Where in actual fact most religions try and give guidelines on how to act like a reasonable, decent human being.

Good point
those gays are an abomination and deserve to be stoned with the adulterers

IMHO the abrahmic religions are rather intolerant though most in the west now just ignore those bits…see point above about them ignoring the bits that are indefensible but still keeping the faith/belief.
Its one of the reasons why folk mock their intelligence.

just chucking this one in there for the tolerant Christians
Christians threatening divorce if gay marriage passes banned from friend’s wedding

It really is bizarre that they think they own marriage and that it only happens with god. They [ the church] were very late to the party in the UK in terms of marriage and involvement.

Ironically they really dont like it when someone tells them what to do either as that is intolerant and discrimination.

thankfully most of the western christians ignore the bible in this respect.

just checking can we ridicule this sort of religion?

Evidently, yet IMO it’s better to do it with real quotes rather than false quotes wrongly attributed to people.

Colleagues of mine (teachers) were overheard talking about how excited they were that a bloke who had ‘actual fossils from the Garden of Eden’ was coming to talk at their church.

Bampottery of the highest order.

It is something of a generalisation to equate religion with religious fundamentalism. It is a tactic favoured by Richard Dawkins, whose work has been replied to by intelligent, highly educated writers like Keith Ward.
Whenever I see threads on this forum with a “Religion = Bonkers” theme, I think its shallow ego-boost time.

It is something of a generalisation to equate religion with religious fundamentalism.

true but the general intolerance of the middle ground is fairly despondent, that and the fact that they either believe in all of it or just the bits they like – probably the worst of the lot

I don’t think these New Atheist threads really have that much to do with genuine outrage at religious intolerance. I think they are motivated by the need for the posters to get an ego-boost and feel superior, feelings which largely motivate the New Atheist movement. It helps that religion and particularly Christianity is an easy target. But it gets boring after the 2,000th thread.

the need for the posters to get an ego-boost and feel superior, feelings which largely motivate the New Atheist movement. It helps that religion and particularly Christianity is an easy target.

Seriously all religion is an easy target, it’s all made up even if it isn’t then it conflicts with 10 odd other fairy tales. no need for an ego boost but when did a modern religion own marriage? or why should they become the moral arbitrator or what is right or wrong? Those upholding religious belief regularly fall outside of their moral codes it’s a joke. And please play the answer not the man.

Seriously all religion is an easy target

Out of interest, have you gone out of your way to read any of the replies to the New Atheist books? You seem to think you have worked it all out, and that the debate is over. Your reply reminds me of the second hand book shop in Kings Cross where the bookshelf for “Religion” has a copy of a bible and is otherwise filled by works by Dawkins, Dennett, C. Hitchens, and Sam Harris.

Out of interest, have you gone out of your way to read any of the replies to the New Atheist books?

Could you recommend some?

not at all,
work on the sabbeth = not cool
change religion (big with a few) really not cool
disbelieve anything – ooo careful now

Then change what the magic book says to adjust to modern living to keep the punters coming in (sales 101) – good idea.

Give it a real go, why is religion awesome?
I’m not limiting to christianity, defend the lot, one wins the other lost etc. which one is right? Lets all kill each other to find out and while we are at it persecute people who both don’t believe or have no moral and legal rights to be bound by the teachings of somebody who may or may not have been misquoted 2000 years ago.

Specifically on marriage the christian church has no ownership of the concept and it would prove a beautiful IP case with the nords, romans and greeks having a go on prior on that one.

So which part of religion is awesome should I pick to follow, it’s examples of slaughter and persecution over history are not the best reading.

There are indeed a good many intolerant atheists on here, who, it seems to me, need to repeatedly voice their belief of their denial of a God with much mutual backslapping and hurrah’s.

Whereas, those who do have a faith, do not appear to have the same need… Or perhaps it’s the knowledge of the abusive bullying that will certainly arrive by those oh so tolerant, open minded and secure atheists?

Maybe it has everything to do with the size and performance of one’s genitalia? 😉

May I, while ICBA to post on a religion thread, take this opportunity to also congratulate you all with your use of the ‘flat bat’ “prove it by science” response, well done! Has any scientist yet disproved the existence of a God?

Closed minded intolerant people are fools, be they theist or atheist. Live and let live, be nice to each other and so long as your beliefs make you a better person, then they are right for you. 😀

Could you recommend some?

Happily. I’m afraid my knowledge is limited to Christian Apologetics though.

Keith Ward is particularly clear and has a strong interest in science, so I think many of the STW massive might enjoy his books. “Is Religion Dangerous?” is his reply to Dawkins.

Alister McGrath can also be good value, especially “The Dawkins Delusion?”

Many of the New Atheist arguments aren’t actually that new so earlier writers like C.S. Lewis continue to be relevant, such as “Mere Christianity”. My personal favourite is a Russian writer called Nicholas Berdyaev whose works have been retranslated and republished recently.

I should be clear – I’m not sure of anything – but I have found the whole question of Religion far more stimulating since I opened up my reading to those who reply to the New Atheists, as well as the New Atheists themselves.

Whereas, those who do have a faith, do not appear to have the same need… Or perhaps it’s the knowledge of the abusive bullying that will certainly arrive by those oh so tolerant, open minded and secure atheists?

Got to admit, this is hilarious considering religions history.

Think of militant atheism as a reaction to thousands of years of persecution by your lot. Now you know how we feel when we are stopped by religious loons in the street to be preached to.

May I, while ICBA to post on a religion thread, take this opportunity to also congratulate you all with your use of the ‘flat bat’ “prove it by science” response, well done! Has any scientist yet disproved the existence of a God?

Oh go one, flat bat prove it exists, science offers more and more proof as to the lack of existence of a god – could you also specify which one you want proved as there are quite a few. If it all goes down I backed Thor BTW he seems the most fun. I can’t prove that “slackalice” wasn’t in league with hitler and Jimmie saville but hey thats not my problem.

Thanks badnewz.

Live and let live, be nice to each other and so long as your beliefs make you a better person, then they are right for you

This is my biggest problem with all formal religions – they tend to be amongst the most judgmental, intolerant collection of people you will meet.

Has any scientist yet disproved the existence of a God?

Isn’t it the job of religion to prove that god exists ? Its a bit like saying Bigfoot, ghosts and the loch ness monster all exist because you can’t prove they don’t.

Personally I think the flying spaghetti monster makes as much sense as all the rest

I should mention I was brought up in a fairly strong catholic environment, which may colour my opinions

Anytime Spin.
Okay, this thread seems to be lurching towards vindictiveness, so I’m signing off.
Exit Bad Newz, pursued by bear.

lol badnewz & spin (apt really) we shouted have no proof and now running away

Even though Science cannot yet dissprove the existance of god, why should it? Burden of proof is upon religion.

Besides, you don’t have to be an atheist to dislike the idea of god. See Prometheus Bound/Unbound. I’ve always liked the idea of science being a giant **** you to god.

lurching towards vindictiveness,

Nope, I personally I like to ask questions, it was the refusal of our Monks at school to actually debate that finally turned me away from religion – too many inconsistencies for me personally

Should I mention the Awkward Moments Bible ?

not mocking but again play the argument not the man here…

Is the existence of God proveable at all? If we postulate that it’s not proveable, then we can happily believe in it without worrying about proof.

Meh, atheism bores me to tears. Every time I hear someone arguing the merits of atheism, it’s the same damn tune. The fun arguments reside in misotheism.

MIsotheism – In some varieties of polytheism, it was considered possible to inflict punishment on gods by ceasing to worship them

We are almost into a Pratchett world here

lol badnewz & spin (apt really) we shouted have no proof and now running away

How does a request for book titles (my only contribution to this thread) warrant a response like that?

Got to admit, this is hilarious considering religions history.

History is history. Using history to castigate people in the present is shit. God forbid you ever meet any Germans. Or French. Or British.

Is the existence of God proveable at all? If we postulate that it’s not proveable, then we can happily believe in it without worrying about proof.

Can we do the same for Unicorns ? Cos they look so cute 😀

molgrips – Member
Is the existence of God proveable at all? If we postulate that it’s not proveable, then we can happily believe in it without worrying about proof.

If I told you I paid you this month and everyone else agreed is that good enough?

If I have to prove god does not exist to a believer then why should they not prove that a god exists? Unless your point is regardless of the existence of a god of any type (or faction – could be a nasty one) I should accept that you should be able to believe in whatever you want to and pretend it exists… Problem is I do, I respect that you can make up what the ____ you want and that you can believe in it just I reserve the right to call bull shit on it, what exactly is the problem.

How does a request for book titles (my only contribution to this thread) warrant a response like that?

Proof not books darlings 😉 What you got?

MIsotheism – In some varieties of polytheism, it was considered possible to inflict punishment on gods by ceasing to worship them

That’s not an apt description of misotheism. It’s a hatred of god, a totally insane standpoint that I am rather fond of.

Using history to castigate people in the present is shit

How far in the past does it have to be to be history ?
ISIS
Catholic Church covering up abuse
Northern Ireland
Lords Army in Africa

That’s not an apt description of misotheism. It’s a hatred of god, a totally insane standpoint that I am rather fond of.

Sorry it was a misquote from the Wiki on Misotheism – my bad

Problem is I do, I respect that you can make up what the ____ you want and that you can believe in it just I reserve the right to call bull shit on it

You can absolutely call it bullshit. You can believe what you want.

But the point is that you should not think of people who do believe as stupid. Plenty of them are, but plenty are not. They see value in it that you don’t. Much like cycling and expensive bikes. Or kite surfing, or Drum and Bass music, or lots of other things. This is the key point I keep banging on about.

The fun arguments reside in misotheism

Fond as I am of Japanese cuisine that would seem to be a step too far.

But the point is that you should not think of people who do believe as stupid. Plenty of them are, but plenty are not.

This is the thing that interests me most in the whole argument. Lots of the posts on here are of the ‘isn’t religion stupid’ sort and yet far, far more intelligent people than me or thee have held belief. Why?

Stupid no, misguided yes. Live your life based on a basic committee understanding of an ancient text? Well actually I’m reconsidering stupid. Accepting on face value what is dictated to you based on what is frankly a serious interest in behaviour by dead people? What is the bible was re-written according to thatcher? Would there be as many STW devotee’s? religious doctrine is based on the reading of an ancient text and imposing those values on the present. The flaws are presented in the fact that the believers can’t even agree the rules amongst themselves. It’s not a position of strength. In any reasonable discussion we should include all the worlds religions not just the one we woke up with, think about it’s position and work from there. Just working from one version of one religion really puts you into the position of self interest and insular decision making. It’d not something to shout about.

slackalice – Member

May I, while ICBA to post on a religion thread, take this opportunity to also congratulate you all with your use of the ‘flat bat’ “prove it by science” response, well done! Has any scientist yet disproved the existence of a God?

Nope, but they have disproved every creation myth ever written, and much more besides. Religion, of course, responds by having what was once the unquestionable divine word of god become a metaphor, or perhaps mistranslated, or primitive man’s interpretation of the unknowable wisdom of god. And yet expects the other stuff to still be taken as the unquestionable divine word of god and for the onus to be on other people to prove it wrong. Or I should say, to prove more of it wrong.

Think of militant atheism as a reaction to thousands of years of persecution by your lot. Now you know how we feel when we are stopped by religious loons in the street to be preached to.

My lot? Where have I inferred in my post as to which ‘lot’ I was associating myself with? I refer you to my last paragraph as to which ‘lot’ I prefer to be with. 😉

I can’t prove that “slackalice” wasn’t in league with hitler and Jimmie saville but hey thats not my problem.

😯 🙄 😀 Ha! No you can’t, because I wasn’t. What a strange comment.

This is my biggest problem with all formal religions – they tend to be amongst the most judgmental, intolerant collection of people you will meet.

Tell you what, I’ll save you the bother of referring you also to my last paragraph and I’ll write it again here, with a slight amendment:

Closed minded intolerant people are fools, be they theist or atheist whatever their belief’s. Live and let live, be nice to each other and so long as your beliefs make you a better person, then they are right for you.