Sometimes religion doesn't just invite ridicule, it positively begs for it

Science cannot prove a negative. you cannot prove that something does not exist you can only show that the evidence does not support this view.
In that respect there is no evidence for god and tons to refute the biblical account of how we came to be.

If we postulate that it’s not proveable, then we can happily believe in it without worrying about proof.

Again you can do whatever the hell you like the issue is whether what you are doingis credible, reasonable or logical.
Its none of those is it.
I am the best rider in the world and can do 2000 m drops landing on my hands. Its not provable but lets not worry about that and just accept it is true.
Oh and I can fly I just dont bother ETC

Science cannot prove a negative. you cannot prove that something does not exist you can only show that the evidence does not support this view.

You could potentially indirectly infer the non-existence of god from other studies though.

Of course once you have looked for long enough for evidence of somethign and you find none then you tend to conclude that the thing is not there see homoeopathy, psychic powers, god, etc but it is not “proof”.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Science is clearly on the side of no god, no soul, etc

Of course once you have looked for long enough for evidence of somethign and you find none then you tend to conclude that the thing is not there see homoeopathy, psychic powers, god, etc but it is not “proof”.

You are getting a little mixed up here.

We have proof that homeopathy doesn’t work beyond being a placebo because tests were unable to reject the null hypothesis.

That is proof that it is no better than a control or placebo. The issue with being able to prove/disprove god is simply one of study design.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Proof of absence however, is proof.

Live your life based on a basic committee understanding of an ancient text?

Or alternatively, incorporate the good bits into your life. Not so stupid perhaps? One of the main points is be nice to each other. I quite like that, you might want to try it some time 😉

I am the best rider in the world and can do 2000 m drops landing on my hands. Its not provable but lets not worry about that and just accept it is true.
Oh and I can fly I just dont bother ETC

Very very facetious, and entirely unhelpful. I’ll give you some better examples:

I believe I am a good person
I believe others can love me
I believe I should help other people even when it doens’t benefit me
I belive the environment can be saved
I believe it is wrong to eat meat
I believe humans can be saved from themselves

And so on. None of that is proveable, but some of might be worth believing in no?

molgrips – Member

Or alternatively, incorporate the good bits into your life.

At what point, when you’re incorporating the good bits into your life, are you no longer actually following the religion you’re incorporating bits from?

TBH this is always the bit I thought should provide the greatest challenge for faith; practically every of faith disregards parts of their religion. But at that point, you’re just doing things because you want to, like everyone else, you’re not really following the faith.

It’s like saying you’re a triathlete but only ever going swimming. Nothing wrong with just going swimming, but a triathlon has running and cycling in it usually. Once you disregard the running because it’s archaic and outdated and you avoid the cycling because you just don’t really like cycling, you’re just a fellow swimmer.

And of your list of good things, people do all of that and more without any reference to religion- we’re not “incorporating the good bits”, because they don’t belong to faith, they belong to people. And we don’t need any more reason for going swimming than that we like it

(this metaphor would have totally worked with cycling, instead of swimming. But no bugger on here rides bikes)

At what point, when you’re incorporating the good bits into your life, are you no longer actually following the religion you’re incorporating bits from?

I dunno. What is the link between the Bible and Christianity? How is Christianity defined?

But at that point, you’re just doing things because you want to, like everyone else, you’re not really following the faith

I don’t think so. Christianity is Christ’s teachings, is it not? The Bible is four different fourth or fifth hand reports of those teachings, and a load of stuff that was written by scholars way before he was born.

So there’s clearly wiggle room, isn’t there?

It’s like saying you’re a triathlete but only ever going swimming.

No, because Triathlon has a clear definition. Christianity does not. Peopel didn’t spend 2000 years arguing over what kind of running, swimming and biking we should do. Why did they argue? Because it’s not clearly defined.

@ Molly all of that is fine as long as you dont claim it was handed down to you be a deity and it is universal truth that will save your soul

FWIW I do get your point now, apologies.

You are getting a little mixed up here.

Not really , though I was simplyfying. I have a science degree I dont need the explanation which says basically what I did but in a more formal scientific style

We have proof that homeopathy doesn’t work beyond being a placebo because tests were unable to reject the null hypothesis.

Well it depends on whose statistical approach you are using 8)
Its still not [ quite] true. For example we may not be able to measure it well enough, we may have a flawed design etc. For example we took a while to find the Higgs Boson. According to you each failure was a proof* it did not exist till I assume we proved*it did exist. Bit of an odd position that one
Also everything we cannot prove* today is suddenly proved to be false.We cannot cure all cancers this does not prove cancer cannot be cured it may just be that we cannot do it currently.

Proof of absence however, is proof.

Its evidence its not proof.
*lets not go there.

For example we took a while to find the Higgs Boson. according to you each failure was a proof* it did not exist till I assume we proved*it did exist.

They knew roughly why there was no evidence for what they were looking for, that simply can’t be done with homeopathy. And yes, you could **** around with the stats – that’s a little disingenuous though.

We cannot cure all cancers this does not prove cancer cannot be cured it may just be that we cannot do it currently.

Theoretically, we will come to a point where we are very very certain of being able to/or not being able to cure cancer though. Saying that tiny little bit of uncertainty somehow means that we should still believe in fairies or whatever strikes me as a little bit postmodernist.

I was being a smart arse actually based on when I used to teach stats at uni but yes I get your broad point.

The concept of a null hypothesis is used differently in two approaches to statistical inference. In the significance testing approach of Ronald Fisher, a null hypothesis is potentially rejected or disproved on the basis of data that is significant under its assumption, but the null hypothesis is never accepted or proved. In the hypothesis testing approach of Jerzy Neyman and Egon Pearson, a null hypothesis is contrasted with an alternative hypothesis, and the two hypotheses are distinguished on the basis of data, with certain error rates.

I assume a christian could “explain” why we cannot find god as well. You never answered the point re contradiction how the proven to not be a thing became a proven to be a thing when we found it. I think it does highlight why absence of proof is not proof of absence.

My lot? Where have I inferred in my post as to which ‘lot’ I was associating myself with?

This is sadly par for the course on these threads. When you state an opinion that shows interest in or sympathy for some aspect of religious belief some posters extrapolate wildly and assume you are a believer yourself. As Aristotle said ‘It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.’

but the null hypothesis is never accepted or proved.

Sure…the null hypothesis cannot be proven true, it can however be proven false….theoretically though…. again….statistics can muddy this I guess. 🙂

I guess the issue with the word “proven” is that nothing in statistics is ever 100 percent certain.

I assume a christian could “explain” why we cannot find god as well.

Finished my tea, back on the block.

The Bible puts great emphasis on the idea of a hidden God.

Theologians interested in moral issues have said that if God were unhidden/obvious, human beings would of course choose the good, rather than evil or indifference. So there would be no room for freedom of choice between good or evil, limiting character development.

In terms of the proof argument, the popularity of the New Atheist argument largely hinges on the fact that we live in a post-Enlightenment culture, where science and philosophical Positivism dominate. But many scientists would admit that science can only describe the universe, but is limited in terms of explaining the whys. Why is there something rather than nothing being my particular favourite.

Theologians interested in moral issues have said that if God were unhidden/obvious, human beings would of course choose the good, rather than evil or indifference. So there would be no room for freedom of choice between good or evil, limiting character development.

The idea of freedom of choice is hilarious. Clearly not the reason why god chose to hide himself.

The idea of freedom of choice is hilarious in of itself.

Please explain.

That would take me writing at least a 10,000 word review of current neuroscience literature.

So no.

If there is a true god how come there are so many and they are contradictory to each other ?

I always wondered why Mormons are right or Shia Muslims or Hindus, etc

Molly all of that is fine as long as you dont claim it was handed down to you be a deity and it is universal truth that will save your soul

You can claim that you *believe* it, yes. Nothing wrong with that.

I assume a christian could “explain” why we cannot find god as well.

Why would you assume that? Most I know don’t get too into the details, as the details aren’t the point. You know what ‘ineffable’ means don’t you?

I believe I am a good person
I believe others can love me
I believe I should help other people even when it doens’t benefit me
I belive the environment can be saved
I believe it is wrong to eat meat
I believe humans can be saved from themselves

And as nice of all of these are, none of it is either a)incompatible with atheism, or b)unique to (or even directly associated with) believing in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Or indeed any other myths and legends.

By all means be excellent to one another, but it has no bearing on believing the unprovable.

The real issue I have is people who DO believe a collective unprovable using it as a reason to feel superior and discriminate against people who don’t subscribe to their particular unprovable. FWIW, that would apply to Atheists to, except the only place they demonstrate this behaviour is in literature, lectures and Internet forums, pretty much…

That would take me writing at least a 10,000 word review of current neuroscience literature.

You could simply list some of the authors on this subject, I’d be happy with that.

Remember rule #1 dudes-

And that’s it. There is nothing else. You are born, you live, you die. Make the most of the middle one while you can 😀

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24330830

Here’s an interesting paper, I read the other day.

To be fair badnewz…. my statement was a little aggrandizing, there is certainly debate around free will within neuroscience….it’s just that If I had to pick a side then I am more won over by the evidence presented against the idea of free will. I think wiki has a reasonably balanced article somewhere.

And as nice of all of these are, none of it is either a)incompatible with atheism, or b)unique to (or even directly associated with) believing in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Or indeed any other myths and legends.

You misunderstand. That was a list of unproveable things that are still worthwhile believing in.

You know what ‘ineffable’ means don’t you?

I can even give you the biblical verse if you like
Its just a convenient cover up for the fact that the working of god are pretty hard to see in this world and so they say we wont know till then end

TBH it is really pointless an atheist debating with an atheist and I have no idea why you go to such lengths to defend religion when you also agree its a load of nonesense.

Because Molgrips is possibly a social utilitarian, if it makes people happy and it causes less harm than good then I do not see the issue in allowing people to believe in what they want.

The issue is when peoples beliefs start impinging on the rights of others.

I have no idea why you go to such lengths to defend religion

I’m not defending religion, I am defending religious people. That is the point.

The issue is when peoples beliefs start impinging on the rights of others

Absolutely.

I haven’t read this thread, but instead today I went to this :

It was absolutely **** brilliant if somewhat surreal – the sight of bearded Muslims on bikes dressed in white like Osma bin Laden smiling and enthusiastically shaking the hand of a rabbi wearing a Kippah, or me sitting next to a Muslim woman wearing hijab and talking to her as we ate strange and mysterious Gujarati food with a small plastic spoon in a Sikh temple packed with Sikhs who were also busily consuming large amounts of food and drink, and no sight of any money anywhere.

The Sikh temple was by far the best imo, the generosity – they also provided most of the food for the free picnic afterwards, was impressive. Most of the people who turned up at the temple had no idea who these people who were clearly nonbelievers were, but they didn’t bat an eyelid as they sat down to eat their food next to you (which was handy as I was pretty clueless about how to eat my food – it wasn’t even on a dinner plate ffs) striking up conversations.

A day of tolerance, respect, and seeking to understand, other people’s cultures and religions, a bit like this thread I’m sure I’ll discover when I get round to reading it 🙂

That is sort of the point eirnie the common thread that runs through people being excellent to one and other is humanity not religion.

Religion is irrelevant to morality across groups.

andyfla – Member
If there is a true god how come there are so many and they are contradictory to each other ?

The most striking thing to me about comparative religious studies is that the constants/common themes outweigh the contradictions IMO. I find all religions fascinating and largely believe that they are different paths to achieving the same end. I dislike notions of exclusivity though.

I always wondered why Mormons are right or Shia Muslims or Hindus, etc

How about all of them (or none)? Why either/or?

The most striking thing to me about comparative religious studies is that the constants/common themes outweigh the contradictions IMO.

Well yes and no all of them follow the golden rule and all of them lead to salvation. IMHO this basically says that humans make up the same myth to explain things. I also think you can argue that point either way and their interactions certainly indicate your view is not the majority one. Its also much harder to link in the abrahamic faiths with Eastern ones which are pantheists or Buddhism. The Buddhist “rules ” [path] are nothing like the 10 commandments.

I find all religions fascinating and largely believe that they are different paths to achieving the same end. I dislike notions of exclusivity though.

Your god was pretty clear on that point [ no offence meant]

Religion is irrelevant to morality across groups.

Tell that to a Quaker.

People’s behaviour to those in and outside their groups depends largely on the culture in which they live. Religion is a part of that culture, but not neccessarily all of it. Sometimes religious ideas affect a culture profoundly (I think Lutheranism affects the Anglo world to a huge degree), and sometimes culture affects religious interpretation.

All of which is fairly obvious with only a shallow knowledge of history.

Junkyard – lazarus
Its also much harder to link in the abrahamic faiths with Eastern ones which are pantheists or Buddhism. The Buddhist “rules ” [path] are nothing like the 10 commandments.

You simply cannot make that link.

No if or but.

🙂

“JulianA – Member
I think that wherever you go you should observe and respect the local customs and beliefs whether you share them or not. End of.”

absolute cobblers. from Ulster to Kampuchea, local customs and beliefs have often been appalling and undeserving of observation and respect. often the right path would have been resistance and dissent. you’re engaging in absurd moral relativism.

absolute cobblers. from Ulster to Kampuchea, local customs and beliefs have often been appalling and undeserving of observation and respect. often the right path would have been resistance and dissent. you’re engaging in absurd moral relativism.

Pissing and running around naked on someone elses mountain isn’t the same as opposing the Khmer Rouge.

Pissing and running around naked on someone elses mountain isn’t the same as opposing the Khmer Rouge.

True but rather than having to come up with a sliding scale of whats the most important to respect it’s safe to say that it can be a grey area.

There was great support in here for the bloke who jumped in the river to disrupt the boat race, something which angered a lot of the similar “Establishment” types as people like to say. Being a jolly foreigner should he not have respected the local customs and simply tutted quietly from the back?

True but rather than having to come up with a sliding scale of whats the most important to respect it’s safe to say that it can be a grey area.
There was great support in here for the bloke who jumped in the river to disrupt the boat race, something which angered a lot of the similar “Establishment” types as people like to say. Being a jolly foreigner should he not have respected the local customs and simply tutted quietly from the back?

Again, bullshit argument. Carrying out acts that cause disruption can only be justified if there is good cause for doing so, the idiotic hippies in Malaysia didn’t have a decent reason for doing so. Malaysians aren’t under the thumb of some theological tyranny and that mountain doesn’t represent one.

Feel free to ridicule other people from your own country, don’t go to theirs and expect them to treat you nicely though.

How about all of them (or none)? Why either/or?

Unfortunately the one I went to stated that his was the only true way and everyone else was damned to hell

wwaswas – Member

You think someone would have pointed out this was proof Satan had taken her sister to be his bride…

Unfortunately the one I went to stated that his was the only true way and everyone else was damned to hell

Agreed, I hate that and much of the formality and ritual. The Quakers probably have the most moving “meetings” IMO.

I think it makes perfect sense to pick and chose and to use regions for guidance more than anything else. Just because I don’t believe all the Apostles Creed would not stop me going to a CoE church service. It’s a bit like politics, a shame to feel constrained or tied to one set of lenses IMO. No harm in picking the best bits and ignoring the rest, particularly given the obvious challenges of interpreting the nuances in various collections of historical texts written in foreign languages and then translated many times!

The Quakers probably have the most moving “meetings” IMO.

I really like the idea of no formal service, it’s more a time of quiet reflection