[Closed] Why are you atheists so angry?

mcboo- doesn't that just make Hawkins agnostic verging on atheist?

To try and hold the catholic church responsible for that is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

Why is unprotected sex so prevalent in SA, do we actually know?

(I could hazard a guess, and it's nothing to do with religion)

I've read the God Delusion and like it very much, thank you 😀

Just because I'm an atheist doest it mean I have to believe everything Dawkins writes?

I'm perfectly delighted to use my own mind to decide what I believe, thank YOU very much.

Surely blind belief and adherence to the subjective writings of others exactly the type of thing that we accuse religionists of?

I might abandon the term atheist and start calling myself a rationalist instead.
Pardon me if I disagree with Spinoza on a few minor points.

If that's ok with you.

The whole argument is inherently contradictory. Apparently everyone in SA is so devoutly Catholic that they adhere religiously to the churches views on contraception, yet choose to flagrantly disregard its teachings on shagging mucky hookers.

Does not compute, I'm afraid

(I could hazard a guess, and it's nothing to do with religion)

It is to do with poor sex education which is heavily influenced by Religeon. There may be cultural issues as well but its quite obvious that if the catholic church promoted protected safe sex the transfer of HIV and other STD's would be much reduced.

And lets drop the hooker argument is bollox (unless were also saying no to sex outside of wedlock ...which even then doesn't hold water). People may have many sexual partnerss throughout their life without ever being unfaithful.

There is nothing wrong with this - unless your a looney religeous nutter

30 seconds' googling would lead me to believe that the primary cause of the HIV epidemic in SA is nothing to do with religion, but rather entirely down to ignorance.

Random quote,

accurate knowledge about HIV and AIDS is poor. Of particular worry is the lack of knowledge regarding how to prevent sexual transmission of HIV. Across all age groups and sexes less than half of all people surveyed knew of both the preventive effect of condoms and that having fewer sexual partners could reduce the risk of becoming infected.

They're not avoiding condoms because of Catholicism, they're avoiding condoms because they don't know any better.

of course the cc or the pope isn't to blame for aids, but they could react to it with a bit more common sense. if i was the member of a group that supposedly had my best interests at heart, i'd like the leader to be a bit more pragmatic.

It is to do with poor sex education which is heavily influenced by Religeon

I'm not seeing that link. Sex education in schools is done outside of school hours, which means they're on the back foot to start with, and there's a shortage of trained teachers to provide it.

There's some interesting reading [url= http://www.avert.org/aidssouthafrica.htm#contentTable1 ]here[/url].

They're not avoiding condoms because of Catholicism, they're avoiding condoms because they don't know any better.

Led from the top:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4879822.stm

Zuma showered to avoid HIV

Mr Woppit - Member
I've managed to move from anger to a sort of pitying, derisory contempt...

Why? Why not just get on with your own life, and stop worrying about what other people do?

Or do you genuinely need to have something in your life to make you feel superior to others? Cos let's face it, that's what it's about really, in't it? An insecure person with feelings of inadequacy needs to put others down in order to feel better about themselves.

Many atheists just come across like this to me:

[i]'There's is no God. Do you hear me? There is no God! NO GOD I TELL YOU! LISTEN TO ME I NEED ATTENTION! Please listen to me....'[/i]

Why not take up a constructive hobby instead of getting all worked up? This could help you feel better about yourself, help you gain a sense of self-worth, that there is in fact value in your own existence.

Lots of traditional crafts are sadly dying out. Why not take up something that's not poppluar these days, keep the old crafts alive?

Ooh, I dunno; something like stained glass window making or stone carving or something?

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Just a couple of examples. You could do your own designs of course.

I'm an athiest, but my anger is just coincidental.

I think it is to do with being a 40 something male.

Tried to watch the video but got too bored at 1.15

"the atheist movement"
"the atheist community"

Errr. What?

I don't believe in god and manage to do it without 'moving' in a 'community'. And I'm not angry. Does she mean there is a club I could join?

... and there's Fred with his usual list of assumptions and pretty pictures.

My comment was an opinion. It doesn't stop me enjoying a good dinner.

Nitwit.

No offence.

teamhurtmore - Member
mcboo- doesn't that just make Hawkins agnostic verging on atheist?

Agnostic, athiest.....I like humanist, the belief that humans do not need religious faith to live fulfilling lives with decency and respect.

Frodo - I agree with your sentiments but not the argument:

It is to do with poor sex education which is heavily influenced by Religeon. There may be cultural issues as well but its quite obvious that [b]if the catholic church promoted protected safe sex t[/b]he transfer of HIV and other STD's would be much reduced.

From the FDA website:

The surest way to avoid these diseases is to not have sex altogether (abstinence). Another way is to limit sex to one partner who also limits his or her sex in the same way (monogamy). Condoms are not 100% safe, but if used properly, will reduce the risk of sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS. Protecting yourself against the AIDS virus is of special concern becuase this disease is fatal and has no cure.About two-thirds of the people with AIDS in the United States got the disease during sexual intercourse with an infected partner. Experts believe that many of these people could have avoided the disease by using condoms....In other words, [b]sex with condoms isn't totally "safe sex," but it is "less risky" sex.[/b]

So the RC church is promoting safe sex whereas you are promoting less risky sex. It is an important distinction particularly when considering why the RC adopts the position it does.

Anyway, back to those angry atheists....

[i]I like humanist, the belief that humans do not need relgious faith to live fulfilling lives with decency and respect.[/i]

I like that too.

But my neck is still really sore.

Elf, the problem, as you well know you little scamp, is that religious influence is all pervasive.

The amount of humans that starve to death every year, the amount of couples unable to access contraception, access to abortion, the prevalence of capital punishment, the gap between rich and poor, the entirety of human suffering and happiness are all influenced by religionists.

Every aspect of our interaction with the wider world is influenced to greater or lesser extent by belief in a fairy story with no basis in reality.

And you want us to sit back and ignore it?

I'm an angry atheist.

This morning my coffee went cold before I got chance to drink it. 👿

Nitwit.

No offence.

May Peace be upon you.

X

Mcboo - I wasn't arguing you, it was a genuine question. I was trying to find the bit in the book but lost it. But surely there is faith, no faith and then degress of agnosticism (if that's a word?) between? Rather than degrees of atheism.

The amount of humans that starve to death every year, the amount of couples unable to access contraception, access to abortion, the prevalence of capital punishment, the gap between rich and poor, the entirety of human suffering and happiness are all influenced by religionists.

What about those killed in war over precious natural resources?

Yeah, religion as the foundation of social control is behind a lot of bad stuff, but then so is Capitalism. In fact, Religion has often bin used as a smokescreen for other interests. The way Islam is demonised by the West is one such example. Funny how the Islamic world was more or less quietly getting along doing it's own thing, then suddenly, it's the greatest threat to Civilisation ever. Nothing to do with oil then, oh no....

Actually, name the last war that was purely over religion.

To try and hold the catholic church responsible for that is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

I dont think many people hold the Catholic church totally responsible for the spread of AID's (although it would claim that all of this is within the power of its creator but never mind all that) I think many people would hold the Pope responsible for spreading misinformation and untruths to those without the means to access alternative information about their condition and its spread. This may combat the churchs believe in superstion and fairy tales and the hold it has over many people in Sub Saharan Africa.
Is the Pope responsible, in part definitely yes.

If you reeeeaally want to have the "Is the Catholic Church a force for good?" debate I'd recommend you start by having a look at a debate under that title on youtube.

Its worth watching just to hear Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry use the English language. Someone post the link, I cant youtube at work.

'There's is no God. Do you hear me? There is no God! NO GOD I TELL YOU! LISTEN TO ME I NEED ATTENTION! Please listen to me....'

Sorry Elf, I think you're a top bloke but, as an agnostic/atheist all I hear is people of any religion saying the above (not saying you have a religion etc., mind). The latest I hear is 'Militant Atheists', or 'shrill' describing people like Dawkins. I have read 'the God Delusion' and there is nothing shrill or angry inside it. If someone could point out a passage or something that shows it then I'll most probably agree with you.

The term 'militant atheist' is usually used to stop people from daring to question another person's beliefs. Attack someone before they can ask an intelligent question. While I'd say 'fair do', about people's belief it starts impinging on my own life and then I get a bit annoyed.

To be honest I do get angry at what people do in the name of religion (which is another silly argument) such as murder of LGBT people incited by nutters in the US's evangelical groups, trying to dumb down science with creationist crap in both christian and muslim groups and many many more.

If people want to believe in a god/invisible pink unicorn/flying spaghetti monster then fine, I'm glad for you. But don't try to tell me how to live my life.

Your pictures are pretty but they can't hold a candle to crystal structures (sez this chemist). 😀

Tried to watch the video but got too bored at 1.15

Many atheists just come across like this to me:

'There's is no God. Do you hear me? There is no God! NO GOD I TELL YOU! LISTEN TO ME I NEED ATTENTION! Please listen to me....'

What about it? Non religious war is a different matter entirely, stop changing the subject.

Religion is responsible for continued human suffering.
You want us to ignore this because someone might be offended if we question their nonsensical, idiotic belief in the supernatural?

That's sad.

Why not just get on with your own life, and stop worrying about what other people do?

Because what other people believe has a direct effect on our lives?

Agnostic, athiest.....I like humanist,

Question: can you be an atheist, but still believe in extraterrestial life that may be millions of years more evolved and intelligent than our own? (i.e. beings that are more "supreme" than humans?)

A pretty picture from That Space:
[img] [/img]
[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eagle_Nebula ]The Spire, Eagle Nebula (M16)[/url]

I'm an angry atheist.

I view the religious as falling into two camps the proper fundy nutters who take it all a bit too seriously and make millions of peoples lives a living hell or certainly more unpleasant than they need be and all the others who are basically enablers of the nutters.

All discussions about Atheism from the religious side degenerate into semantics or "faith issues" and there is absolutely no point in arguing the toss.

Thats what's infuriating about them they don't have the sense nature gave a chicken.

Elf, the problem, as you well know you little scamp, is that religious influence is all pervasive.

The amount of humans that starve to death every year, the amount of couples unable to access contraception, access to abortion, the prevalence of capital punishment, the gap between rich and poor, the entirety of human suffering and happiness are all influenced by religionists.

Every aspect of our interaction with the wider world is influenced to greater or lesser extent by belief in a fairy story with no basis in reality.

And you want us to sit back and ignore it?

Well put.

I’ve been going to Church for about a year. Getting the kids into the church school got me down there (flame away), but I went in with an open mind.

Have been genuinely enjoying it. I find it a lovely tonic to modern life, everyone’s friendly and there’s a great sense of community.

I’ve just started the confirmation course (although not sure I will actually get confirmed at the end of it) so I have no great knowledge and probably lots to learn… or maybe not.

But for your Dawkins etc to say, Prove to me there is a God, is school boy stuff. Does he expect a picture of a bearded man sitting on a cloud? Presumably not, I haven’t read his book, so what does Dawkins want?

This fella has summed it up excellently for me and where I am with my own steps into religion

"I guess the way I view things is that, whether you believe in the bible (or other religious doctrine) or not, it is not as important as living by its teachings. Love is what is important. Jesus' teachings of caring for and loving others, and staying humble is the most important thing. Even if you do not believe he existed, the teachings are still good. A person who loves others and lives as Christ did, that person will be truly happy, and people generally appreciate that type of character."

teamhurtmore - Member
Mcboo - I wasn't arguing you, it was a genuine question. I was trying to find the bit in the book but lost it. But surely there is faith, no faith and then degress of agnosticism (if that's a word?) between? Rather than degrees of atheism.

Right.....it depends on your definition of agnostic and athiest. To me an agnostic just doesnt know, doesnt think we can ever know. I would probably go with athiest insomuchas the balance of probability (and telescopes) suggest there isn't a god and doesnt need to be. Thats an opinion, I clearly can't prove to a Christian that they are deluded and I wouldnt presume to try.

I didnt start this thread, I do object to myself and other non-believers being labled as somehow dogmatic. The opposite of religion isnt atheism, it is liberalism and scepticism.

My pleasure:

I haven’t read his book

Oh.

But for your Dawkins etc to say, Prove to me there is a God, is school boy stuff. Does he expect a picture of a bearded man sitting on a cloud? Presumably not, I haven’t read his book, so what does Dawkins want?

So why should Dawkins/anyone else (and he's not 'my' Dawkins - that is usually used as a way to group people you don't like together in order to bash them) believe in your god and not one of the thousands of others? Classic school-boy stuff that: "believe because I tell you to"!

On AIDs - pop quiz - who said the following and when?

"a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems".

Sorry Elf, I think you're a top bloke but, as an agnostic/atheist all I hear is people of any religion saying the above

I hear shouty types from both sides doing exactly the same thing. In the end it all boils down to people wanting attention and ultimately, power.

It's part of Human Nature. Before Science came along, it was Religion that was used as a means of establishing social control. Now, it's increasingly Science. That people still feel the need to control others is and will always be a constant. Religion and Science are merely vehicles with which to achieve this.

I think one of the main beefs some atheists have, proven by some of the comments on here, is that they too want a slice of the power. Religion isn't without it's faults, far from it, but most of it is quite benign and a force for Good. Indeed, without religion, most of our laws woon't exist, y'know, the moral and ethically derived ones.

There's space for Religion, Atheism, Agnosticism the lot within our society. Variety is the spice of life. It's too closed minded and jingoistic to suggest one form should exist at the expense of the others.

I do object to myself and other non-believers being labled as somehow dogmatic.

religion as the foundation of social control is behind a lot of bad stuff, but then so is Capitalism.

Does highlighting that there are other bad things in the world somehow make the first thing less bad? I don't disagree with the statement, but I don't see how that's any sort of justification.

The way Islam is demonised by the West is one such example.

Is it? I thought the extremists were doing a pretty good job of demonising their own religion all by themselves, TBH.

Question: can you be an atheist, but still believe in extraterrestial life that may be millions of years more evolved and intelligent than our own? (i.e. beings that are more "supreme" than humans?)

Yes. See Erich von Daniken for details.

Challenging stuff there, "Fred". Mostly because it's wrong on so many levels it's a challenge to even work out where to begin...

aracer - Member

I do object to myself and other non-believers being labled as somehow dogmatic.

It makes you angry?

Not angry no. That wouldn't be rational.

I am agnostic (I think even Dawkins himself says that it's presently impossible to be a de facto atheist since that would involve actually disproving the existence of God, which unsurprisingly no one can do).

My other half if a devout Catholic. She attends Mass every week and her faith is extremely important to her.

I used to look down on anyone with faith in a deity, since it all just seemed so stupid to me.

Since being with her, I've become far more tolerant. Her faith is extremely personal to her, she's never even suggested to me that i'm wrong in my beliefs, because she knows that her beliefs are only true to her.

We watched a program the other day on Sky which had an awesome section in HD on how snowflakes are formed (e.g. moisture droplets hitting dust particles and exploding into their beautiful and unique shape). It's pretty impressive to watch just one, never mind the thought that they are doing this in an almost infinite number.

To her, the is a beautiful representation of a world that was created by her God. To me it's a beautiful representation of a bit of moisture hitting a spec of dust.

Who am I to tell the beautiful girl sat next to me, watching the screen in awe, that it's nothing more than a random bit of moisture hitting a random bit of dust, caused by nothing more than the environment around us? It doesn't change anything. I can't prove it wasn't a product of God, and even if I could I wouldn't want to, her life is better for having her faith.

Mine is fine without it.

The problem is the "militant" religious types. But in my experience, there are militant types in every walk of life, if it wasn't their faith, it would be something else.

Despite agreeing which most of what he says, Dawkins annoys me as much as the man who stands down the street on a Saturday afternoon shouting that we're all doomed when judgment day arrives.

I'll believe what i want thanks, I don't really need persuaded either way.

Indeed, without religion, most of our laws woon't exist, y'know, the moral and ethically derived ones.

this is literally nonsense.

Speaking as one of the "faithful", I find one of the main problems with debates like these is that the loudest voices are usually not the most coherent. Unfortunately for us, "thoughtful and measured" don't tend to find their way into the media very often - it's much easier to stick some swivel-eyed loon on the TV and then ridicule them.

I know plenty of Christians who would share some of the concerns listed here about the way their belief system is presented by those who would claim to speak on their behalf. They are all aware of some the contradictions and tensions between what they claim to believe and how they conduct themselves in the world. Most of them are as wary of people at 1 on Dawkin's scale as they are of those at 7.

For my own part, I make it a rule to walk away from folks at either end of the spectrum - I've found a helpful cue is their treatment of beliefs they don't hold, although interestingly, a dismissive attitude towards other points of view often seems to mask a fragility about their own convictions. That's certainly been true of the Christians I've spoken to - I probably haven't had enough chat with 'grade 7' atheists to make the same observation about them. I do see enough of the same reductionist tendencies within people who express their view of the world in terms of scientific determinism to suspect it is true of them as well.

Religion is responsible for continued human suffering.

No, people using Religion as an excuse to try to gain power and control over others is. Let's have it right, eh?

And Capitalism and Greed seem to be doing a bloody good job of ensuring continued Human suffering...

You want us to ignore this because someone might be offended if we question their nonsensical, idiotic belief in the supernatural?

See, if you're going to insult people because of the fact they've chosen to believe in something you don't, you just end up looking like an angry shouty man. 😐

Ro5ey its great that your enjoying church and loving the new friends and community. Thats not to say that this is for everyone and you don't exactly come across as a comitted believer!

You can however get this from many other organisations such as clubs or even Humanist associations. You realy should read the book, its well reasoned and articulated.

My only problem with religeon is the disproprtionate influence it has on everday life from politics to the economy and war. It would be easier to be a gay US president than an aetheist US president. Yet I suspect that there is a significant proportion of the US population that are of no faith.

Here our head of state is also head of the CofE and a I actually suspect that the agnostic and aetheist population outnumber any group of active faith - weird, damm right it is?

Had someone who was to religious for their own good try to tell me that I had to believe in something the other night. Told them that I believed in morality. That confused them.

I think one of the main beefs some atheists have, proven by some of the comments on here, is that they too want a slice of the power. Religion isn't without it's faults, far from it, but most of it is quite benign and a force for Good. Indeed, without religion, most of our laws woon't exist, y'know, the moral and ethically derived ones.

But we dont need religion to tell us what is good and bad. As Sam Harris comments "who decides what is good in the good book" a book that tells us to beat, mutilate and rape. We do it based on 20th C values not on anything that can be gleaned from the bible. In fact we ignore it.

There's space for Religion, Atheism, Agnosticism the lot within our society. Variety is the spice of life. It's too closed minded and jingoistic to suggest one form should exist at the expense of the others.

But when they are each making opposing and mutually exclusive claims about our universe then they both cant co exist, can they.

See, if you're going to insult people because of the fact they've chosen to believe in something you don't, you just end up looking like an angry shouty man.

Your not averse to a bit of insulting yourself though are you Fred, when it suits like.

"Science tells us what we can know, but what we can know is little, and if we forget how much we cannot know we become insensitive to many things of great importance. Theology, on the other had, induces a dogmatic belief that we have knowledge where in fact we have ignorance, and by doing so generates a kind of impertinent insolence towards the universe."

Bertrand Russell' "[i]History of Western Philosophy[/i]"

I probably haven't had enough chat with 'grade 7' atheists to make the same observation about them.

I can honestly say I have never met one.

I’ve been going to Church for about a year.
...
Have been genuinely enjoying it. I find it a lovely tonic to modern life, everyone’s friendly and there’s a great sense of community.

That's great, and a lovely example of some of the positive aspects of the church.

The question I'd have is, why can't you do that anyway, and have a "community centre," without having to have a belief in the supernatural? If the religious element was removed, would you still attend?

I can honestly say I have never met one.

That doesn't mean they don't exist... 😀

yes, it is nonsense, people invented religion, they invented the rules for religion. people can come up with stuff by themselves you know. the fact that they have fitted religion round a certain moral code does not mean that the moral code would not exist without religion.
you do [i]your[/i] home work 😆

So, how would you propose that such moral codes were propagated and spread without the framework of organised religion?

I've done my homework sunshine. Teacher's given me a gold star. You're looking at detention.

And not with the pretty RE teacher, but with the 'orrible smelly grumpy Science teacher. Y'know, the one with the really hairy mole on his face what you can't stop staring at which infuriates him even more....

Don't know if this is the very begining (youtube not working here), worth watching the whole thing.

religion is not the only available framework. people can communicate ideas cross faith. where do you say you live??? 😉

that's come out wrong, all i'm saying is that ideas can flourish and spread without religion. we live in a somewhat cross cultural country but many moral ideals are shared despite different a lack of religion.

Theology, on the other had, induces a dogmatic belief that we have knowledge where in fact we have ignorance, and by doing so generates a kind of impertinent insolence towards the universe."

Good illustration of a man who demonstrates he knows sod all about theology. I find that's one of the main problems with these discussions - people are invited to argue in defence of a mangled cliche of orthodox Christian belief, a process that would first require considerable investment of time explaining what we [i]do[/i] believe, then continuing with the debate. Given the hostile environment in which that would be taking place, it's not really surprising that most folks who could, don't bother.

I'd just like to point out (again) that "insulting" a belief, is just that. "Insulting" the belief, not the person who holds it.

No doubt such a person might be "offended" by that. Well - O.K. Be offended. Nothing's going to happen, though...

Maybe a few books might get burned. That's about it.

So, how would you propose that such moral codes were propagated and spread without the framework of organised religion?

Its called evolution my dear.

And the main problem with organised religeon is that it cannot evolve with progress and the current zeitgeist of humanity. For example the ridiculus rules implemented by the catholic church (i.e. condoms).

religion is not the only available framework

It pretty much has bin for much of Human history.

You'd better get on with that homework you know; Mr Barker is an extremely unpleasant man...

Elf,

I have no issue at all with people believing what they want.

I do have an issue with people using those beliefs, whether they be religious, political or philosophical to cause suffering to other human beings.

Religion is responsible for continued human suffering.

No, people using Religion as an excuse to try to gain power and control over others is. Let's have it right, eh?

Sadly, you're wrong. Many religions actively enshrine continued human suffering within their basic doctrines.

I don't believe in the supernatural.
If people are of the opinion that the supernatural exists, despite all the evidence we currently have pointing to the opposite conclusion, then I feel I am perfectly justified in labelling their opinions as nonsensical.

As to 'idiotic', people call each other idiots every day without major wars breaking out.

You've called me an idiot on several occasions, I really couldn't care less. Mockery is part of human interaction and always has been. It's how you choose to react to it that defines you.

Question: can you be an atheist, but still believe in extraterrestial life that may be millions of years more evolved and intelligent than our own? (i.e. beings that are more "supreme" than humans?)

"Believe" or merely accept the possibility?

I don't believe in extraterrestrial life. However, given the unimaginable vastness of universe, I think it's highly likely that life exists somewhere else other than just our planet. This may be the form of single-cell protozoa or something far more advanced than us, or anything inbetween. Perhaps there's many, many planets out there just like ours, albeit an unfeasibly long way away. I'd be surprised if there wasn't, but that doesn't make it a belief.

So, how would you propose that such moral codes were propagated and spread without the framework of organised religion?

Give me an aexample of a moral code that could only be spread through religion? and dont use the "golden rule" as that pre dates Christanity but I'm not giving you any more help.

seeing as i can't see a summing-up of the video (not even by the OP, who saw fit to quote a critic of the video, who also hadn't seen it), i'm going to listen/watch myself 😮 wish me luck! 😆

no, it hasn't. What about nationality, self preservation, profit, gender, the list really does go on, but you're late for remedial.

Good illustration of a man who demonstrates he knows sod all about theology. I find that's one of the main problems with these discussions - people are invited to argue in defence of a mangled cliche of orthodox Christian belief, a process that would first require considerable investment of time explaining what we do believe, then continuing with the debate. Given the hostile environment in which that would be taking place, it's not really surprising that most folks who could, don't bother.

I don't have to go to the best tailors in Italy and France to learn all about the cut of cloth, the use of needle and the properties of all dress types to be able to say : "The emperor wears no clothes."

Usually though, people of religion don't ever say what they believe as if you define something then you can be questioned upon it.

Saying that, I say: let everyone believe whatever they like, but keep religion a personal matter and have a hulking great wall between religion and state.

Hey sorry I’m not bashing anyone, just posting to try to find some answers to my own questions I have with the whole thing.

"So why should Dawkins/anyone else (and he's not 'my' Dawkins - that is usually used as a way to group people you don't like together in order to bash them) believe in your god and not one of the thousands of others? "

Well that's kind of my point.

My understanding of it or how I'm interpreting it is... that God, any God, IS personal… so unless you find your own one you can’t have proof ???

I might add that I haven’t find God…. not sure I will … I’m just enjoying the experience at the moment and would say that my life is richer for it.

As an atheist, it's true that I don't have any "theology".

However, I also don't have any "Unicornology", Leprechaunology" or "Fairies-at-the-bottom-of-the-garden ology".

I'm quite comfortable with saying that, in my opinion, none of those things exist either.

... and now I realise I'm repeating myself in response to repeated arguments posted many times before and have just spotted a giant snickers bar.

Exit stage left, pursued by a (imaginary) bear...

And the main problem with organised religeon is that it cannot evolve with progress and the current zeitgeist of humanity.

This is laugh out loud funny! The shelves of library of your local university's theology section will be loaded with books on this very subject. You could make a case for saying it's [i]the[/i] primary catalyst in the development of theological thought - certainly has been since the Enlightenment.

seeing as i can't see a summing-up of the video (not even by the OP

who saw fit to quote a critic of the video, who also hadn't seen it

You've called me an idiot on several occasions

Care to point out some examples please, because I have no recollection of such a thing.

Sadly, you're wrong. Many religions actively enshrine continued human suffering within their basic doctrines.

Again, examples please.

One problem with many organised religions, speshly the Big Hitters, is that they are far too rigid and inflexible, also haven't aged well as global societies have evolved. Yet they've done quite a good job helping Humanity to get to this point, in't they? In fact, many universities where lots of Science stuff gets done were founded by religious organisations, in all parts of the Globe.

I'm in no way going to defend all that has occurred in the name of religion, but I can be objective enough to see the good that it has done, and how in it's many forms, it has helped shape the development of Humanity to the point we're at now.

no, it hasn't. What about nationality, self preservation, profit, gender,

Hmm. Nationality. Why do nations exist? Along what lines were their borders drawn up?

Self-preservation; many faiths believe in an afterlife of some kind, so the motivation that being good in this life to help you in the next is quite strong.

Profit; which were the wealthiest institutions, historically? And how did such institutions use the concept of profit to further their own ends and perpetuate their own existence?

Gender; for good or bad, Religion has also ensured that definite gender roles were recognised and utilised in terms of social organisation.

You can't simple discount the role Religion has had to play in Human History, simply cos you don't share the views of others. That's just folly.

development of theological thought

Am oxymoron if ever I have heard one. No place for this in any university.

Again, examples please.

Oh come off it Fred, if you want to be taken at all seriously dont talk such rubbish or someone is gonna "cut and paste" all over yer.

I don't have to go to the best tailors in Italy and France to learn all about the cut of cloth, the use of needle and the properties of all dress types to be able to say : "The emperor wears no clothes."

True, but that's not what you're doing here - your wrapping a sack round your waist and tying it on with a bit of twine, then claiming you understand [i]"the cut of cloth, the use of needle and the properties of all dress types"[/i].

This is not particular to theology by the way - your argument wouldn't doesn't stand discipline in any form of rational inquiry. If you don't believe me, go and have a look at the Credit and Qualifications Framework for any discipline in Higher Education.

Again, examples please.

Elf, as a gay bloke I have had a lifetime of religious nutters (including my own family) telling me I was going to boil in hell etc. A quick google about ex-gay ministries and all that sort of stuff will give you loads of examples.

it stopped when I shouted extremely loudly at my mother to eff right off and to keep her beliefs to herself. She still constantly tells me (a 45-year old!) that one day I'll find Jesus and god. Its like banging your head against a brick wall, trying to stop her telling me what I do/will believe! 🙄

Cougar: not sure I get your distinction: You [i]"think it's highly likely that life exists somewhere else other than just our planet"[/i] but [i]"don't believe in extraterrestrial life"[/i].

Are you just saying that it is a balance of probabilities rather than a "faith"?

If so, fair enough. But the point stands: if you accept that, on the balance of probabilities, humans are not likely to be the most advanced lifeform in the universe then can you still truly call yourself atheist?

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/search.php?search=idiot&advanced=1&exact=1&posts=1&highlight=1&users=21087&located=0&forums%5B%5D=0&maxcount=100&age=999999&direction=0&sort=date&order=0

HTH - to be fair he does call himself an idiot lots, but there are also other victims...

Am oxymoron if ever I have heard one. No place for this in any university.

Fortunately for us, several of the best universities tend to disagree.

This is not particular to theology by the way - your argument wouldn't doesn't stand discipline in any form of rational inquiry. If you don't believe me, go and have a look at the Credit and Qualifications Framework for any discipline in Higher Education.

Good try. The basic premise is the existence of god/s, not their properties. Unless the first can be agreed then all else that comes after it is pure conjecture and flummery.

Or are you also a believer in the Flying Spaghetti Monster*? By your argument you couldn't possibly say anything unless you have studied him and wear the pirate outfit?

PS Attempting an insult based on uni is, arm, interesting. Again, good try. Nil point.

* May you be touched by his noodle appendage.