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