the masses in their place that enables nobility and royalty to enjoy their priveledge .
religion was probably almost inevitable really. We're some of the only creatures that have an understanding of symbolic language (some chimps and bonobos exhibit this as well in the wild), and huge brains that are complex enough for self awareness.
Once you've got language you've got myths and stories, group living develops cultural and behavioural norms, throw in vulnerability and fear of outsiders and pack mentality...
"Man" is a social species. We join together in groups. We also seem to have enquiring minds and seek to find meaning and knowledge. Religion seeks to bind/manage societies, provide meaning and supply answers to "the big questions".
It has been very successful at the binding/managing (largely by the use of fear) but limited in supplying answers. If we are really lucky it will become an historical irrelevance before Homo Sapiens succeed in destroying themselves. Somehow I doubt it.
perchypanther - Member
"Hole"?
Void....empty space...NOT orifice
No. You've imagined there's a "hole". That's just a thought you had, not an actual "hole" as in "hole in the ground".
Just imagine there isn't a "hole". Voila. Nowt to do with a god.
4.5
Oh wait, are we still doing numbers?
3
Just imagine there isn't a "hole".
Tried that. For 26 years. Didn't work.
Filled the hole in instead. Job jobbed.
So you filled an imaginary hole with something that doesn't exist.
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
Nah you are telling us to be nice to them whilst ignoring how "un nice" they are to homosexuals, sinners, heathens
Umm...
Is there any evidence that Vickypea, SaxonRider, Perchypanther and the other 1s have been nasty to any of those groups?
So you filled an imaginary hole with something that doesn't exist.
Kinda, I believed there to be a hole and chose to fill it with something I believe does exist.
Belief is funny like that.
Difference is that I don't ever try to tell anyone else that what I believe is right and what they believe is wrong.
I choose my own path and try not to be a dick about it.
Walk away mol - these threads only ever go one way. 😉
"Not only is the universe queerer than we suppose, it's queerer than we CAN suppose": JBS Haldane.
gods, like everything else we come up with, is a product of the activity inside the human brain. Nothing more. It isn't a description of an observable phenomenon and all the "proofs" so far have turned out to be misinterpretations of actual phenomena (in the case of weeping statues, "miracles", events described in ancient texts and the like) leaving the atheist responding with - O.K. So you say. Where's the evidence?
To which comes back the empty claim "There's this hole..."...
Back to the Nos:
Happy and not bothered to admit I'm a 1.
Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not.
Is it potatoes and corn? Do I win five shekels?
Blind people and deaf people (excepting those are blind and deaf due to the amputation os the pertinent organs)?
Do I win five shekels?
and a goat, don't forget the goat...
It's men and women that are the problem, not a belief in God. If everyone did it God's way, then there wouldn't be a problem. 🙂
Please define 1: "The problem" and 2: "God's way" ( of which there seem to be many versions, all competing with each other...)
In fairness, it's the interpretation of what 'God's way' actually is that's a large part of the problem, PP 🙂
Agreed molgrips
But now you're asking me questions Mr Woppit, I'd love to answer on a forum but these things are better dealt with on a one-to-one basis.
If somebody really wanted to know . . .