@dannyh 🙂

Never mind her religion. Did you see her leather trousers?

Atheist means a rejection of all religious belief (all equally invalid) but Charlie’s primary rule still applies because if you’re a d1ck about other people’s choices then you’re no better than the tiny handful of religious loons

As for Theresa May, remember that she said when she was home sec “I’m all for free speech, but… ” which bothers me greatly because there should be a full stop after the word speech, no but is allowed.

If she wants to be guided by her god, the more salient question is whether this belief has greater weight than the evidence that is presented when formulating policy – note that her comment avoids this question, which bothers me especially when you combine it with the free speech issue.

but she’s a politician so I have a default position of assuming a BS spout unless proven otherwise, regardless of party

Nobody yet seems to have asked the important question. Not WWJD, but would Jesus be allowed into our glorious new Great Britain which we’ve taken back control of? I’m thinking carpenters aren’t all that high up the list of skills we’re short of, and with his background he’s exactly the sort people are wanting to keep out.

Or does persecution by Romans give him legitimate refugee status?

“I am a practising member of the Church of England and so forth” is roughly equivalent, in terms of deranged medieval fanaticism of the sort that threatens the very foundations of modernity and the possibility of human progress to “I sometimes do yoga because I feel quite spiritual” or “I only eat free-range chickens“.

I cannot believe how exciting this thread has been about something so utterly mleh. 🙂

I’ll think it through, have a gut instinct, look at the evidence, work through the arguments, because you have to think through the unintended consequences

i’m happy with most of these, though ‘which evidence’ is a question. But basing national and international decisions on ‘gut instinct’ ?

i’m happy with most of these, though ‘which evidence’ is a question. But basing national and international decisions on ‘gut instinct’ ?

Maybe that was pre-referendum, when she was pro-EU? Post-referendum, leaving the EU is the right thing to do, because God.

I am quite comfortable having openly religious politicians and even an openly religious PM. That’s the world we live in and even though we have dwindling numbers of politically observant people as an electorate we still largely seem to tolerate and reinforce a constitution that is somehow tied up with the monarchy and the Church of England. So what should we expect?

As above though, May and indeed Cameron and Blair all left the (backslidden) evangelical in me feeling upset and disenfranchised that the faith I thought I knew was being used to somehow bolster, justify or back up some rather un-Christian policy and decisions.

Ironically if Jesus were around today, his actions and teachings as reported in the gospels would have him backing current version of Labour (yes even the very atheist Corbyn) not TM DC or TB.

This threads stalling, have a Pic of her watching you whilst you criticise her..

julianwilson – Member

As above though, May and indeed Cameron and Blair all left the (backslidden) evangelical in me feeling upset and disenfranchised that the faith I thought I knew was being used to somehow bolster, justify or back up some rather un-Christian policy and decisions.

This is it… Some bolshy atheists seem to be getting upset about this but all there really is for us to be annoyed about, is bog standard Theresa May cynical hypocrisy, and who’s got enough energy to get annoyed every time she does that?

The people who’ve got a right to be annoyed are genuine Christians seeing their Lord’s name taken in vain, yet again. Christ wouldn’t vote for this shower, he’d ride up on his velociraptor and hadoken her into the sea. (*)

(* It’s a while since I went to church, I’m sketchy on the details)

Ironically if Jesus were around today, his actions and teachings as reported in the gospels would have him backing current version of Labour (yes even the very atheist Corbyn) not TM DC or TB.

Can’t see him voting. He’d be wearing a bomb vest and heading for a temple. The crucifix v2 might be a bit of design challenge.

Christ wouldn’t vote for this shower, he’d ride up on his velociraptor and hadoken her into the sea.

He doesn’t ride a velociraptor. He drives one of these…..

For so is it written in the Book of Panther 4:12

“and lo! the Lord came down from heaven in his triumph to smite the blasphemer”

See, that’s not what the book of Shobba says.

Oooohhh, your gonna get such a smiting when HE finds out.

Or does persecution by Romans give him legitimate refugee status?

Being all historical for a minute, I’m pretty sure it would yes.

Where’s SaxonRider when you need him?

Being historical… the Jesus myth is a collection of older myths.

i thought it was “and lo, the roar of Moses’ Triumph was heard throughout Israel”.

Atheist means a rejection of all religious belief

No, it means an absence of belief. It derives from Greek “without God”.

It can actually be either – a belief there is no god, or an absence of belief there is a god – although for many that is closer to agnosticism.

That might have been the original etymological derivation – but the meaning has moved on.

Look at the big brains on brad.

It can actually be either – a belief there is no god, or an absence of belief there is a god – although for many that is closer to agnosticism.

That might have been the original etymological derivation – but the meaning has moved on.

All atheists have an absence of belief in god, but only some believe that there is no god. Believing that there is no god is not an innate characteristic of atheism.

Agnosticism is the belief that the existence of god is unknown or unknowable, which is something else.

Blimey ransos, I’m confused now. I’ve always just thought I didn’t believe in God. Now I have to decide if it’s an absence of belief or a belief in the non existence of God.

Blimey ransos, I’m confused now. I’ve always just thought I didn’t believe in God. Now I have to decide if it’s an absence of belief or a belief in the non existence of God.

Do whatever works for you. 🙂

I just get a little frustrated when I’m told what I think. I wouldn’t, for example, assume that all Christians believe the earth was literally created in six days…

“Belief” in this context always feels a bit too close to “faith”.

I prefer “I am of the opinion, due to the continuing lack of evidence in it’s existence, that there is no such a thing as god”.

Otherwise, it’s just talk.

Ransos I don’t believe you are correct… 😉

And actually I think many or most people who would identify as atheists would disagree with you. But may be that is unknowable too!

Phew, looked like this latest one was running out of steam at one stage. Carry on…

Yeah, I wouldn’t describe myself as religious these days unless I wanted to capture a particular spectrum of the vote, but I do always think “OK, there’s no beardy man in the sky, the big bang happened, eventually the Sun and Earth formed and life evolved, but what gives all this the laws of physics? What was there before the Big Bang? Was there a time before the Big Bang?”

And because of that, if someone says that the thing before the Big Bang or that set the laws of physics up was God, and someone else says turtles all the way down, I’m not going to ridicule them or argue with them until I have some evidence to the contrary. (Obviously those that deny observable facts are numpties).

And actually I think many or most people who would identify as atheists would disagree with you. But may be that is unknowable too!

You think most atheists would disagree with the following?

i) All atheists have an absence of belief in god
ii) Some atheists believe that there is no god

I find that unlikely, to say the least…

“OK, there’s no beardy man in the sky, the big bang happened, eventually the Sun and Earth formed and life evolved, but what gives all this the laws of physics? What was there before the Big Bang? Was there a time before the Big Bang?”

Brian Cox is currently on tour, you may find his lecture of interest…

Yeah, I wouldn’t describe myself as religious these days unless I wanted to capture a particular spectrum of the vote, but I do always think “OK, there’s no beardy man in the sky, the big bang happened, eventually the Sun and Earth formed and life evolved, but what gives all this the laws of physics? What was there before the Big Bang? Was there a time before the Big Bang?”
And because of that, if someone says that the thing before the Big Bang or that set the laws of physics up was God, and someone else says turtles all the way down, I’m not going to ridicule them or argue with them until I have some evidence to the contrary. (Obviously those that deny observable facts are numpties).

My trouble with this chain of thought though is you can always just add another level – What / who made the big bang and physics? – What / who made god? – What / who made the thing that made god and so on and so on….

because of that, if someone says that the thing before the Big Bang or that set the laws of physics up was God, and someone else says turtles all the way down, I’m not going to ridicule them or argue with them until I have some evidence to the contrary

The answer to some questions is “we don’t know yet”, and that’s okay.

Obviously, the correct response to anyone claiming anything else isn’t ridicule, but it’s too big a leap, for me, to say “a god did it” especially when lots of things it was previously claimed were done by god have been shown to have non-supernatural causes/mechanisms.

Brian Cox is currently on tour, you may find his lecture of interest…

It’s very good, as is his approach to religion. The current crop of prominent atheists are much nicer than the last lot, who were quite dickish.

It’s very good, as is his approach to religion. The current crop of prominent atheists are much nicer than the last lot, who were quite dickish.

Yep, though I must admit I was hanging on by my fingernails, as it was far more in-depth than anything you get on the Infinite Monkey Cage. I was glad I’d read some popular science books before going to see it…

ransos – Member

You think most atheists would disagree with the following?

i) All atheists have an absence of belief in god
ii) Some atheists believe that there is no god

We actually had a pretty good Heated Debate about this a couple of years back, I’m pretty sure TJ went into orbit. The language is poor imo, “atheist” commonly covers 2 pretty different positions- the absence of belief in god, and the belief in the absence of god. Ideally we’d have different terminology. As it is, we have at the extreme end “preachers of atheism” for whom it genuinely looks like a religion. People have suggested atheism (for the absence of belief) and antitheism (for the belief that there is no god). But I don’t like that either.

A big part of it is the assumption that religion is some sort of default state- it’s common for the religious to assume that atheism is a belief just like their faith, filling the box marked “religion” in people’s heads, and to treat it the same. As if everyone were a mountain biker, a roadie, or an acyclist, and everyone is taking a position.

While atheists would tend to agree that atheism is the default state, and some people add religion. There’s no absence for an unreligious person, no god-shaped hole in their character sheet.

So IMO, there doesn’t need to be a word for the absence of religion at all. You need a word for things you opt into, you don’t need a word for the blank sheet. I’m a mountain biker; before that I wasn’t an acylist. Cycling is a thing you do, not cycling isn’t.

And yes, “belief” is a very weighted term in this conversation.

miketually – Member

It’s very good, as is his approach to religion. The current crop of prominent atheists are much nicer than the last lot, who were quite dickish.

Agreed- though I’d say it’s fairly understandable that atheism could be so adversarial in the past, and now doesn’t feel such a need to be. We used to get the church elder coming round every couple of months to tell my mum off for not going to church, and explain how it wasn’t fair to the children to deprive us of a proper christian upbringing, no doubt he thinks my dad was dickish when he kicked him into the street and threw a bible at his head. These days, he wouldn’t be so dickish, because no arsehole would come round the house and hassle his wife.

molgrips – Member

Or does persecution by Romans give him legitimate refugee status?

Well I used this scientific age recognition software and it turns out despite claiming to be a baby born in the manger, he’s 2022 years old.

philjunior – Member
the big bang happened.

Did it? hmmm? Prove it!

it’s too big a leap, for me, to say “a god did it”

As possible answers go, it’s not even a particularly satisfying one.

“The universe can’t possibly have existed for ever, so a god must have created it.”

“Who created god?”

“Oh, god’s always existed.”

It doesn’t actually answer the question, it just displaces it elsewhere.

We actually had a pretty good Heated Debate about this a couple of years back, I’m pretty sure TJ went into orbit. The language is poor imo, “atheist” commonly covers 2 pretty different positions- the absence of belief in god, and the belief in the absence of god. Ideally we’d have different terminology. As it is, we have at the extreme end “preachers of atheism” for whom it genuinely looks like a religion. People have suggested atheism (for the absence of belief) and antitheism (for the belief that there is no god). But I don’t like that either.

My point was simply that you can’t have the second position without also having the first position. Whereas you can hold the first position but not necessarily the second…I agree that the terminology is unhelpful

While atheists would tend to agree that atheism is the default state, and some people add religion. There’s no absence for an unreligious person, no god-shaped hole in their character sheet.

There’s an interesting debate to be had there: story telling/ origin myths are the norm across the planet. Why?

Did it? hmmm? Prove it!

Eh? You really need to read up on the scientific method…

ransos – Member
Eh? You really need to read up on the scientific method…

There are alternative theories.

There are alternative theories.

I was referring to your demand for “proof”.

ransos – Member
There are alternative theories.
I was referring to your demand for “proof”.

I was referring to the statement, the big bang happened.

The answer to some questions is “we don’t know yet”, and that’s okay.

Quite right.