the burden of proof ALWAYS lies with the person making the claim

It does, but the flaw in that argument is that it assumes proof is required or desired. “Faith” replaces that, the answer to “you can’t prove it” is “correct, and?”

Go to a Church, a Synagogue, a Temple, how about a Mosque ? … for say… I dunno… a dozen weeks ?

Report back with what you find from your own personnal experiences.

Did that when the attempt was being made to indoctrinate me when I was about 12.

Thought it was bullshit then. Still do.

So you still think like a 12 year old ?

Not moved on?

Not evolved your thinking with maturity in the last 30 odd years?

🙄

JY – looking at that picture I felt like I did when I found out God santa wasn’t real.

How could you? Wheres the humanity?

Surely that abomination finishes this debate once and for all? If that can exist, then there is no God!

Ah Binbins, you just need an open mind.

Faith is an amazing thing.

Sure is

You should get involved, check it out for yourself.

Go to a Church, a Synagogue, a Temple, how about a Mosque ? … for say… I dunno… a dozen weeks ?

Report back with what you find from your own personnal experiences.[/quote]

I have 23 years experience of close involvement with an Anglican church. I met my (now) wife via the youth group. We attended several youth events, including ones where Steve Chalke talked, and where the “Toronto blessing” filled the room and Spring Harvest. I got confirmed. At no point did I see or experience anything that suggested to me that it was true.

We were married in the church, and I attended on Sundays for about a decade while our kids were young. I helped run the tech desk, and was on the rota for serving coffee after the service. I count several ordained people among my friends/acquaintances. My wife did a couple of turns on the PCC, completed a short theology course and is employed as a school chaplain. At no point did I see or experience anything that suggested to me that it was true.

For a bunch of people who supposedly believe that they have a personal relationship with the almighty creator of the universe, they have a surprising number of petty arguments about unimportant things. Very few of them think particularly deeply about their faith.

I have seen a huge range of views and opinions within just that one denomination. I count some of them as friends, and get on very well with them. Some of them are truly awful people.

Report back with what you find from your own personnal experiences.

What makes you think i have not done it? I thought it was just us who did the patronising?

god also seems to send spectacularly different messages to those who do find it…just saying like. If it was real I would expect somethign approaching unanimity/agreement with those of faith.

Not evolved your thinking with maturity in the last 30 odd years?

Yes. It’s evolved into an even firmer disbelief in obvious bullshit.

To save all this time and energy squabbling, can we all just agree this is the best bit:

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdxD8DWt_pU[/video]

Have you read the full article?
Someone started it – it was created and it powered by love , if this does not contradict evolution it certainly re writes it.
@ mike these threads are less shouty and each thread seems to bring out at least one person of faith to argue their case. No one convinces anyone of anything as we all know all the arguments and have made our choice

What we’ve got here is failure to comprehend.

Again, he does not state that god directly made humans, he states that god created humans through the process of evolution. This is a step forward for the Christian world and something positive that us atheists should acknowledge instead of deride, we have long claimed that what separates science from religion is that science evolves, I don’t see why we shouldn’t let religious folk evolve their theology as well.

Anyone who claims the superiority of their own beliefs (even you cannot say why the material universe exists at all and what set off the series of events that led us to come into being) is nothing more than a charlatan. Let me be clear, the opposite to a religious fanatic is not aggressive and poorly informed atheism but a cynical and questioning attitude that cares not whether there is actually a god.

Perhaps next he’ll be telling us how his god evolved…

He might do if the physicists looking for signs that we are living in a simulation come up with positive results.

That would wind up all the atheists and theists as we’d have a god or gods, just technically not the one we wanted and I’d die with a shit eating grin on my face.

he states that god created humans through the process of evolution

No, he says god created human beings and everythign else. I have now quoted it three times

He [ god] created human beings….

“God is not a divine being or a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life,” the pope said. “Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.”
He says god made us then we evolved….it snot even vaguely ambiguous

I don’t see why we shouldn’t let religious folk evolve their theology as well.

It’s that bit about being perfect and always right that means that a [ abrahmic] god cannot evolve. God cannot really change its mind on stuff.

Anyone who claims the superiority of their own beliefs (even you cannot say why the material universe exists at all and what set off the series of events that led us to come into being) is nothing more than a charlatan.

Yah its ranty tom time- does a little dance.
I think science is more robust than a mythology and , to use your terms, superior. If I said the earth evolved from cheese and stands on a tortoise resting on the souls of the unborn angel unicorn is it really unfair to call the other alternative scientific view superior? Are you this charlatan?

Let me be clear, the opposite to a religious fanatic is not aggressive and poorly informed atheism but a cynical and questioning attitude that cares not whether there is actually a god

I dont think indifferent ambivalence is the best thing but you are free to use it as your “weapon” of choice – do you really think folk discuss things where they dont care what the answer is 😯 I also do not think you need to be a religious scholar to dismiss religion.

I do agree you dont beat militancy with greater militancy. I dont see any militancy[ whoppit apart obv] on here – some passion perhaps but that is not a bad thing.

I have seen a huge range of views and opinions within just that one denomination

Oh so they weren’t all brain washed muppets then ??

god also seems to send spectacularly different messages to those who do find it.

Does it ? How so ? I’d honestly like your option based on the evidence you have from the wealth of experience you’ve gleamed from your time with people of faith in a place of worship.

Just like Mike has

Why is it that the faithful are happy to debate anything other than their evidence? I’ve had and seen numerous discussions on faith and never once has anyone engaged on the topic of their proof for the existence of god,

Because it’s probably not really the point.

If you discount Creationism, as many Christians do, then it’s very easy to insert God into what we know about the universe without contradicting anything. Let’s face it, you know absolutely nothing about why the big bang happened, neither does anyone else. So why not have a god in the picture?

Who created God? I don’t know. What created the universe? I don’t know that either 🙂

Why is it that the faithful are happy to debate anything other than their evidence? I’ve had and seen numerous discussions on faith and never once has anyone engaged on the topic of their proof for the existence of god,

Sorry nicked the above from Mols… not sure who the orginal poster was…. but…

Oh I don’t know about that… I’m given my views at various times.

Thing is God is personnal so what works for me may well be and probably is completely different from someone else. It doesn’t matter… God is also just a word… A rose by anyother would smell as sweat.

This discussion seems to occur quite regularly on STW these days, with no real progress made. I don’t know whether that reflects the real world or not, or just the views of some mountain bikers 🙂

Nothing much to contribute from me except to note that asking why we are here rather than how are we here doesn’t seem to me to be the sign of weakness that some may think, and asking the question might be something essential to human nature that the scientific viewpoint isn’t capable of understanding.

Also, as its unlikely that science will ever answer the why, this debate will run for ever more.

He says god made us then we evolved….it snot even vaguely ambiguous

Bollocks, that is willfully misinterpreting the translation to suit your own agenda. He’s said that creation required beings that evolved, where the **** did he say creation requires humans that evolved.

It’s that bit about being perfect and always right that means that a [ abrahmic] god cannot evolve. God cannot really change its mind on stuff.

Humans can change their interpretation of him.

Yah its ranty tom time- does a little dance.
I think science is more robust than a mythology and , to use your terms, superior. If I said the earth evolved from cheese and stands on a tortoise resting on the souls of the unborn angel unicorn is it really unfair to call the other alternative scientific view superior? Are you this charlatan?

I’m a freaking biologist mate, I spend my spare time reading the writings of enlightenment thinkers like John Locke for a bit of light entertainment, who the hell are you? I never said that one side was more superior than the other, I said you cannot claim superiority for your own beliefs in regards to matters that science cannot address.

molgrips – Member

Why is it that the faithful are happy to debate anything other than their evidence? I’ve had and seen numerous discussions on faith and never once has anyone engaged on the topic of their proof for the existence of god,

Because it’s probably not really the point.

In your opinion.

If you discount Creationism, as many Christians do

But many don’t.
So lets hear your views on their devoutly held faith in it.

Thing is God is personnal so what works for me may well be and probably is completely different from someone else. It doesn’t matter… God is also just a word… A rose by anyother would smell as sweat.

So you created your God to suit you as an individual?

And God can’t ‘also just’ be anything.
It’s either just a word, or it’s not.
Please clarify.
🙂

Nothing much to contribute from me except to note that asking why we are here rather than how are we here doesn’t seem to me to be the sign of weakness that some may think, and asking the question might be something essential to human nature

I agree it is fascinating to just stare in winder at the whole show
I feel sorry for folk who never ever think about this

that the scientific viewpoint isn’t capable of understanding.

Possibly but it does not mean we should make up something just because it is comforting – gods was the best guess millenia ago, the best guess now is science.

Who created God? I don’t know. What created the universe? I don’t know that either

True but which one do you know REALLY exists?

Here’s the christian god. According to South Park anyway. They may be as right as anyone else.

True but which one do you know REALLY exists?

Define ‘know’.

Possibly but it does not mean we should make up something just because it is comforting

Why the hell not?

I would rather define tedious to the degree educated physicist asking me that question 🙄 and YAWN

Or ‘goal post shifting’.

If you’re religious and a freemason, which takes precendent?

You have to believe in a God/Supreme Being/FSM etc to be a Freemason.

Dem’s da rules.

I would rather define tedious to the degree educated physicist asking me that question and YAWN

You’re the one who’s engaging in tedious arguing for no point. You seem to be suggesting that.. well.. what are you saying? All religious people are stupid? That’s proven empirically not to be true, so what next?

I would rather define tedious to the degree educated physicist asking me that question and YAWN

Cat got your tongue?

molgrips – Member

You’re the one who’s engaging in tedious arguing for no point.
And you’re the one refusing to answer perfectly sensible questions.

I’m all for people believing what they want, for a little comfort.
It’s the inevitable consequences of that belief that worry me.

I’m a freaking biologist mate, I spend my spare time reading the writings of enlightenment thinkers like John Locke for a bit of light entertainment, who the hell are you? I never said that one side was more superior than the other, I said you cannot claim superiority for your own beliefs in regards to matters that science cannot address.

Tell me you can see the irony in this?
Please?

And you’re the one refusing to answer perfectly sensible questions.

Like what?

That was outrage at being told what is and isn’t science, what is currently addressed by science and it’s place in the world by a layman.

Thing is God is personnal so what works for me may well be and probably is completely different from someone else. It doesn’t matter… God is also just a word… A rose by anyother would smell as sweat.

So God is just a word for what? A general universal holistic lovely warm fuzzy feeling?

Can you explain your view on creationism?

For me, there is a huge difference between faith and ‘the church’, whatever church that might be. I ‘might’ have a belief in something but that doesn’t necessarily mean I use the bible as an instruction manual for life or that whatever some pensioner in a nice gown decides is the truth, is necessarily the truth for me.

I believe in democracy, I don’t believe in the UK’s version of democracy. The reasoning behind this is based on what I’ve read, watched, listened to and learnt. I might believe in faith, I don’t believe in the christians version of faith for similar reasons.

Pulling someone apart because they don’t share the same view seems a bit small minded to me. Addtionally, not everyone needs to have a rational explanation as to why they feel about something the way they do. A developed society should be tolerant of anyones views, with the caveat that those views shouldn’t harm/upset anyone else.

At the end of the day, as long as folk treat each other decently then where is the problem. Whether you do that as a result of your following of the bible, following what some bloke in a posh gaff in Italy says or whether you just come to that conclusion on your own, it doesn’t really matter.

Can you explain your view on creationism?

Me? I don’t believe in literal creationism and I don’t pretend to know for certain whether there is a god or not, like Hitchens I suspect that there is no god and/or god is not worth our time thinking about, I would most likely dislike him/her even if he did exist.

In short to get an idea of the direction I’m travelling in intellectually in regards to this matter, I like Hitchens because his nuanced ad hom of god amused me to no end, whilst Richard Dawkins despite being brilliant winds me up.

Question was aimed at Moly.

But all responses welcome.
🙂

You’re the one who’s engaging in tedious arguing for no point.

LOl says the person when asked a simple question asked for a definition of a word he understands perfectly well. So physicist atheist which do you consider real the universe or god?

You seem to be suggesting that.. well.. what are you saying? All religious people are stupid? That’s proven empirically not to be true, so what next?

I suggest you read around page 4 or 5 when we all agreed that religion was no indication of intelligence. Pointless ad hom distraction as well

Molly why do you do this define “trick ” – its pretty childish tbh

Like what?

and another – we all knwo your answer and this is just so Mollgrips

Cat got your tongue?

I guess i missed your explanation of what the Popes actual words meant then

oh the irony.

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9TMwfkDwIY[/video]

I guess i missed your explanation of what the Popes actual words meant then

I guess you failed school comprehension tests, I didn’t as my verbal IQ is 135.

I guess you failed school comprehension tests, I didn’t as my verbal IQ is 135

Seriously?