[Closed] Why are you atheists so angry?

religion only works until commerce takes over...

Based on recent events, I think I might hang onto my religious beliefs for a wee bit longer - might come in handy if we need a cover for the financial apocalypse.

Crikey - isn't history essentially a story between the battle between man's duty to god and his duty to the state? I don't think this is new as it is a feature of ancient, medieval and modern history.

On that basis, given that all successful societies have had a religion, it looks as if we'd have had to invent God anyway if he didn't exist, so what's the worry?

I suspect the reason for successful societies having a religion is something to do with having non fiscal or political control over the people. I.E. we can make them do things by making them feel guilty that they won't go to heaven.

This is going to sound really arrogant, but there is recent research to suggest that the more intelligent in modern society are either atheist or agnostic.

ditch_jockey - Member

"its very hard for people to accept that things "just are" -we always want a reason"

bloody annoying isn't it - you'd almost think we were created that way!

superb!

This has been fun, and stimulating, but I need to go and do some prep for a DofE session!

I leave you with one of my favourite bits of philosophy...

I think history is better characterised as the battle between man and other men, and a lot of those other men came from different 'tribes' than our own.

A the Nation State has developed, far fewer wars have been fought along religious lines.

I think the development of religion is intricately linked with the development of society as a whole, but the Abrahamic religions missed a trick by allowing themselves to be limited by the use of one sacred text; society is outgrowing religion, for better or worse.

my hypothesis about the existence of the God described in the Bible makes sense of what i see in the world around me, and nurtures the convictions about how I should act in the world.

I don't think you necessarily need "belief" for that to work though?

One could read books on (non-theist) philosophy, biographies of "good" people or even just good works of fictions that make you think about life, then use those "lessons" to make sense of the world.

Indeed I'm sure you could take the Bible purely as a fictional story and still gain a lot from what it says without believing it to be a literal truth.

You're right mavisto, it does sound a touch arrogant. Fair enough, I've only got a nursing degree and a diploma in CBT, but my wife has an OT degree, PSI degree, Masters in health care management and is currently involved in introducing sensory integration into schools in the area. I'm catholic, she's a proddy. Thick as shite, the pair of us. 🙄
And with regard to the OP, I'm generally quite furious, so it's not just the preserve of athiests 😀

My neck feels much better anyway, and wee willie winky has come out far enough for me to have a wee.

Alls well that ends well....

Was there no moral code before the Christian religion?

What is the basis of this endurance - reality, ignorance, superstition, fear....?

Barnsleymitch - c'mon then, what's the answer? You two must have sorted it out...is there an earthly intermediary between the soul and God?

No team hurtmoe - there were morals not a code.

Religion - fear is its main weapon

Oh, I'm far too wooly to give definitive replies teamhurtmore. 😉 Anybody fancy a pint?

Fear and surprise...

[i]idea of man's duty to god being more important that duty to the state[/i]

I suspect the [i]idea[/i] has been more pervasive than the reality, and I would hazard a guess that this is related to the majority of early chronicles being associated with religion?

It would tie in with there being a point at which the state becomes more powerful than the religion..

Religion - fear is its main weapon

Religion - fear is its main weapon

Our two weapons are fear and surprise...

barnsleymitch - Member

Don't shoot the messenger.

I know loads of people with higher degrees who are religeous.

From my own personal experience, I was a christian when I was younger, but after a lot of personal issues, I choose to disregard the existance of any higher power.

Sh1t happens and there is nothing we can do about it. It's not god or the devil; it's life (or death as the case may be).

I wasnt shooting the messenger mavisto, simply attempting to point out that statistics are quite often manipulated to suit particular arguments. Personally speaking, I've got bigger issues to deal with than arguing the toss about angry people, religious or otherwise. Now, how about that pint?

earthly intermediary between the soul and God?

Otis Redding 😕

[img] [/img]

Barnsleymitches dog?

However, the whole thing does stand or fall on my conviction about the existence of God, which I can't prove beyond doubt to either you - or myself for that matter!

I agree and this position answers the earlier query about a belief in Jesus as the basis for a belief in God. CS Lewis made the same point essentially which was that Jesus was either the Son of God, deluded or something worse. He couldn't have been 'just a good bloke'. It is through my exploration of Jesus, his teachings, the social context of his teachings and through me living out the Christian faith that has led me to an evidence-based belief in a creator God - I certainly don't believe because I was told to, I have questioned myself and my position and do welcome discussion and debate.

On the point about rejecting all other gods - Christianity and the God Jesus talks about is the only God that offers relationship that is not based on our 'works or efforts'. So this notion about being 'good' or leading 'good' lives is a non-starter. How do you define a 'good' life? Who is the judge?

barnsleymitch - Member

I nearly didn't post my messages because you are never going to change peoples minds who don't want them to be changed. I have however, been at both ends of the spectrum of belief and read enough of the bible to make an informed view.

I have very personal reasons that I'm not prepared to go into on an open forum, for being an atheist.

I'll have a Pendle Witch please.

No crikey, mine's brown. I would however, encourage him to do that, purely because of Mr Claptons, erm, right wing tendencies. 😉

[img] [/img]

led me to an evidence-based belief in a creator God

Can you share that evidence?

Christianity and the God Jesus talks about is the only God that offers relationship that is not based on our 'works or efforts'

So where is the motivation to behave in a moral fashion?

It is through my exploration of Jesus, his teachings, the social context of his teachings and through me living out the Christian faith that has led me to an evidence-based belief in a creator God - I certainly don't believe because I was told to, I have questioned myself and my position and do welcome discussion and debate.

Evidence based - riiiiight

What evidence please

you have already claimed to be a scientist so lets see some rigour here.

[i]Evidence based - riiiiight[/i]

Steady chaps, it's better to ask and then debate, we seem to be doing well in terms of not being unpleasant so far.

I agree and this position answers the earlier query about a belief in Jesus as the basis for a belief in God. CS Lewis made the same point essentially which was that Jesus was either the Son of God, deluded or something worse. He couldn't have been 'just a good bloke'. It is through my exploration of Jesus, his teachings, the social context of his teachings and through me living out the Christian faith that has led me to an evidence-based belief in a creator God - I certainly don't believe because I was told to, I have questioned myself and my position and do welcome discussion and debate.

This is known as the lord/liar/lunatic straw man argument. There are lots of links on the interweb about it.

Pork scratching?

Evidence based - riiiiight

I can see this thread going downhill from here. Which is a shame as we've managed a very entertaining, interesting and reasoned discussion on both sides for 10 pages so far.

Please don't let it slide into petty point scoring.

Steady chaps, it's better to ask and then debate, we seem to be doing well in terms of not being unpleasant so far.

You were comparing posters on here to your shrunken willy earlier, Mr. Pleasant!

Sorry chaps 😳

CS Lewis made the same point essentially which was that Jesus was either the Son of God, deluded or something worse.

Our RE Teacher at school made a similar comment. The flaw here is that it assumes accuracy of reporting. It's possible, likely even, that the man we know as 'Jesus' is based on many men, and subject to exaggeration, embelishment and chinese whispers as stories are passed between people and generations before it was ever written down.

an evidence-based belief in a creator God

I'd love to hear some of your evidence-based findings that have brought you to that conclusion.

Sorry chaps 😳

It was a fair question TJ, but we're trying to keep the tone civil and mutually respectful.

living out the Christian faith that has led me to an evidence-based belief in a creator God

Can I jump in here and suggest that theboycopeland maybe isn't using the term [i]"evidence-based"[/i] in the way that it would be used in the scientific disciplines - he started off agreeing with a comment I'd made about the '[i]experience based' [/i]element to my own convictions, in which I'd acknowledged that I [i]couldn't[/i] provide any definitive evidence for the existence, or otherwise, of God. He's obviously at liberty to contradict my interpretation, but I think he was simply suggesting that some of his life experiences affirmed his conviction that God exists.

I think if someone could scientifically prove the existence of God, we might not be hearing it first on STW!

he was simply suggesting that some of his life experiences affirmed his conviction that God exists

Alas, that's a very human failing. Well researched and proven. Look up "confirmation bias". Unfortunately, it's meaningless.

I put a cardboard box on my head yesterday, to keep the elephants and tigers away. I wasn't sure if it would work, so I checked. I didn't get attacked by either beast, so it must have worked.

Unfortunately, it's meaningless.

as is human existence in general - you and the writer of Ecclesiastes would get on pretty well.

I'm familiar with the idea of 'confirmation bias' - I've even seen examples of it in the way Christians explain some of the circumstances of their lives. Then again, I've noticed it works for atheists as well 🙂

I compared my willy to Elfin, which is possibly a compliment, although I'm not sure who for...

I would be interested to hear people who are religious discuss if and how they deal with any contradictions they encounter between their belief and other stuff in their lives, does one trump the other, is there a point at which religion takes precedence, or does religion act as a default.
Dunno what I'm asking really, how does it work in practice?

is there a point at which religion takes precedence

sometimes "yes", sometimes "no", 🙂

I think to some extent it depends on the type of person you are. I tend to be quite reflective and introspective, so I have a hard time living with unresolved tensions between theology and practice - to the extent that it's had me nudged out of 2 different churches by the leadership who got tired of me pushing issues they didn't want pushed.

If we're talking about intellectual tensions - say between notions of God as Creator and scientific knowledge, nowadays I feel far less urgency about finding quick/easy answers. I used to feel I needed an answer for everything, whereas nowadays I'm happy to live with the notion that I will die with unanswered questions (hopefully a long time from now, understanding far more than I do now)...

The hardest issues are the ones that generate tensions between my conviction about God being loving and human suffering - being with my dad as he died of cancer was not/still isn't easy.

Don't know if that answers your question in any way?

Can I jump in here and suggest that theboycopeland maybe isn't using the term "evidence-based" in the way that it would be used in the scientific disciplines.....but I think he was simply suggesting that some of his life experiences affirmed his conviction that God exists

This is partly true. However, I think 'evidence' is also misused/misunderstood as I alluded to earlier i.e. Is an eye witness account of a crime any less evidence than DNA found at the crime scene? The DI would take al aspects into account. I also think that purely adopting a positivist view of evidence in this regard is inappropriate.

With this in mind, some of my evidence is experience-based as suggested, but it is also informed and influenced by historical accounts and the experiences of others. I don't have DNA evidence but then neither do atheists and it could therefore be argued that atheism is as much of a matter of faith a theism. To my knowledge, the only discipline in 'science' in which 'evidence as proof' occurs is mathematics. Everything else is a matter of probablitlity. Therefore, it's a case of building up the 'evidence' to form a world-view.

see here for the 'clever-blokes' version of STW does the God delusion

http://www.fixed-point.org/index.php/video/35-full-length/164-the-dawkins-lennox-debate

TJ - for what it's worth mate - I had no issue with your question or the tone.

Good debate this.

The hardest issues are the ones that generate tensions between my conviction about God being loving and human suffering - being with my dad as he died of cancer was not/still isn't easy.

Assuming the 'god is creator' stance is correct, is there any reason why it'd have to be benevolent?

Ie, if you had an ant farm, would you worry unduly about the death of one ant? Would you occasionally be tempted to pull the legs off a couple and see if they ran in circles?

(Sorry for your loss dude.)

It does, and thank you.
I struggle with understanding how the (I presume..) conflict between theology and the world, or the way the world works on occasion, can be um, maybe rationalised isn't the right word, but dealt with...
I think I'd be tempted to opt for one or other solution and avoid the mental gymnastics, but that's an impatient and lazy approach.

Ditch Jockey, what you say is not limited to the religious. Anyone with an ounce of sense and or self reflection will come up against such conflicts.

The rational thing to do is to eliminate one side of the conflict from your thinking wherever that is possible...

I don't have DNA evidence but then neither do atheists and it could therefore be argued that atheism is as much of a matter of faith a theism.

This would only be considered true if a person of religion X had a positive "faith" that religions not-X were false. It would mean that everyone would have a theoretical infinite number of religions.

I am atheist/agnostic. I don't have any gods. The Christian/Islamic/abrahamic gods are on a par with Zeus and Apollo. I assure you I don't a religion based on not-Zeus!

I don't have DNA evidence but then neither do atheists and it could therefore be argued that atheism is as much of a matter of faith a theism.

If you are making the assertion that God exists then the burden of proof lies with you to prove it not me to disprove it.

Russell's Teapot is a good example of this.

Faith is also a positive concept. It is possible to have faith in Gods existance but impossible to have faith in gods non-existance.

TJ - for what it's worth mate - I had no issue with your question or the tone.

Good debate this.

Ta - just one of those where the tone could be taken in different ways without the non verbal clues we normally have in conversations

Is an eye witness account of a crime any less evidence than DNA found at the crime scene?

Depends what you mean by "less evidence." It depends on circumstances, but DNA evidence would trump "I saw him do it, honest guv" I expect.

Ditch Jockey, what you say is not limited to the religious. Anyone with an ounce of sense and or self reflection will come up against such conflicts.

I didn't suggest it was - I was attempting to respond to a specific question which crikey had asked.

Assuming the 'god is creator' stance is correct, is there any reason why it'd have to be benevolent?

None at all. In practice, a lot of Christian theology makes God's benevolence secondary to his 'sovereignty' - the idea that what God wants to happen will happen, and that everything that does happen, is according to his will. Either approach leaves you with some significant loose ends, but I find it easier to live with the questions generated by starting with "God is love".

On a related note, which will probably open up a whole new can of worms, I find the early books of the Old Testament make a whole lot more sense if you work from the premise that the human characters wouldn't have assumed that the diety they were interacting with was particularly benevolent, and that the idea was so radical that it had to be introduced gradually.

I would be interested to hear people who are religious discuss if and how they deal with any contradictions they encounter between their belief and other stuff in their lives

I think this is a really difficult one. I have plenty of questions and contradictions that I would like answers to but as yet remain unresolved. One of the main ones for me is why some people who I/we pray for get healed and others don't?

I'll try and be clear here - being a Christian isn't about some crutch that I reply on when things are going badly. It's a way of life, a relationship. I pray and read the bible to get to know God just like I would a person. Some of what He says I understand, some of it I work through with trusted friends and some has yet to be revealed. It's about transformation really and not transaction. This is why the 'you must be/do good to be religious' scenario just doesn't hold true to what Jesus actually said.

I have also started to explore the theology of why we experience so much pain and suffering in the world if God truly loves us. However, i'm not sure this is the right place given it involves reference to the devil and spiritual Kingdom's. More importantly, i'm not sure what I think on the matter and so I'm retiscent to explore this with the STW atheist massive - even though they share my love of bikes :wink:!

it could therefore be argued that atheism is as much of a matter of faith a theism.

It could if those were the only two options. Why does, for example, the Christian viewpoint (or even the "one creator" model generally) have any more credence over views held by, say, the ancient Greeks?

Just because we can't prove absolutely that deities don't exist, doesn't mean you get to make up any old thing and then go "well, you can't prove me wrong!" We can't prove that unicorns don't exist, that doesn't mean that downtown Accrington is full of the buggers and I've just never noticed.

One of the main ones for me is why some people who I/we pray for get healed and others don't?

There is a really obvious answer to that one from my belief set but perhaps not from yours.

I think that's the kind of thing and thinking that I'm interested in, more from the point of view of you rather than your theology.
Is there a point at which you relinquish attempts at understanding and just accept stuff, or would you..kind of store it for later?
Sorry, I'm struggling to communicate what it is I want to know.

More importantly, i'm not sure what I think on the matter and so I'm retiscent to explore this

I'd have thought that something you weren't sure on would be ideal topics of discussion. By getting input from others (both theists and atheists), you can then reach a more informed conclusion?

doesn't mean you get to make up any old thing and then go "well, you can't prove me wrong!"

Firstly, I've not made anything up, Secondly, I'm not trying to prove you wrong. It's not about winning an argument nor is it about trying to convince you into God's kingdom with clever or not so clever philosophy. That is what cult's do - surely.

Instead, I was suggesting that, given the same lack of objective 'evidence' (that you have acused me of) for a world without a God, athesim is a matter or faith.

Is there a point at which you relinquish attempts at understanding and just accept stuff, or would you..kind of store it for later?
Sorry, I'm struggling to communicate what it is I want to know.

I think perhaps this is something in theology I've always struggled with understanding.

We don't understand the universe so we come up with the concept of god(s) to give us a simpler explanation. But then, it turns out that god is just as complex as the universe was, only now when we seek explanations and clarifications, we're expected to just accept that we don't know, or aren't meant to know. And I think, why didn't we just apply that reasoning to the universe in the first place?

It is interesting the vehemence with which some atheist state their position and argue against the beliefs of others. It makes me wonder why atheists are so angry. Does anyone have a link or something that might explain it? I would continue the 'Pope causes AIDS' debate, but the argument for it seemed a bit incoherent, including a link to a tedious website and some unsupported assertions.

Instead, I was suggesting that, given the same lack of objective 'evidence' (that you have acused me of) for a world without a God, athesim is a matter or faith.

I don't believe in unicorns. That doesn't require faith.

Is there a point at which you relinquish attempts at understanding and just accept stuff, or would you..kind of store it for later?

From a practical viewpoint of course. Otherwise I'd get even less work done.

There are also a lot of folk out there understanding stuff so that I don't have to. I don't think religious questions work in that way though. It's a personal thing.

Has anyone mentioned Non-overlapping Magisteria (NOMA) on this thread yet? Can't be bothered trawling all through it to see.

I don't think atheism is a matter of faith, more a matter of belief; I think there's a subtle difference.

There are also a lot of folk out there understanding stuff so that I don't have to.

So, you just believe that they've looked into and what they say is true?

Firstly, I've not made anything up,

Not you personally, that's not what I meant.

That is what cult's do - surely.

Careful now. One might ask how you'd differentiate between a cult and an organised religion.

Instead, I was suggesting that, given the same lack of objective 'evidence' (that you have acused me of) for a world without a God, athesim is a matter or faith.

If by "a matter of faith" you'd count an absence of faith then yes, you're right.

A murder is committed in the countryside. There's no DNA evidence, no witnesses. Should we give equal credence to the possibility that the killer might be the local farmer, or might be aliens? After all, we can't disprove either of them.

Instead, I was suggesting that, given the same lack of objective 'evidence' (that you have acused me of) for a world without a God, athesim is a matter or faith.

If you read what myself and others have said above you will see that this is just plain erroneous.

Athiesm is not a matter of faith but a conclusion based on the empirical evidence available at this time. It is open to change on the basis of new evidence.

Athiesm is not a matter of faith but a conclusion based on the empirical evidence available at this time

No, it is the Null hypothesis.

There are also a lot of folk out there understanding stuff so that I don't have to.
So, you just believe that they've looked into and what they say is true?

Interesting point that one. I think it comes down scientific method. Knowledge is gathered, is used to predict results and then tested, the testing produces results that either back up or contradict the original theory. This goes on enough that any false statements should be picked up unless there was a huge conspiracy. It has been shown in many examples that established theories could be wrong. The most obvious being the constant value of c (the speed of light in a vacuum) by Einstein now being challenged by people firing sub atomic particles at each other in Europe.

Religions generally are not open to being tested in the same way, they are also, often self referencing so the proof goes in circles.

As someone who was bought up a catholic but am now an atheist I'm always intrigued with the lack of discussion of Satan in these types of debate. It was one of the parts of faith that I struggled with and made me question it generally.

So, you just believe that they've looked into and what they say is true?

Aye. All the time. You do too. Or are you so expert in all fields that you don't need to rely on experts to do the really hard sums for you?

rely on experts to do the really hard sums for you?

I have that base covered nicely with a wife with an BSC in Sums and an MSc in Hard Sums for Work and Runny Stuff.

I'd have thought that something you weren't sure on would be ideal topics of discussion. By getting input from others (both theists and atheists), you can then reach a more informed conclusion?

Fair point - although I'm sure it assumes a certain belief in God to even entertain the debate.

Essentially, the Kingdom the earth lives in is ruled by the Devil, which offers insight into why evil exists and why 'bad' stuff happens. It is the devil's purpose to destroy and separate God's creation. We have the opportunity to enter God's Kingdom through Jesus. When this occurs we see miracles and healings, people raised from the dead and lives transformed as God's kingdom breaks through. However, the world is as yet not under the Kingdom of God and therefore it's a tough place. The hope is that it won't always be like this and that God wants everyone to be part of that Kingdom - hence the purpose of Jesus.

As a society, through free will, we have moved further and further away from relationship with God (I'm not talking about religion here either). If you remove the light from a room you are left with darkness. Essentially, I think this is what we are observing in society and how we might begin to explain some of the struggles we see reported each day.

You asked.

Aye. All the time. You do too. Or are you so expert in all fields that you don't need to rely on experts to do the really hard sums for you?

Nope, but I'm not the one who has problems with folks believing stuff they don't have evidence for.

It is interesting the vehemence with which some theists state their position and argue against the beliefs of others. It makes me wonder why theists are so angry. Does anyone have a link or something that might explain it?

I pretended my willy was an angry Elf; purple with rage....

😆

I compared my willy to Elfin, which is possibly a compliment, although I'm not sure who for...

A compliment to your willy, fo' sho! 😀

Mind you, imagine if you had this eye staring back at you if you decided to indulge in a little recreational polishing:

[img] [/img]

😯

Lordy. That's the thread gone horribly wrong then...

No, it is the Null hypothesis

surely this depends on your world view?

the empirical evidence available at this time

This is what I am doing too. Only, I am open to an alternative world view.

I'm sorry to say this as this has been an interesting discussion but that is some proper bonkers nonsense you are talking there theboycopeland.

Lets MTFU in best STW style and admit that if the world is f*cked up we f*cked it up not the devil and if it's going to be fixed we need to fix it, not god.

Thinking like that is the single worst thing about organised religion and the reason why I would concur with Phillip Pullman in saying that if god ain't dead we need to kill him.

I'm sorry to say this as this has been an interesting discussion but that is some proper bonkers nonsense you are talking there theboycopeland.

No need to apologies for holding a different view.

Thinking like that is the single worst thing about organised religion

Why? what is so offensive?

what do the believers think they fill their cars up with?

what do the believers think they fill their cars up with?

Believers of what?

Why? what is so offensive?

The notion that we can blame the ills of the world on the devil and the good on god.

Lets shoulder the blame and the credit ourselves and try to move forward in sorting it out as best we can.

what do the believers think they fill their cars up with?

🙂

Essentially, the Kingdom the earth lives in is ruled by the Devil, which offers insight into why evil exists and why 'bad' stuff happens. It is the devil's purpose to destroy and separate God's creation.

Out of interest do you believe the Devil was created by God the creator?

Believers of what?

Believers of what?

Global Warming (I think)