Mostly we just accept was scientists tell us rather than investigate things ourselves. Apparently the moon isn’t made of cheese but I think the milk marketing board is behind a cover up.

HERE HERE!!!
i know what i can see, hear taste, touch.
i believe in what i can personally extrapolate from the above 4, and justify in my own mind as reasonable.

in the same way the electrician in the office worked out what the problem was without seeing the problem.
through logical thought, a few assumptions based on previous experience and “deduction my dear watson”

listen to everyone, trust no-one

I’ve had that one too Coffeeking. Just about all the misapprehensions about evolutionary theory in four short paragpraphs. The good old ‘argument of incredulity’, irreducible complexity, and the ‘how do you see with a quarter of an eye’ chestnut.

Sorry to hear you have been affected by cancer Tyger, but I have to answer this one. My wife is a specialist registrar in palliative care. She deals with dozens of terminally ill patients every year. Lots of them, like yourselves, were praying for an intervention that the doctors couldn’t give them. They still died. Why should that be?

While I think I want, say, my bank or my gas supplier to do what I want immediately on first time of asking, I rather assume that god is considerably more complicated…

If people don’t beleive in evolution and think that god created the world approximately 6500 years ago (after the Sumerians had invented glue ffs!) I really fear for their sanity.
If they can’t accept the gradual evolution of one form of life from another over millions of years, how can they possibly explain how god came into existance? A being so complex he can manipulate the universe on a molecular level to crate the world we live in, complete with fake fossils of extraordinary animals to test our faith, while simultaneously reading everyones minds and responding to their thoughts. Where did he come from, who made god?

Complete and utter madness, a load of dingo’s kidneys, a fairy story is right.

regarding prayer…Richard Dawkin outlines an experiment where three groups of very ill people are split up so that one group was being prayed for and didn’t know it, one group was being prayed for and did know it, while the third group were not being prayed for atall. The group being prayed for who knew it fared the worst out of the three (pressure to perform?) Prayer doen’t work, might make the person doing the praying feel better but thats it.

Religion should be banned as SSP stated ‘normal’ religious people just give a pool of delusion from which the extremists spring.

As someone once said ‘good men will always do good deeds, evil men will alway do evil deeds, but it takes religion to make a good man do evil deeds’

I know some Christians who pray for a parking space when they go shopping.

I also know of some that rant against live saving medical advances etc etc. That’s kind of my point, really.

Religion should be banned as SSP stated ‘normal’ religious people just give a pool of delusion from which the extremists spring.

I can imagine that banning religion wouldn’t at all increase the number of extremists.

Personally, I’m waiting for the first person using atheism as a justification of some horrendous act.

regarding prayer…Richard Dawkin outlines an experiment where three groups of very ill people are split up so that one group was being prayed for and didn’t know it, one group was being prayed for and did know it, while the third group were not being prayed for atall. The group being prayed for who knew it fared the worst out of the three (pressure to perform?) Prayer doen’t work, might make the person doing the praying feel better but thats it.

That really annoys me – bad science. In fact by metioning it Dawkins weakens his position as mixes science with bllx.

good men will always do good deeds, evil men will alway do evil deeds, but it takes religion to make a good man do evil deeds’

Curiously, many evil men have become good through religion so more bllx there.

I rather assume that god is considerably more complicated…

Are you going to tell He moves in mysterious ways next? Sarah has told me of decent, christian families who have devoted their lives to praying for their terminally ill children, but they still died. If He’s not going to intervene at the first asking, just how many times DO you have to ask?

Personally, I’m waiting for the first person using atheism as a justification of some horrendous act.

Eugenics?

mudshark – Member

regarding prayer…Richard Dawkin outlines an experiment where three groups of very ill people are split up so that one group was being prayed for and didn’t know it, one group was being prayed for and did know it, while the third group were not being prayed for atall. The group being prayed for who knew it fared the worst out of the three (pressure to perform?) Prayer doen’t work, might make the person doing the praying feel better but thats it.

That really annoys me – bad science. In fact by metioning it Dawkins weakens his position as mixes science with bllx.

Yes on the one hand we have mudsharks opinion of science on the other hand the current Professor for Public Understanding of Science at Oxford. It is a tough choice but I am going to stick my kneck out here and have faith in the fact that Dawkins is just a litlle more knowledgable on science than Mudshark …. if only I could gather some evidence to proof it mmmmm there is a thought.

Mudshark, name an evil man who has became good through religion. And would his evil deeds be forgiven or negated because he then decided to believe in a fairy story?(bllx from you)

Look at the evils done in the name of religion, by good men who were gulible enough to beleive they were doing god’s work. All the holy wars down through the years, not to mention the number of gulible young muslims blowing themselves and others up due to a twisted interpretation of their fairystory fed to them by truely evil men.

The study about prayer was done by beleivers, do you think they would have held back if the results supported prayer? Of course they then backtracked on the result when it didn’t suit them by pointing out that god would have seen through their study and not played along to punish them (or somesuch) It is bad science, but bad science by the pious.

The thing I always ask religious friends is, how do they know they’ve chosen the right one? How daft will they feel when they walk through the pearly gates to find a guy with six arms sitting waiting for them, or just as plausibly, an omnipotent plate of pasta?

It’s rather fascinating seeing how some people are happy to posit an argument based on no knowledge and little fact when it comes to discussions of religion and berate people who choose to have a faith of some description and yet will quite happily exhibit those very tendencies when it comes to arguing about the benefits and joys of mountain biking or one bike / part / etc over another. The truth of the matter is that you have extremists in almost all walks of life and the argument shouldn’t come down to knocking a belief system because there are bunch of nutters at the extreme ends. And since when was evolution a 100% guaranteed, proven fact? And these completely infallible scientists who are obviously intelligent and superior because they don’t believe in any religious system always get everythint right do they? LIke global warming? No playing with figures there is there, or bad science? Oh no, because they are intelligent human beings who know everything and would never make a mistake. Or what about the big bang? So you find it hugely amusing that a large number of people choose to believe in a devine being but are happy to believe that suddenly, like a Paul Daniels magic trick a couple of atoms mysteriously appeared into the cosmos (which of course didn’t exist at that time) and exploded with such a mighty bang that we have a universe that is trillions of miles wide and still growing and filled with all manner of gas and rocks and minerals. Right. And you think Christians are a funny bunch? So which of these can be conclusively proved? The universe started with a big bang or God doesn’t exist? I don’t know about you but I am not sure I am in any qualified to authoritatively and conclusively argue either of those. While Christianity may get knocked it does provide a framework and a moral guide to many people against which they can assess their decisions and how they live their lives, to motivate them to think of others and do good for society as a wider entity that just themselves. For all the hilarity in these posts I don’t think anyone would necessarily disagree with the fundamental guidelines of Christianity or see them as somehow bad. But then again, in order to know what they are you would have to know what you are talking about and to have studied what those core beliefs are. And that’s just too much effort for most on here so instead we will pick up on the fundamentalist weirdos and octogenarian vicars with their tea parties to show that Christianity is somehow just for sheep who cannot think for themselves and somehow believe in a fairy story. And Richard Dawkins is not a self centred, pompous cock is he?

Ho hum.

Mike – Stalin is a good example of someone using “atheism” as an excuse perpetrate mass murder.

Spaceman, sadly, banning religion doesn’t work, it just drives it underground and would appear have the opposite effect to that intended. Various states have tried it over the last few centuries, and it just doesn’t work – fails to take human fallibility into account unfortunately.

Some people can’t reject that which is obviously nonsense, whether due to a weakness of character, peer pressure, stubbornness, fear or centuries of social conditioning. People still smoke, for example despite all the damning evidence against.

The only thing that works is debate and education.

Biking catastrophe – I was raised as a Catholic and attended Catholic Secondary School and Sixth Form college. Most of my family are believers.
We often engage in debates regarding this subject. I usually lose!
People have the right to believe exactly what they like, but as been stated numerous times in this thread, there is simply no scientific basis for belief in a higher being, and like it or not, science is the only way our tiny brains can rationally comprehend the universe and our continued insights into our existence.
All else is bunk.

Goon, “Lots of them, like yourselves, were praying for an intervention that the doctors couldn’t give them. They still died. Why should that be? “

My point was that for those who have faith death is not the end and also it really made a difference in being able to cope with something you have no control over.

name an evil man who has became good through religion.

There are lots of examples of former gang members and the like becoming Christians and renouncing their violent past.

If gene therapy gave us a way to eliminate religious belief, who would be in favour?

Personally, I don’t like the idea one little bit.
As in “A clockwork orange”, change is useless if it is forced. It has to come from within the raised consciousness of the individual.

Yes on the one hand we have mudsharks opinion of science on the other hand the current Professor for Public Understanding of Science at Oxford.

The experiment in question is not a valid test of prayer – not sure what would be as if something like prayer is real then by it’s nature it’s unlikely to be testable – for instance God is part of the process and will know about the test and alter results as he sees fit. Not saying that God exists but if you want to test prayer and God you have to be open to the outcome.

As for Dawkins – he has many critics amongst atheists and agnostics so I ain’t alone.

As for Spaceman, I’m sorry but I find nothing worth debating from you.

Mike – Stalin is a good example of someone using “atheism” as an excuse perpetrate mass murder.

This one crops up in virtually every debate about religion I’ve ever seen. Dawkins deals with it admirably well in Chapter 7 of The God Delusion. Individual atheists may do evil deeds but it’s NOT in the name of atheism, Stalin did it in the name of dogmatic and doctrinaire Marxism, Hitler (who contrary to popular belief was probably not an atheist) did evil deeds based on an insane and unscientific eugenics theory. That’s quoted more or less verbatim from The God Delusion.

Christian baiting is just a fun sport, lets not get worked up about it. After all it’s only a persons personal view that we offend. In a who cares selfish society it’s always the easy targets that we take a pop at, bit like bullying really, christians have been subject to it for years, they love it, throw them to the lions.

Lets stick with the reasoned arguments not the insults please. One suspects that if Christians met in small groups and planned tube bombings the arguments would be less combative or not at all.

NOTE: I never advocated the banning of religion, just to clear that up.

When my wife had cancer and despite my knowledge and the doctors knowledge, it was our faith and prayers that really made the difference.

I’m sorry your wife had cancer but to believe that your prayers made more difference than highly trained doctors and the most advanced medical care? I am guessing you can offer no evidence to prove this hypothesis then I am sorry that is delusional. Glad it worked, but its still not how it happened.

My point was that for those who have faith death is not the end and also it really made a difference in being able to cope with something you have no control over.

If death is not the end and a better life awaits you in heaven with god, why are so many religious people afraid of dying? I don’t believe you should “cope” with anything, you should accept it and then work with it or arround it. Throwing up your hands and putting it down to a devine plan is as much a cop-out as burying your head in the sand.

So you find it hugely amusing that a large number of people choose to believe in a devine being but are happy to believe that suddenly, like a Paul Daniels magic trick a couple of atoms mysteriously appeared into the cosmos (which of course didn’t exist at that time) and exploded with such a mighty bang that we have a universe that is trillions of miles wide and still growing and filled with all manner of gas and rocks and minerals. Right. And you think Christians are a funny bunch? So which of these can be conclusively proved? The universe started with a big bang or God doesn’t exist?

1) You can’t prove a negative as Mr Bush and Mr Blair have found out in Iraq.

2) The Big Bang Theory is just that, it is the best model scientists. physics bods and cosmologists have been able to come up with so far. It is open to pretty fierce peer review and additional data from new experiments. And it wasnt a “couple of atoms” it was the entire universe condensed into a singularity. I have had the good sense to investigate religion before giving my opinion on it, please extend the same courtesy to science.

As Richard Fynman said in the forword to QED:Quantum Electro Dynamics, “It can explain how things work, not why” Lets get the ToE sorted and see what happened before the Big Bang (if that is even a valid question)

The experiment in question is not a valid test of prayer – not sure what would be as if something like prayer is real then by it’s nature it’s unlikely to be testable – for instance God is part of the process and will know about the test and alter results as he sees fit. Not saying that God exists but if you want to test prayer and God you have to be open to the outcome.

If it can’t be tested its not a theory it’s merely an idea. I am all for testing the power of prayer in a scientifically stringent, double blind test with a large sample size. I have a feeling that it just won’t happen and if it does many people will provide the “defense” that you just have. If any god/s would alter the results of the test to prove / disprove / void the test they are not the sort of beings I would p!ss on if they were on fire, much less worship. That sort of capricious, insecure and vengeful god belongs in the Old Testement…oh hang on…

SSP

Crazy-legs.

That’s why I put “atheism” in quotation marks.
It was a badly argued point, trying to respond to those of a religious nature who stated that Christianity is not to blame for those who commit attrocities in it’s name. I should have spelt that out clearly – getting lazy.

if something like prayer is real then by it’s nature it’s unlikely to be testable

just wrong if it is NOT real it can be tested as you cannot prove a negative.

Not saying that God exists but if you want to test prayer and God you have to be open to the outcome

It was tested we were open we found no evidence to support it .. this is what we did.
Granted god may be tricking scientists but seems a bit perverse as god we get a lot of business if god just proved that god was real….marketting may not be his strong point ?

Individual atheists may do evil deeds but it’s NOT in the name of atheism

To be fair it would be an odd person who did something in the name of a disbelief!

Tis a fun sport, largely because the two sides of this debate can never really agree, even if only to disagree.

I’m on the side of the atheists, thankfully my parents saw fit to avoid all religion like the plague and I’ve grown up singularly unencumbered with any of it’s trappings.

What fascinates me most is the intellectual hoops anyone who believes in any religion would seem to have to jump through, from the Ark story, through Virgin birth, miracles, re-incarnation and so on.

Do you really believe this stuff? I mean honestly?

Junkyard – but as I understand it a point of Christianity is that God doesn’t want it to be obvious – hints and clues but not absolutes. Otherwise we’d all believe right? Possibly…. Anyway, I think a view is that choices we make now determine whether we get into heaven or not. It does all sound a bit odd but I suppose by it’s nature it has to. Like the idea of a virgin birth; if it happened it only happened once so no point arguing how unlikely it might be.

Do you really believe this stuff? I mean honestly?

Do you not think that martyrs do…well did?

To be fair it would be an odd person who did something in the name of a disbelief!

My point exactly, no-one has ever started a war out of disbelief, contrast that with the number of wars done “in God’s name”…
Surely if God were omnipotent, he’d be able to deal with the problem himself rather than have a bunch of people do it for him?

as I understand it a point of Christianity is that God doesn’t want it to be obvious – hints and clues but not absolutes.

Christianity – the worlds first viral markiting campaign?

Otherwise we’d all believe right?

Surely the idea? Everyone lives nice lives, goes to heaven and is saved. Or is it required to have some heathans to look down on?

See my previous comment about a capricious god…

SSP

crikey they do without evidence and then the book says they will be persecuted for their beliefs so when we argue we reinforce this belief … it is foolproof.
If a science fiction writer can invent a religion (Scientology and L Ron Hubbard) that states we come from aliens and get believers to follow it then there really is no limit to a persons ability to suspend their senses and belief in anything sadly.

Junkyard – but as I understand it a point of Christianity is that God doesn’t want it to be obvious – hints and clues but not absolutes. Otherwise we’d all believe right?

Possibly but also an excellent excuse for no evidence.

Going for my tea should learn to ignore these threads no one ever convinces anyone of anything.
Enjoy the debate at least we stayed civil

Martyrs were from a different time, so I’m asking, not in a take-the-wee way, but seriously, in a sit down and be truthful way, do you really believe those things actually happened?

…and if you do truly believe that, how do you square it with your own life and experience now?

I know a number of people who seem to be able to almost suspend their disbelief or turn off their critical faculties in the name of religion, and I find it fascinating, almost schizophrenic in a way. That’s not an insult b-t-w, just the only way I can describe it.

Ever decreasing circles. All relevant points made.
Think the atheists took this one on a hotly disputed penalty. 😀
Enjoyed that!

What fascinates me most is the intellectual hoops anyone who believes in any religion would seem to have to jump through, from the Ark story, through Virgin birth, miracles, re-incarnation and so on.

No no no, you’re getting mixed up. You can be Christian but not believe the Bible. If there were a God, would that preclude people making up a load of nonsense and putting it in a book? No!

A lot of laziness and closed minds on this thread.

It’s about the psychology of faith, not what’s wrong and right, unfortunately.

These threads are endlessly entertaining. At first i always start of quite indignant at the usual “Religion should be banned” statements and the use of Dawkins as a serious commentator on anything except evolutionary biology: on theology and the philosophy of science he is, to be honest, a bit of a thicket to anyone who has read anything other than, um, Dawkins on the subject.

Bad religion led to the horrors of the inquisition and countless wars.
Bad science led to the horrors of the gas chambers and the gulag (and, arguably, provided the justification for the horrors of the slave trade).

The common feature of both? Humans. Eventually we’ll wipe ourselves out and the ends of natural selection will have been served.

No no no, you’re getting mixed up. You can be Christian but not believe the Bible.

So how are you a christian with out following the will of god? And how do you know the will of god?* Is there a separate “Even Newer Testement…no, this is really the real one, Honest” that has come to light?

Genuinly interested on this point.

SSP

*”Just knowing” or “through messages relayed by my cat” will do nothing for the cause!

While Christianity may get knocked it does provide a framework and a moral guide to many people against which they can assess their decisions and how they live their lives, to motivate them to think of others and do good for society as a wider entity that just themselves

No it doesnt. We interpet the bible with 21st C morals. We ignore the bits that tell us to kill our children if they talk back to us or kill our wives and leave their bodies on their Fathers doorsteps if we find they are not Virgins on their wedding night.
Its absolute rubbish to say the bible provides with any moral framework in fact the opposite is the case.
People who do good because they believe they are going to heaven are morally nferior to those that do good but believe they only have one life. In effect in this instance one could argue those who dont believe in god have the high moral ground.

No no no, you’re getting mixed up. You can be Christian but not believe the Bible.

So how are you a christian with out following the will of god? And how do you know the will of god?* Is there a separate “Even Newer Testement…no, this is really the real one, Honest” that has come to light?

Genuinly interested on this point.

SSP

(Just butting in here: I know of people calling themselves Christians who set more store by the Nag Hammadi Library (mostly Gnostic Christian texts) than the New Testament (and only then in the Coptic versions) or, alternatively, other Apocryphal books.

It’s a shame that such an endlessly amazing example of human psychology and interaction gets submerged in the arguments. I’m a real dyed in the wool unbeliever, but I do enjoy the subject.

It’s about the psychology of faith, not what’s wrong and right, unfortunately.

I dont have time to come back on your response earlier, may do tomorrow.

To me the incredible pirouettes that people can go through to surround belief in a fog of pseudo intellectualism in the name of religion is staggering.

Anyway agree with Junkyard always rely on these hotly contested matters staying relatively civil.

2) The Big Bang Theory is just that, it is the best model scientists. physics bods and cosmologists have been able to come up with so far. It is open to pretty fierce peer review and additional data from new experiments. And it wasnt a “couple of atoms” it was the entire universe condensed into a singularity. I have had the good sense to investigate religion before giving my opinion on it, please extend the same courtesy to science.

My, it gets even better. And people have difficulty in believing in a deity? So, we play with semantics a little with the big bang. But even so, surely a reasonably intelligent person would struggle to believe that the entire universe was compressed into a singularity?

And why the scepticism over someone’s wife being healed through prayer when, as has happened in a number of cases, the physicians have done all they can have no other options open to them? I have no idea why she was healed and I have no idea whether there really is a God that healed her. I think you will find a majority of Christians who will struggle to answer the question of why some are healed and others are not.

Anyway, as had been commented I don’t think our rambling uninformed discussions on here will change what anyone does or doesn’t believe. Or solve world peace. Or make those nice new Shimano bits I want any cheaper.