- A religious question…
My prognosis is that SIL is using the extremist religious stuff as a smoke screen for what is really going on for her. Which, in all likelihood, she has no conscious idea as to what is really going on for her because it’s all part of her denial process.
It could be that something has recently come into her knowledge that is very difficult for her to resolve. Or perhaps she’s told herself repeatedly that her responsibilities as a parent are overwhelming, a delayed post natal depression except the delay, borne from denial and ignoring the issue, has exacerbated and magnified her feelings of fear, inadequacy and possibly more importantly, her growing lack of control over the care and development of her young children.
If so, suggest she does not read the current “Creating Little Ones” thread.
Fight or flight being a natural response to any threat and she’s chosen flight with extreme mental anguish and behaviour. She needs help but unless she’s prepared to be completely honest with everyone, any help will be limited.Posted 1 month agooldmanmtb2Member
They are mad, insecure, unhinged, s**t scared, insecure (did i mention that) and they need to blame someone (satan) for their inability to conduct a balanced life…
A multitude of extreme versions of run of the mill religions…
They are all holding us back…Posted 1 month ago
Onewheelgood – there are quite a few issues with it.
It assumes all kinds of things about the nature of God, along the lines of a monotheistic religion. Not to mention the obvious questions about the nature of the penguin. Where did it come from? What, if anything,caused it?
It’s a switcheroo from God to a penguin. It would be a good argument if you wanted to whip up a hardcore monotheist. Not so good for arguing against the god of Hegel and people like that.Posted 1 month ago
Good film that.
Yes, I like that too 😀
I sprinkled some condiments around my house the other day and since then I have absolutely not been visited by any invisible entities. My anti-tiger spray is proving 100% effective too.
The logic is rather the same. Put it this way you won’t want to stay in a place that smells so badly so you either clean it or move on. A bit like having a slurry pit near you. The mixture might be normal to us but for the entities it might smell like slurry pit etc, so they move on. The idea is to make it so uncomfortable for them to stay that just move on themselves.Posted 1 month agoswedishmetalMember
they have just started doing their own Sunday school and church service at their own house, as they fell out with their old pastor (which is a recurring theme). So, no one is challenging their views at all, which I find quite scary.
You do get a few people in churches like mine like this. They use belief as a crutch but don’t want to follow anything a pastor or vicar teaches. They lurch from church to church blaming each one for their ills but never willing to talk to someone about them.Posted 1 month ago
It is quite worrying they have started their own church in house, things may only get worse.
Yeah that’s not really so much a fallacy ridden mess as bias ridden mess. It assumes for one thing that you’re even capable of understanding god, let alone describe it using the tools available to you in the current English language. It also assumes that the only acceptable proof of God is empirical.
I have really hard time pulling apart religion and god from the biases that got drummed into me growing up in 20/21st Britain in a Christian tradition. So I can definitely say I don’t believe in the Christian God, or the Muslim God or the Viking gods for that matter. But, in a broader sense, I genuinely don’t know.Posted 1 month ago
I am sure you take the time to say that to their faces being as you seem so solid in your views
got no issue with doing that if the conversation goes that way.
This is definitely not true.
it pretty much is. If an adult believed in santa clause you could describe them the same way. Belief in santa clause is no different to believing in a deity.Posted 1 month ago
If anyone absolutely refutes the existence of god fullstop then I’d really like to hear your reasoning because most of the arguments are also a fallacy ridden mess.
Let’s deal with the elephant in the room first of all. It is impossible to prove a negative so if you’re asking “can I / anyone disprove god full stop” then the answer is “no we can’t.” It’s my understanding that famed poster-boy target of True Believers everywhere Richard Dawkins describes himself as agnostic for this reason.
To my mind, there is no credible evidence to suggest that our concept of an Abrahamic god has any basis in fact. Evidence aside even, there’s no reasoning to think that this might be true.
With a nod to Russell’s teapot: I cannot prove that there aren’t tiny invisible unicorns living in my skirting board. Does this mean I should give equal credence to the notion that there might be? Of course not, it’s a ludicrous thing to even countenance without some reason to think that there might be. Finding droppings maybe, shed horn skins, tiny unexplained nibbles out of my cupcakes.
I do not know absolutely that I don’t have a unicorn infestation, however I do know beyond reasonable doubt that I don’t. If I sat here going “I’ve got unicorns, prove me wrong” I’d probably be sectioned. And that is surely sufficient, if new evidence came to light which suggested that I might be wrong then I would of course reevaluate my belief.
So with (a / the) god the same reasoning applies. I cannot prove it but I know beyond reasonable doubt that it’s a nonsense, and I can back up the reasons why people have believed otherwise throughout history a thousand-fold (which would make for a much longer post and I’ve got a hot date with the Xbox waiting for me).
Can I prove god doesn’t exist? No. But the odds are sufficiently in my favour that I don’t need to, so I’m quite happy to self-identify as atheist and assert that organised religion is bunkum unless someone can give me any cause at all to think otherwise. If someone is going to make outlandish claims and want to be taken seriously then the burden of proof lies with those making the claims, it’s not the job of everyone else to prove them wrong.Posted 1 month ago
It assumes for one thing that you’re even capable of understanding god
This is the circular reasoning argument again.
“We don’t understand the universe.”
“God did it.”
“We don’t understand god.”
“Ah, well, you see, that’s complicated and currently beyond our understanding.”
Now cross out the middle two of those four statements and see if it changes any.Posted 1 month ago
I’m quite happy to self-identify as atheist and assert that organised religion is bunkum unless someone can give me any cause at all to think otherwise. If someone is going to make outlandish claims and want to be taken seriously then the burden of proof lies with those making the claims, it’s not the job of everyone else to prove them wrong.
Religion is a protected characteristic under the Equalities Act. Have you any idea how much disrespect you are showing by stating this position and not buying into the concept put forward by those who believe in one or more gods? It’s not about scientific proof. It’s about belief.Posted 1 month ago
Religion is a protected characteristic under the Equalities Act. Have you any idea how much disrespect you are showing by stating this position and not buying into the concept put forward by those who believe in one or more gods? It’s not about scientific proof. It’s about belief.
As far as I’m aware I’m not interviewing anyone for a job here, or as a moderator routinely life-banning Christians or something. (If I banned everyone whose opinions I disagreed with STW would be a much quieter place and not for the better.)
People can believe what they want so long as they aren’t hurting anyone else and don’t expect preferential treatment because of it. Have you any idea how much disrespect you are showing by challenging my beliefs?
(Wait, is this Poe’s Law in action? I’ve not been paying attention.)Posted 1 month ago
Agree with that Cougar, because you’ve taken the effort to define it as the Abrahamic God. It still isn’t categorical because there are many other rational or empirical proofs of god that have nothing to do the Abrahamic Religions.
I think your also misrepresenting why Dawkins is open to the possibility of the existence of God. It isn’t purely an issue of probabilities but the existence of other concepts and proofs of god.Posted 1 month ago
there are many other rational or empirical proofs of god
Really? Awesome. Such as?
I think your also misrepresenting why Dawkins is open to the possibility of the existence of God.
I am – I rather suspect that the real reason is so that he doesn’t leave himself open to attack.
In any case, I’m open to the possibility too, however unlikely I think that may be. It’s just that in nearly 50 years on this planet I’ve yet had any cause to think otherwise. I would sincerely love it for someone to prove me wrong.
Also, could someone get to work on my unicorns? Cos that would be ****ing awesome.Posted 1 month ago
Now, see, this is interesting,
the existence of other concepts
This I can get behind. I can totally believe that the concept of ‘god’ as something other than “holy spirit and creator of the universe” might well be a thing. Like, people pray, right? And then from their religious starting point god answers them and things get better. But, what if praying is like the spiritual equivalent of pulling your socks up?
Say things are shit at work, you do your hail Marys and genuflecting or whatever and then in your belief that your god has empowered you you go and work harder, get better results, things are less shit. Hurrah, proof positive that god exists, when in reality you’ve just used your faith to sort your life out, kinda like a goddy placebo effect. God as a metaphor for some sort of inner reserve makes total sense here.Posted 1 month ago
Sorry, I’m just after some clarity here. It seems that it’s OK to post on this forum dismissing folk religious beliefs. Denying the fact of them. Mocking them. Calling them feeble of mind. To what other areas of belief does this standard apply?
I’ve deleted one of the two total reported posts we’ve had on this thread and its follow-up replies. It’s a difficult line between ‘negative use’ and outright censorship.
Part of the problem here is that if the forum posters choose to engage, it can be counterproductive to just delete a post rather than let the userbase give them an appropriate kicking and the cleanup quickly gets messy. Always always always please use the Report Post link for things you believe are inappropriate and it will be reviewed, engaging in a public argument is almost like implicit acceptance.Posted 1 month ago
It is quite worrying they have started their own church in house, things may only get worse.
If they are unsure of what they are doing then they will be trapped. i.e. Separating the sheeps from the flock is the first step, then the family will start to argue and to quarrel amongst themselves; and finally ripe for picking whatever it is …
If an adult believed in santa clause you could describe them the same way. Belief in santa clause is no different to believing in a deity.
I believe in higher/lower beings such as deity or the opposite or another term beings from other dimension. Superstitions? However, I also believe in science for practical reasons. The view that everything has to be empirical is interesting. What about inventions or discoveries that is stumbled upon with no empirical evidence?
Like, people pray, right? And then from their religious starting point god answers them and things get better. But, what if praying is like the spiritual equivalent of pulling your socks up?
Are people actually praying or are they merely reciting certain rules set long time ago but without knowing the actual meaning behind them? Therefore, when they pray they also focus their mind on the “rules” and relate the “rules” to the entity(s) that is trying to cause harm.Posted 1 month ago
So we’re clear however, and this is my opinion rather than anything like official STW policy (because such a thing doesn’t exist),
Religion is a protected status when it comes to things like prejudice. I could not, for example, ask about religious beliefs in a job interview. This does not mean that it gets some sort of special immunity from discussion or debate. The post I removed was because it was a direct attack against forum users which is against the forum T&Cs. Whether you’re a Christian, a Muslim, an atheist, or something else your opinions are equally valid.
“Belief” does not have special status here either positively or negatively, if I had a friend who thought he was a toaster would I stick a slice of bread up his arse at breakfast time or would I give him a mirror and and Argos catalogue and leave him to work it out for himself?
If criticism of a religion is invalid then criticism of a lack of religion is equally invalid. You cannot champion someone’s beliefs whilst simultaneously wanting to censor someone else’s. Can open, worms all over the shop. And I really really despise censorship as a general concept.Posted 1 month ago
Sorry Cougar, I know that modding STW is a team effort and that we can’t expect complete consistency. It’s just that I have first hand, recent experience which suggests that some beliefs are NOT allowed to be questioned on here.
I’ll leave it at that, otherwise the whole thread ends up about me and not the OPs issue.Posted 1 month ago
They then went on to be tested. That’s how science works. What examples are you thinking of?
I am talking about the pre-testing.
I am sure some of the older Chinese historical inventions did not go through the necessary empirical testing but more like try and error (is this test?). i.e. gun powder. I may be wrong.
So does that mean empirical testing needs to have a starting point (concept etc) and most importantly there must be some sort of interest in testing them, otherwise why waste time testing something not important? In this case, if there is no concept then there is no empirical test then?Posted 1 month ago
It’s just that I have first hand, recent experience which suggests that some beliefs are NOT allowed to be questioned on here.
Feel free to PM me (or email moderator@) then cos I’ve no idea what you’re talking about. And honestly I thought you were arguing the opposite here. (TBH I wasn’t entirely convinced that you weren’t just on a wind-up exercise.)
I cannot offhand think of any “belief not allowed to be questioned” unless either a mistake has been made (which happens more than we’d like but we’re only human) or that belief is tied into something blatantly abhorrent. Like, if you believe that gay people shouldn’t all be put in a big sack and drowned, that’s pretty unquestionable and arguments to the contrary would hopefully be moderated accordingly.Posted 1 month ago
It is quite possible to discover something by accident – take penicillin for example.
Science has many layers to it just think about breathing. most people will know oxygen goes in and carbon dioxide comes out but most people won’t know about the ins and outs of the krebs citric acid cycle and the electron transport chain.
You can make a discovery while being ignorant of the science.Posted 1 month ago
I am talking about the pre-testing.
Oh, sure. Science is littered with happy coincidences and guesswork. But it’s the start of the process, not the end of it.
Gunpowder AFAIK was one of those accidents, you’re right. They were fannying about trying to create the elixir of life or some shizzle when they suddenly realised it’d got a bit explody.Posted 1 month ago
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.