Forum menu
Because people who believe in organised religion are much more willing to put the beliefs others have imposed on them before their own life experience.
There's no evidence that same sex marriage causes any harm whatsoever. Deciding to oppose it for religious reasons in an abjugation of personal responsibility.
It says that you value the opinions of others over the evidence in front of your eyes.
I agree that this is a trait common to politics as well as religion - see anti semitism in the Labour party, racism and hatred of the poor and disabled endemic within the Tory party etc.
Many people buy into an ideology wholesale, without examining the finer points on an individual basis.
It seems to be a fundamental human trait, but that doesn't mean it should be encouraged, in fact quite the opposite.
From a couple of pages back,
And the argument that ‘well if God exists then who created God?’ (i.e he can’t exist as no one could create him) holds no water since scientist would have us believe that the universe created itself randomly out of nothing, a question Dawkins failed to answer in debate
Aside from the fact that you've got this backwards, which I'll get to in a minute, the wooly thinking here is the notion that Dawkins has to answer that question. The universe does not require our understanding, and whilst science strives to find answers, "we don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer to a big question.
Religion gets a foothold here because it can provide an answer without requiring a shred of proof, it can just make up any old story and no-one can disprove it. (Except when it can and then we see a lot of revisionism and back-pedalling, something something allegory something.)
For the "something from nothing" argument, this is the reason why "god did it" is a pretty unsatisfactory answer. We argue that the universe cannot always have existed or appeared from nowhere, therefore there must be a creator. But this just displaces the problem, we then ask "where did god come from?" and are told that he's always existed or appeared from nowhere.
In any case, current popular scientific theory (ooh, there's that word again) is not that the universe was created out of nothing, but rather a super-dense ball of something, so your original premise is (probably) wrong. (Where did that something come from? We don't know. And it's OK that we don't know, we don't need to fill in the gaps with supernatural fantasy.)
Keep it coming guys.
This all evidence to support my postulated hypothesis that “lots of people on the Internet are dicks about things they don’t understand “
There is little evidence to contradict this hypothesis thus far.
I think I might have a theory on my hands.
And the argument that ‘well if My God exists then who created My God?’
When you go back to it and look critically if all these people around the world have their gods who created everything then it's either a whole Mr Benn dressing up game or a heap of sub contractors taking charge, so in any given place Your God could end up being nothing more than the David Brent of the deity world 🙂
This all evidence to support my postulated hypothesis that “lots of people on the Internet are dicks about things they don’t understand “
What like science?
As I said above you are welcome to your beliefs just keep them out of my life. The number of times I've missed the supermarket on a Sunday......
There’s no evidence that same sex marriage causes any harm whatsoever. Deciding to oppose it for religious reasons in an abjugation of personal responsibility.
Indeed.
This is one of the issues I have personally with organised religion. Certainly with Christianity, the bible is translated from a dead language, has different interpretations depending on who translated it (and can we trust the people translating not to have had their own agendas?) and is made up from a number of texts from different sources which often wildly contradict each other. (Case in point, in the original text "homosexual man" and "male prostitute" is the same word. How we choose to translate that tells very different stories.)
Whilst the book / religion itself may well be well-meaning as a whole (today), this ambiguity means that whatever world views someone might hold, positive or negative, there's probably a passage somewhere in the bible which they can cite to 'support' their opinion. Whilst I don't doubt that it can be used for good, it can also be used as a tool to empower bigots. (And yes, we're back to that 'vocal minority' argument I'm sure. But still.)
We know that gay marriage is a sin because it says so in the bible. Except, it doesn't, unless you're employing some very disingenuous interpretations of what's actually written.
What we really need is The Bible 2.0. Rip out all the bits that are incompatible with the modern world, the slave-beating and the pseudoscience, and make it clear which bits are supposed to be factual and which are allegorical. You'd have a best-seller on your hands, and it'd stop all these hoary old debates. The believers can get on with their believing, and the atheists can indulge in a bit of bum fun or have an abortion without some random stranger telling them they can't because a 1500 year old bit of parchment says it's wrong.
Do we believe in equality?
Yes
Good lets treat everyone equallyDo you have religious beliefs that you feel stop you treating everyone equally? Your Problem get over it.
Sorry but not got much time for that sort of objection.
Not many would object to that mike, however people do have prejudice based on their religion and prejudice for a variety of reasons and they bring them to bear on life and politics.
I would suggest that we all have something in out lives that keep us balanced, reasoned, and tolerant and for millions on the planet their belief in god is that thing. It certainly does not make them homophobic or racist. I know terrible acts are committed by people of religious belief. We have also seen atrocities committed against religion by societies without strong religious belief. If politicians can gain balance, reason and tolerance through a belief in god then of course they should bring their religion to the table.
Incidentally, on the subject of same-sex, er, sex and the bible, I looked into this a little while back. Rather than repeating myself, you can read what I wrote here if you're interested:
If politicians can gain balance, reason and tolerance through a belief in god then of course they should bring their religion to the table.
If politicians can't gain balance, reason and tolerance without a belief in god then they shouldn't be allowed to be politicians. Or for that matter, members of society.
The notion that without god we'd all be amoral rapists, thieves and murders is an absolutely terrifying concept to me. If that's actually true for some folk then it's a bloody good job that they've found religion instead.
I’m sure plenty of people are fighting the urge to marry their dogs at the moment
Ha ha ha that’s crazy (how does he read my mind?)
Cougar, I worded my point badly. I don't think people are only good because of religion. I meant that a belief system may be something that helps them perhaps to relieve stress battle depression, suppress anger or make them better in the same way a hobby might.
Athgrey
You miss the point. Both of those things are where the religious attempt to impose their beliefs on others
On dignity in dying the medical profession splits on religious affiliation and reproductive rights are continually under attack from the religious
Have your religion if you want. Do not attempt to deny me my rights because of your belifs
Athgrey
You miss the point. Both of those things are where the religious attempt to impose their beliefs on others
On dignity in dying the medical profession splits on religious affiliation and reproductive rights are continually under attack from the religiousHave your religion if you want. Do not attempt to deny me my rights because of your belifs
No, your cack handed polarisation is missing the point tj. You talk as if it is religious people against non religious. That is silly. Yes there will be people of religious belief against assisted suicide and abortion. There will be non religious people in the same position.
How many people with a belief in God share a prayer with a loved one before they say goodbye in Switzerland?
How many women have relied on their faith to see them through the traumatic situation of having an abortion?
It is not a case of religion against the rest.
I have no belief in a god and agree that the people you describe should not hold away over policy however there is no need to tar everyone with the same brush.
@athgray Ah ok, fair enough. That makes more sense (and is somewhat less scary...!)
I've seen that argument before is all, so I perhaps jumped to conclusions. It's been argued that we need religion to give us morality. This may have actually been true a couple of millennia ago, but society has evolved (ho ho!) and I'd like to think that most people in the developed world know that it's unacceptable to be a bit murdery without needing a book to tell them so.
You talk as if it is religious people against non religious. That is silly.
I don't think that's what TJ means. Rather, it's the notion that (some) religious people want to dictate what others should do (religious and irreligious alike) because they believe their religion says so which he is objecting to. I think. It isn't - and shouldn't be - a case of us vs them.
Yes there will be people of religious belief against assisted suicide and abortion. There will be non religious people in the same position.
Whilst almost certainly true, it would be interesting to put some stats behind that. I'd wager that there's a strong correlation between the two.
Whilst almost certainly true, it would be interesting to put some stats behind that. I’d wager that there’s a strong correlation between the two.
I think think the arguments for and against assisted dying are far more nuanced than being based on religion.
I have heard views of politicians that are wary due to the potential for abuse due to the often vulnerable nature of those involved.
I was really referring to the abortion side of it, but yeah, that's a good point.
Even if your a non believer...religion can once in a while have heartwarming positives
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-cornwall-47176939
Oddly when you leave this mortal coil the majority seem to be sent off with some kind of religious ceremony..and are remembered somehow ( maybe the memory thing is a human conditioning)
Even if your a non believer…religion can once in a while have heartwarming positives
Or people being good people, happened to be in a church.
Oddly when you leave this mortal coil the majority seem to be sent off with some kind of religious ceremony
Personally I'd like to head off in a flaming long boat into the sea, while people finish the contents of my drinks cupboard. Any mention of religion, next place etc will be left at the door.
Athgrey
Dignity in dying does not equal doctor assisted suicide and the vast majority of those against it are religious even if they cite other reasons
The vast majority of religious doctors oppose dignity in dying and the vast majority of those who support it are secular
Oddly when you leave this mortal coil the majority seem to be sent off with some kind of religious ceremony
When my dad died a couple of years ago, the funeral involved some bloke in a frock (who had never met him) waxing lyrical about him. It's a laudable sentiment and all, but I didn't recognise the man he was supposed to be talking about at all. I found the whole thing a bit surreal TBH. When I go I think I'd want any tributes to be paid by people who actually knew me.
once in a while have heartwarming positives
Or people being good people, happened to be in a church
Well what else were they in the church for a spot of molesting..ffs
When I go I think I’d want any tributes to be paid by people who actually knew me
And maybe you will, however not everyone has that last request do they will it be a religious ceremony or down the the pub where the people you knew say the nice things?
Oddly when you leave this mortal coil the majority seem to be sent off with some kind of religious ceremony...
For most people that's custom and habit, not religious belief, though. Non religious alternatives are readily available (civil and humanist) and they are not wildly unusual these days. The last funeral I attended was a humanist ceremony.
And maybe you will, however not everyone has that last request do they will it be a religious ceremony or down the the pub where the people you knew say the nice things?
Choice is good, mmkay.
For most people that’s custom and habit, not religious belief, though.
Indeed. Certainly was in my dad's case, the only place he ever worshipped at served pints.
The last funeral I attended was a humanist ceremony.
Why am I not surprised.
When I go, God's going to have to give up his favourite seat.
Brian Clough
Why am I not surprised
Why are you not surprised?
Okay, so once again the ‘athiest’s’ on here have bludgeoned their point that their interpretation of God, which is based on a load of poorly translated and very old stories, does not and has not ever existed. Actual hard facts, sightings and proof of this image and interpretation of God are absent and nothing else will do, black and white and anyone who holds such a belief is, once again, being castigated as an extremist with very low intelligence. I no longer know who are more dogmatic, and dogma isn’t all that helpful. A succinct and representable summary, I think we can all agree.
It’s a big, free Universe that keeps popping up, seemingly out of very little, expanding a lot, then possibly contracting back to virtually nothing and then popping up all over again, all on its own, with maybe the will to exist being its only mandate. Not some dude in robes and long beard. Scientifically speaking, I guess it’s quite tricky to measure quantum consciousness.
The whole religion thing on here has been incredibly dull and predictable for too long, can we not explore other definitions rather than trot out the same old shite?
their interpretation of God, which is based on a load of poorly translated and very old stories,
Exactly - stories.
Surely science can only tell us about the natural world; it is a useless tool for talking about the supernatural world (if such a thing exists).
To quote Werner Heisenberg (possibly again):
“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you”
In context, his definition of God is one I alluded to in my previous post ^^
“Heisenberg started by analysing spectral lines from metals, formulated a purely mathematical theory to explain them, then realised the mathematical theory had huge potential implications for the nature of reality. He apparently formed the view that physical matter takes up a definite state only when perceived by a conscious being. Once you entertain the idea that consciousness has an importance and existence that goes beyond physical matter, the idea of some sort of notion of something that could be plausibly called a God doesn't seem so ridiculous anymore.”
The bible is full of metaphors that people who typically argue vociferously against the notion of religion, tend to take way too literally without understanding the metaphor. Much like their view of God.
Opening ones mind to possibilities is much healthier than dogmatism.
IMHO of course 😉
Opening ones mind to possibilities is much healthier than dogmatism.
Whoa....hold on there !!!
Everyone has a belief whether that be science or in a God. No one should force their views on others, and everyone is entitled to their beliefs whatever they may be. You don't have to agree with someone but you should at least give others the respect for their beliefs that you would expect yourself. Unfortunately the atheists who bang on about having religion forced down their throats don't seem to realise this works both ways. Live and let live, stop judging everyone by the actions of a few.
To quote Werner Heisenberg...
Are you sure?
"...Otremba does not declare his source, and the quote per se cannot be found in Heisenberg's published works"
"Heisenberg's children, Dr. Maria Hirsch and Prof. Dr. Martin Heisenberg, did not recognize their father in this quote. Hirsch suggested that the quote and its attribution to Heisenberg may have been fabricated by a fundamentalist English-speaking Christian seeking support for his faith, and he pointed to the similar precursor remarks of Francis Bacon, in "Of Atheism"
https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Werner_Heisenberg
Anyway, putting falsely attributed quotes to one side, Heisenberg had a Christian faith, so God existed for him. If you don't believe, God doesn't exist for you. That's about all there is to it.
Lots of butthurt RJW (religious) snowflakes on here supporting freedom of expression being limited.
@kcr - I stand (or kneel with head bowed, ready for decapitation) corrected. Hopefully so does Quora. 😉
My point remains over there.....
Aside from this, I was merely comparing the attitudes displayed on this thread to those of Dawkins
I think the attitudes of the religious displayed on this thread are a bit terroristy....you all remind me of Abu Hamza.
Unfortunately the atheists who bang on about having religion forced down their throats don’t seem to realise this works both ways.
No, it really doesn’t work both ways. That’s a ridiculous statement, outside of this thread which you don’t ‘have’ to read.
There are no atheists appointed to the House of Lords purely because of their atheism.
There are no atheists pushing atheist agendas in law making because of what they don’t believe.
There are no atheists knocking on people’s doors to talk to people about their lack of belief.
There are no atheists standing around with megaphones in city high streets polluting the air with how they don’t believe in Allah, Jehova or any other deity.
There are no atheists holding a portion of the U.K. to ransom and enforcing a different set of human rights because of their lack of belief.
There are no atheists hacking away at non consenting, not yet indoctrinated children’s genitalia en masse because of habits and customs that they have always had. Etc, etc.
Atheists get stroppy because they see other people beliefs thrust upon them in a myriad of both insignificant and significant ways, and it’s deemed acceptable because it always been that way. It not right and it shouldn’t happen. By all means believe what you want, but keep it to yourself please.
God is a gas.
There are no atheists appointed to the House of Lords purely because of their atheism.
There are no atheists pushing atheist agendas in law making because of what they don’t believe.
There are no atheists knocking on people’s doors to talk to people about their lack of belief.
There are no atheists standing around with megaphones in city high streets polluting the air with how they don’t believe in Allah, Jehova or any other deity.
There are no atheists holding a portion of the U.K. to ransom and enforcing a different set of human rights because of their lack of belief.
There are no atheists hacking away at non consenting, not yet indoctrinated children’s genitalia en masse because of habits and customs that they have always had. Etc, etc.
No one from the Church of Scotland, which is my denomination of choice, is doing any of these things either.
This is the danger of lumping all religious people together and making sweeping statements about them.
This is the danger of lumping all religious people together and making sweeping statements about them.
Agreed. I presume that puts you in the ‘keeping it to yourself’ camp, and that’s great with me. I’d happily do the same with my atheism; my vocal objections are not aimed at religion per se, just the behaviour of a sizeable, and vocal, minority.
I’ve said this many times before, but with any demographic it’s a shouty extremist minority that give the rest a bad name.
False equivalence.
Here is an 'extremist' atheist
having a drink and lecturing you.
Here is a religious extremist having lectured you and then exploded.
Agreed. I presume that puts you in the ‘keeping it to yourself’ camp, and that’s great with me. I’d happily do the same with my atheism; my vocal objections are not aimed at religion per se, just the behaviour of a sizeable, and vocal, minority.
Don't be coming on here being all reasonable!!
I might be wrong, but society seems to have gone in general down a bit of dangerous route - whether religion/atheism, left/right political leanings, etc etc, the ability to engage, listen to, discuss politely and accept (and hopefully try to understand) differences of opinion/belief as part of civilised interaction seems to have been lost.
Instead it's about who can shout loudest from the polar opposite ends, gammons, snowflakes, fairies, and other attempts to demean the other.
I'm sure 99.9999% of religious and non religious people all get along with each other just fine. It's that tiny percentage who need to be dicks to each other and try to "prove" their point in an absolutist way that ruin it. Don't be that 0.0001% or whatever.
The bible is full of metaphors that people who typically argue vociferously against the notion of religion, tend to take way too literally without understanding the metaphor
Could you point out which bits are metaphor and which bits are real please? That'd save a lot of time.
This is where it all falls down for me. As recently as when I was at school, we were still taught in RE that the bible is literally true. As soon as you go "well, some of it is a metaphor" it throws the entire work into question. Is the good Samaritan a metaphor? Is Genesis? Is Jesus? Is god? How do you know what you're supposed to believe?
Everyone has a belief whether that be science or in a God.
Science does not require belief, quite the opposite.