"I asked God to help me"

yes that right anyone who disagrees with god is almost certainly an ego manic

Not what I said, as you seem to be confusing Ego with Ego maniac. Read up on Ego psychology, unless those scientists are wrong as well….

As for the book, if you are that anti god its well worth giving it a read as I am 99.99% sure its not what you expect it to be….. and whilst I am pretty sure it won’t change your belief, its an interesting read from the human development and history angle.

Cougar – Member
Cougar – how many of the world’s population would you estimate follow a religion? Of those, how many would you consider extreme/intolerant?
You’re missing my point. I’m not talking about people’s actions,

Blimey Cougar, they were more rhetorical questions but chapeau for answering them!! But in the interest of debate, I am not sure that I am missing your point, since you add…

Many religions are intolerant in nature; arguably, by design

To re-quote you, I am not sure that is “entirely accurate” but you are stressing it as an important point and that is where I think we disagree. My questions were merely suggesting that religion and tolerance are not exclusive in fact on the basis of those questions I would argue that they are more (but far from 100%) inclusive.

If a teenage Muslim girl decided that actually, she was going to denounce Islam and become a Roman Catholic, what do you reckon would be the reaction of her family and community?

Again how much of that is due to religious teaching rather than cultural norms. Its not that black and white, surely?

Equally come back when you and Mr Khan are actually fighting (ok, bad example given your views on religion, but you get the point I hope!). For every religious conflict I am sure one can point to examples of religious harmony. Go through villages on the West Bank and then villages in Mauritius where there will be a mosque, temple and church next to each other and what do you conclude? Still black and white?

[JY – going back a page or so, does that ‘falsify’ Popper completely!!!! :wink:]

Anyway, basically the religious guy drowns.

When he meets God in heaven (he goes to heaven because he’s been a good religious person) he asks God:

“Dude! We had a deal. You said you’d save me. What happened?”

God replies:

“Sheesh! I sent a lifeboat and a helicopter for you. What more do you want?”

Some “Religious Conflict” from today’s Times:

“Moscow. Thousands joined a day of prayer called by the Russian Orthodox Church yesterday to fend off what it said was an attack on it’s authority. Leaders have been accused of over-reacting to a protest by three women from the punk rock band “Pussy Power”…

😆 😆 😆

My questions were merely suggesting that religion and tolerance are not exclusive in fact on the basis of those questions I would argue that they are more (but far from 100%) inclusive.

I think the problem here is that it depends on the religion. Some genuinely do promote peace and tolerance even towards non-believers – Buddhism springs to mind – but conversely you’ve got things like Sharia where apostasy (trying to leave Islam) carries the death penalty.

Again how much of that is due to religious teaching rather than cultural norms.

In a heavily religious society, how do you differentiate?

Its not that black and white, surely?

I see what you did there. (-:

For every religious conflict I am sure one can point to examples of religious harmony.

Oh, sure, I don’t disagree. Different belief systems (and absences thereof) can coexist, my point was simply that the idea that ‘all religions promote love and tolerance’ doesn’t always appear to hold true in practice. People can be bigoted idiots with or without divine instruction.

I think you will find that Cougar posted it a few pages ago

You think I’ve actually read this thread?! I have work to do! 🙄

You think I’ve actually read this thread?! I have work to do!

Conversation is a two-way process.

And my version was funnier.

Absence of belief, is not belief

There is no absence of belief unless the thought has not been conceived to be believed. Everyone has belief. Even if you believe it to be false.

It would be churlish to mention that the ease with which you change the meanings of words to suit your own arguments, and then imply that everyone who merely disagrees with your definition is some sort of fundamentalist grammatarian, is a perfect metaphor for what passes for reason in the rest of your befuddled brain.

I’m using a meaning which removes any religious pretext and treats everyone evenly, under one umbrella. As human beings.

This entire thread is made up of choice words. We have a group of atheists ‘debating’ with another group of athiests. It’s not atheism that is the subject. It’s the choice words and the use of them to belittle those that disagree.

There is no absence of belief unless the thought has not been conceived to be believed. Everyone has belief. Even if you believe it to be false.

Earlier I conceived the idea of pink unicorns in your skirting board. Do you now have a belief that there aren’t pink unicorns? Do you now consider yourself aunicornist?

This is the sort of weaselly logic that theists like so much, because it means that we have to substantiate and add weight to their beliefs before disagreeing with them.

This is the sort of weaselly logic that theists like so much, because it means that we have to substantiate and add weight to their beliefs before disagreeing with them.

It becomes an intellectual debate which adds legitimacy, next thing you know univeristies will be offering Phd’s. Oh hang on…

Well from this thread he seems to be gathering his sheep a little more closely to him! http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/another-cyclist-dead-another-ruling-of-accidental-death
Probably too busy watching the match.

Do you now have a belief that there aren’t pink unicorns?

I believe that your notion of pink unicorns is false, yes 🙂

because it means that we have to substantiate and add weight to their beliefs before disagreeing with them

Not sure that we do, to be honest. It’s not possible to argue with them, or they with us.

The reason being, it’s fairly easy to punch holes in the idea of a controlling benevolent God, it’s also fairly easy to punch holes in the absolutist atheist position.

So what’s the point?

It’s fun?

also fairly easy to punch holes in the absolutist atheist position

Go on, then. Haven’t seen it yet, like…

See what I mean?

They are absolutely sure that your arguments don’t hold water, you are absolutely sure that theirs don’t. We’re back to proving each others’ position is false.

Stalemate.

Not really, no.

They are absolutely sure that your arguments don’t hold water, you are absolutely sure that theirs don’t. We’re back to proving each others’ position is false.

In this instance all you have to do is substantiate your claim.

fairly easy to punch holes in the absolutist atheist position

Mr Woppit – Member

also fairly easy to punch holes in the absolutist atheist position

Go on, then. Haven’t seen it yet, like…

Go on, then. Haven’t seen it yet, like…

I suspect we’re back to disproving a negative. It’s arguably not possible to be an atheist as you can’t disprove god.

It’s disingenuous though. I can’t disprove my skirting board unicorns, but that’s no reason to start giving credence to the belief that they might be there.

I know beyond reasonable doubt that there is neither miniature pink unicorns in my skirting boards nor a god in the sky. Neither require a belief system, and both will be happily revised on the discovery of any sort of evidence to the contrary.

on the discovery of any sort of evidence to the contrary.

Presumably, that’s what molgrips means by

also fairly easy to punch holes in the absolutist atheist position

If it’s so easy, how come nobody’s managed it?

You say God doens’t exist. I ask for proof. I have not yet seen any.

Saying ‘I shouldn’t have to’ is not any kind of proof.

I can’t disprove my skirting board unicorns, but that’s no reason to start giving credence to the belief that they might be there

Why though? Based on your experience and observations, and your extrapolations with regards probability. Neither of which are categorical, are they?

Why not use a better analogy like, say.. UFOs?

If it’s so easy, how come nobody’s managed it?

A lot of theists feel they have. You just don’t agree with them…

A lot of theists feel they have

No the believe they have, they haven’t presented any proof though.

Saying ‘I shouldn’t have to’ is not any kind of proof.

molgrips if you assert something then you have to show it proof the thing exist it is not an unreasonable question or starting point – see Higgs Boson for example.
FFS You cannot prove a negative that is why you need to prove the assertion or else you can just assert anything and assume it is true because no one can disprove it

I have a Unified theory of everything on my desktop …what you want me to show it to you …prove i have not got it on my desk

You are a physicist are you just bored today as I cannot believe you think like this?

And my version was funnier.

Ah! That’s because I didn’t actually tell mine. 😉

You proposed a god. I ask for evidence. You can’t give any, and try to pass responsibility to me to assume the burden of proof about your own proposition.

Sad. Useless. Defeated. Pathetic.

Hope that’s not too “strident”…

You proposed a god. I ask for evidence. You can’t give any, and try to pass responsibility to me to assume the burden of proof about your own proposition.

Sad. Useless. Defeated. Pathetic.

Hope that’s not too “strident”…

If you can explain Creation without the notion of a God I would love to hear about it. As in, how does something come from nothing?

butcher ..

As i was saying, absence of belief is not belief.
It is disbelief.

The fact that I don’t accept something that you do (based on what I consider to be a lack of evidence) does not imply that I therefore “believe” the opposite or indeed that I “beleive” anything at all.

Your choice of the word belief because it “treats everyone evenly, under one umbrella. As human beings.” Is exactly what I’m arguing against.

Your aim in defining belief as you do, seems to be to imply that:
I have a belief and someone else has a belief, therefore we have the same thing.

That is not the case. I do not “believe” in facts proved by science. (nor do I have “faith” in them). I am convinced by the evidence.

I can use those words loosely in that context (and many people do .. like you), but I object to it because “belief” and “faith” are bad words to use for something for which you have evidence.

how does something come from nothing?

We don’t know. That isn’t the same as: “We don’t know, so it must have been a god.”

Too easy. You’re quite new to this stuff, aren’t you?

molgrips if you assert something then you have to show it proof the thing exist it is not an unreasonable question or starting point

In science yes, but this isn’t science is it?

I’m a scientist, but I understand that that is only one possible way of looking at the world, from a human point of view.

Scientific theories are great for explaining the mechanics of the world, but there’s a lot they don’t explain.

I am trying to show that for many human beings there is much more to existence than simply proof and evidence. This is not new agey spiritual waffle, it’s simply something I have learned over the years.

To re-iterate, I don’t believe in God nor do I believe in any kind of higher power or meaning. But such things are part of the wide spectrum of humanity.

… yet.

If you can explain Creation without the notion of a God I would love to hear about it. As in, how does something come from nothing?

Our Universe or their god ?

Molgrips I agree that Science may not be great [ currently anyway] for aesthetics , humour or love. However this debate is about what entities exist in the universe and how it/we got here. I think that easily falls within the remit of science and evidence.

Saying ‘I shouldn’t have to’ is not any kind of proof.

No, it’s not. But if you expect me to take an outlandish supernatural theory seriously, then I need a reason to do that. “Someone made it up years ago and I really believe it a lot” isn’t good enough.

At best, we’re in the realms of the agnostic here. The agnostic is arguably the most logical standpoint, in that they’re entertaining the idea that there might be a god but not believing it as fact without some sort of evidence.

Why not use a better analogy like, say.. UFOs?

Ok, sure. I have no reason to believe in UFOs, other than a healthy interest in science fiction. It’s possible that an alien spaceship crashed in Area 51, but it’s highly unlikely. I do actually believe that there could well life on other planets, simply because there’s so damn many of them, but we’re unlikely ever to make contact because of the immense distances involved.

It’s actually a lot easier to believe in UFOs if you believe in gods, I’d say. Assuming there is another planet out there with intelligent life capable of crossing great distances, the chance of them setting out in the right direction to find us is astronomically small. If a god made both worlds, however, it’d make sense to have some sort of innate connection.

how does something come from nothing?
We don’t know. That isn’t the same as: “We don’t know, so it must have been a god.”

Too easy. You’re quite new to this stuff, aren’t you?

Still, the question stands, and I don’t see evoking the idea of an eternal, self-creating God as the easy answer. There is the question of divine judgement which I would particularly like to avoid after all – in this respect the prosaic, fashionable atheism you evoke would be much preferable. Atheism is by far the easier option.
I suggest you look at some of John Lennox’s videos on YouTube, specifically Genesis. And no, I’m not new to this.

However this debate is about what entities exist in the universe and how it/we got here.

Is it? Sure about that? That’s a pretty prosaic interpretation of the debate, and I feel that is where we might be diverging.

I am trying to show that for many human beings there is much more to existence than simply proof and evidence.

Saying that we dont know it yet is not the same as saying that it doesnt exist.

well i accept we are discussing what entities exist in people’s heads but i accept they think it is real…I was being respectful…how did I do ? 😉

If you can explain Creation without the notion of a God I would love to hear about it. As in, how does something come from nothing?

Where did God come from?

I love this argument. Something can’t always just have existed, it must have come from something. That something must be god! Where did god come from? Ah, god has always existed.

It amuses me no end that you can’t accept or understand an explanation for something, so you invent an imaginary construct to attempt to explain it in preschool-friendly terms; then when that construct fails in exactly the same way as the original premise, you’re suddenly happy to accept the original explanation which you previously rejected in order to create god in the first place.

Also, just because you don’t understand something, doesn’t render it any less valid. I don’t understand quantum physics, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t work, nor that I can establish “well, it’s magic, isn’t it” as an alternative theory.

The ‘big bang theory’ is just that, a theory. It’s not a fact, it’s just the best we have, the most likely explanation based on the evidence we have so far. It’s actually quite complicated, and doesn’t really suggest that the universe “came from nothing” at all.

Where did God come from?

Not so fast! its Turtles all the way down young man!

I’m not arguing for the existence of God.

I am defending those who choose to believe in it.