they live in a country, with a democratic process, which also forbids same sex marriage.

Don’t forget gay rights and perceptions have improved hugely in the last 50 years or so. This is a good thing. It’s still a shame that a few obstacles remain of course.

‘there is almost certainly no god, but the possibility is so tiny that it’s really not worth thinking about

In other words, they believe there is no good.

Hehehe.

I think most people who consider themselves atheists actually think:

‘there is almost certainly no god, but the possibility is so tiny that it’s really not worth thinking about’

That certainly my position. All the would be required for me to change my mind is evidence. Just as I’d believe any scientific ‘truth’ to be false, if I were presented with evidence to the contrary.

In other words, they believe there is no good.

Belief in good is not the preserve of the religious.

@cougar

I wasn’t using ignorance in a derogatory way,

Perhaps not. But you need to be careful with words, because people can twist them.

For instance, I broadly agree with Grum’s comment; but it does suggest that there may, after all, be a god, and thus a) affirms the theists and b) devalues the stance of many atheists. If we were to list all the things that probably don’t exist, we’d be here a while.

EDIT: … as Molgrips has just ably demonstrated.

Exactly miketually

Molgrips, what’s your point exactly?

In other words, they believe there is no god.

The absence of belief in something isn’t the same as a belief in the absence of something.

I only disbelieve in one more god than the pope disbelieves in.

‘there is almost certainly no god, but the possibility is so tiny that it’s really not worth thinking about

In other words, they believe there is no good. don’t think about it

In other words, they don’t think about it have probably given it more critical thought than many theists

The atheist (depending on personal definition).
That they can prove the negative.
Because they can’t.

By that measure we are ALL ignorant and the word “ignorant” loses any real meaning.

e.g. if I say to you “Unicorns don’t exist” then I’d be “ignorant” because they might well exist somewhere in the universe or multiverse.

How about this instead: I describe myself as atheist because I am “without theism” – I do not believe in a god or gods and do not subscribe to any spirituality.

Is that still ignorant?

I don’t deny there is probably, somewhere out there in the vastness of the uni/multiverse an intelligence far greater than our own. It really would be ignorant to conclude otherwise, but that/they is/are not “god” by any definition I know of.

How about the last Pope, does he count as a Christian? He gave a speech in Africa saying condoms were sinful and they should prevent the spread of HIV by not having sex.

Again, to clarify, this is the CATHOLIC church, NOT Christianity as a whole.

I don’t deny there is probably, somewhere out there in the vastness of the uni/multiverse an intelligence far greater than our own.

Didn’t he get banned?

Again, to clarify, this is the CATHOLIC church, NOT Christianity as a whole.

Same god? Same Jesus? Same holy book? Same saints?

(Edit)

“The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church, is the world’s largest Christian church, with more than one billion members worldwide.”

So, about 50% of christians are catholics, as there about 2 billion christians in the world.

So, using the beliefs of catholics to describe christianity is probably ok? Catholicism also at least tends to have definite beliefs. Trying to have a rational debate about wishy-washy liberal christianity is like trying to nail jelly to a wall.

Molgrips, what’s your point exactly?

As above.

My real point is that it’s not nice for people to start laying into Christians without any provocation.

On a deeper level, I find it frustrating that people don’t seem to understand belief.

The existence of God is unproveable, right? So it’s consequently academic. This means it doesn’t matter if you believe or not. Either position is LOGICALLY valid. Therefore, you are free to choose the position that makes you feel happy, warm and fuzzy

You can pile up all the evidence you like, but none of it’s conclusive, so you might as well give up and let everyone be happy.

Note that the above discourse is about the existence of God. The doctrine of organised religion is an entirely separate debate.

By that measure we are ALL ignorant and the word “ignorant” loses any real meaning.

e.g. if I say to you “Unicorns don’t exist” then I’d be “ignorant” because they might well exist somewhere in the universe or multiverse

Indeed. We have to keep an open mind. But if we open it too much, our brains will fall out.

Note that the above discourse is about the existence of God. The doctrine of organised religion is an entirely separate debate.

I see no mention of god in the title of the thread or any real mention of him within this thread. It has all been about people and religious institutions.

Again, to clarify, this is the CATHOLIC church, NOT Christianity as a whole.

Are Catholics not Christians?

I asked this before, but perhaps you could enlighten us as to which Christian groups are pro-condoms and pro-same sex marriage? Then we can avoid any embarrassing confusions or unfair representation in the future.

The existence of God is unproveable, right?

I’d agree with that.

Edit – actually on balance, no. What mike said.

This means it doesn’t matter if you believe or not. Either position is LOGICALLY valid.

Err no I’d not accept that. Just because there are two positions on a matter doesn’t mean that they are equally valid.

Therefore, you are free to choose the position that makes you feel happy, warm and fuzzy

Again yes I’d agree, however you really should keep opinions to yourself and not seek to deny people some of the basic rights that you enjoy. Also you should not expect that your belief is above criticism.

The existence of God is unproveable, right?

Not at all. Just show her to us.

The non-existence of god is unprovable.

Same god? Same Jesus? Same holy book? Same saints?

Yes and No. Same God – yes. Same Jesus – yes, Same Holy Book – yes, Same saints – no, that is just a Catholic thing.

This sums it up best (this is a quote on how Catholicism and Protestantism are different):

They’re the same as they were at the Reformation. There are three significant ones. First is the question of final authority. Protestants hold to sola scriptura [Scripture as their final authority]. For Catholics, the final authority is Scripture as interpreted by the church, that is, the magisterium (the pope and bishops). That’s where Catholicism gets its teachings that can’t be found in Scripture, like veneration of Mary, indulgences and purgatory. Second, Catholics view the church as an extension of Christ’s incarnation. For them, the church is divine as Christ was divine. One result of this is the Catholic proclamation: “Come to the church for salvation, for faith in the church and faith in Christ are one act of faith.” That leads to the third difference: salvation. The Catholic catechism makes it very clear that you are born again and justified through baptism. That means faith plus a certain rite — which is administered by the church — is necessary for salvation. So, the church essentially grants salvation. Although this salvation is “by faith,” additional grace enables us “to work” to attain eternal life. And that’s the problem with saying we speak the same gospel. One of them is clear: Christ did it; we can’t add anything to that. The other one is: Christ did it, but to actually avail yourself of what Christ did you have to do this and this.

There is a lot of Doctrine in the Catholic church that has been made up by the church (this is where the condom thing comes from as well as the other stuff noted above). Now, ok, I’ll take it that some of you don’t believe that the Bible was inspired by God – BUT there is a big difference between Christians who take their doctrine solely from the Bible, and the Catholic church where the doctrine from the Bible is taken and then other stuff added on later, essentially to add in what their current thoughts are.

Not a Catholic bashing – but it is very important in ‘discussions’ like these to be clear that when you quote stuff that is Catholic teaching, it is not necessarily the same as Christian teaching.

Hope that makes sense!

I’d just like to add that I cured a couple of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
In one case I was very glad as his little brother later “came out”, so he still had support within the family.

I know, I’m just too **** nice.

Is Schroedinger’s cat alive or dead?

you really should keep opinions to yourself and not seek to deny people some of the basic rights that you enjoy

Yep. As above, whether or not God exists is academic. What you think he wants you do is less so.

Your belief may be criticised, but only when you bring it up.

As in, if I ask you if you like my trousers, you may say no. You may not walk up to me in the street and start taking the piss randomly.

Protestants hold to sola scriptura [Scripture as their final authority]

All of it?

‘there is almost certainly no god, but the possibility is so tiny that it’s really not worth thinking about

Er. Says who exactly?

Some mere feeble humans have decided that the divine almighty creator of life, the universe & everything doesn’t exist?

“I can’t explain it or understand it, therefore it can’t possibly be true”

Hooray for human arrogance!

What’s the equation that tells us there’s almost certainly no god? If there isn’t one then it’s just a theory or opinion at most.

😀

There is a lot of Doctrine in the Catholic church that has been made up by the church (this is where the condom thing comes from as well as the other stuff noted above). Now, ok, I’ll take it that some of you don’t believe that the Bible was inspired by God – BUT there is a big difference between Christians who take their doctrine solely from the Bible, and the Catholic church where the doctrine from the Bible is taken and then other stuff added on later, essentially to add in what their current thoughts are.

What about the christians who take their doctrine from some of the bible but miss out the bits that they find inconvenient?

Are Catholics not Christians?

I asked this before, but perhaps you could enlighten us as to which Christian groups are pro-condoms and pro-same sex marriage? Then we can avoid any embarrassing confusions or unfair representation in the future.

So, using the beliefs of catholics to describe christianity is probably ok?

Catholics are Christians in that they have the same Christ, but in a lot of ways that is where it ends. The utter core teaching of Christianity is that there is NOTHING that WE can do to redeem one’s sins – it is only Jesus who can do that. Catholicism has the teaching (as mentioned above) that Jesus cleansed our Sins, but you also have to actually do a load of good deeds in order to make sure that happens.

That is a HUGE difference in terms of theology. One has believers doing good works because they WANT to and there is NO MOTIVATION for doing so (and this of course is not saying that believers only can do good works – I think you know what I mean), whereas the other has them doing good works because they NEED to in order to save themselves.

What about the christians who take their doctrine from some of the bible but miss out the bits that they find inconvenient?

Such as? (genuine question, give some examples and I’ll try to explain the truth behind or not..if I can that is!)

Er. Says who exactly?

Some mere feeble humans have decided that the divine almighty creator of life, the universe & everything doesn’t exist?

“I can’t explain it or understand it, therefore it can’t possibly be true”

Hooray for human arrogance!

What’s the equation that tells us there’s almost certainly no god? If there isn’t one then it’s just a theory or opinion at most.

Some humans have decided that there’s no evidence for the existence of god or gods.

Others have decided that as they can’t explain it or understand it, god did it.

You can pile up all the evidence you like, but none of it’s conclusive, so you might as well give up and let everyone be happy.

You mean ‘let everyone be happy’ like how the church is doing with gay people who want to get married? Or women who want to be priests?

My real point is that it’s not nice for people to start laying into Christians without any provocation.

The provocation is that christianity still enjoys a massively privileged position in society, and it is fairly galling to have christians crying persecution when they see this privilege threatened, especially when their issue is being allowed to carry on promoting intolerance.

I was raised in a christian tradition, many of my family are religious and I can appreciate good things about their faith – I don’t go around shouting ‘hahah IDIOT do you believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden too’. It was quite traumatic for me to realise when I was about 10 that I no longer believed, and have to admit that to my parents.

So I’m not ‘anti-christian’ – I just want the same rules and critical thought applied to them as they are to everyone else.

Same god? Same Jesus? Same holy book? Same saints?

yeah but they believe in all that transubstantiation and other credulous nonsense, not like us CoE who believe….oh hang on

Such as? (genuine question, give some examples and I’ll try to explain the truth behind or not..if I can that is!)

The ones who allow a divorcee to remarry. That’s about the single clearest comment from Jesus about a concrete, modern issue that I can think of in the bible. Yet, the Church of England allow remarriage.

Such as? (genuine question, give some examples and I’ll try to explain the truth behind or not..if I can that is!)

“Neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woolen come upon thee.” — Leviticus 19:19

The provocation is that christianity still enjoys a massively privileged position in society

Don’t agree. The reason for that is historical, whatever. It doens’t give you carte blanche to verbally kick the shit out of any believers, any more than the fact some cyclists are arseholes gives white van man carte blanche to run me off the road.

If you really want to change the situation, talk to the church AUTHORITIES or the Government. Don’t just start insulting anyone who believes.

Don’t agree. The reason for that is historical, whatever. It doens’t give you carte blanche to verbally kick the shit out of any believers,

When did I say that?

So I’m not ‘anti-christian’ – I just want the same rules and critical thought applied to them as they are to everyone else.

You didn’t answer this bit either.

You mean ‘let everyone be happy’ like how the church is doing with gay people who want to get married? Or women who want to be priests?

If you really want to change the situation, talk to the church AUTHORITIES or the Government. Don’t just start insulting anyone who believes.

There is really very little I can do which will help change the church or it’s position in society – it will just (hopefully) eventually come about naturally as we mature as a society and realise that blind subservience to church and royalty is an outmoded concept.

In the meantime let’s treat christians just the same as we treat everyone else. How do you feel about scientology? Should that be respected?

I’m sure we can all agree that we shouldn’t be tolerating those linen and wool wearing bastards regardless of our other opinions.

Don’t agree. The reason for that is historical, whatever. It doens’t give you carte blanche to verbally kick the shit out of any believers, any more than the fact some cyclists are arseholes gives white van man carte blanche to run me off the road.

If you really want to change the situation, talk to the church AUTHORITIES or the Government. Don’t just start insulting anyone who believes.

To be fair, I’d say that this has been one of the most balanced and reasonable religious-based thread on this forum. I’ve not noticed any insulting of individuals.

I’m sure we can all agree that we shouldn’t be tolerating those linen and wool wearing bastards regardless of our other opinions.

God hates fags, prawns and polycotton blends.

I’m sure we can all agree that we shouldn’t be tolerating those linen and wool wearing bastards regardless of our other opinions.

it is very important in ‘discussions’ like these to be clear that when you quote stuff that is Catholic teaching, it is not necessarily the same as Christian teaching.

Fair comment. The only problem there is, if we stop generalising and start picking out individual groups like, say, Catholics, the discussion spirals into “why are we picking on the Catholics?”

Some mere feeble humans have decided that the divine almighty creator of life, the universe & everything doesn’t does exist?

FTFY.

“I can’t explain it or understand it, therefore it can’t possibly be true”

… which is why we have religion. Or at least, why a number of people give it credence. All those nasty sciency theories are just so complicated.

If you really want to change the situation, talk to the church AUTHORITIES or the Government. Don’t just start insulting anyone who believes.

Grum: “mr pope I’m an atheist and I really think your policies…”
Pope: “can I just stop you there, atheist?!”
here endeth the discussion lesson