Well, science creates stuff – microchips and vaccines and bridges and space ships – and explains reality. Religion doesn’t do any of that. So yes, they are different categories.

But I don’t understand how people can have such compartmentalised minds. It’s illogical.

Disagreement is a fundamental part of academic life, if you find that offensive

😆 Yes, and so is EVIDENCE. That’s what’s missing from your aforementioned comparison. ‘That it is legislated thus’ is just a poor appeal to authority. Legislation has a long history of being found somewhat lacking.

The people I don’t understand (in the non rhetorical meaning of the phrase) are religious scientists. Scientists know about the scientific method, theories, standards of proof, double-blind trials etc. I don’t understand how someone can be rigorously scientific in one area, then throw that away when it comes to religion.

I think they apply the same reasoning/logic/whatever to religion as they do to science. Apologetics is the term. C.S.Lewis certainly wrote a book about it, I’m sure others have.

I struggle to think of a better source of authority than legislation.

Mefty, click here.

I think you better reread the thread before you embarrass yourself further.

just because the law says something does not mean its true

I think they apply the same reasoning/logic/whatever to religion as they do to science

Nowhere in science does it require faith in that known but not proven – molly will get the biblical reference even if the rest of you dont 😉

just because the law says something does not mean its true

It does when you say the law says that thing!

The only thing that I’m embarrassed about is getting into a ‘but someone on the internet is wrong’ type exchange (someone please post the gif). I should know when to walk away.

So;

You suggested that STW has double standards because a (not very) offensive thing was said about religion.
I said; it’s a valid opinion, and not offensive because it’s a thread about opinions on religion.
You said but what about the gays and the blacks?
I said; not the same thing; ones a choice, the others are characteristics.
You said; they are the same because the law says so.
I said; the law has said a lot of things, doesn’t make it always right.
You said; but, the law…
I said tell that to Rosa Parks.
You said; you’re embarrassing yourself.
I agreed; but not for the reason that you insinuate.

I’m paraphrasing, obviously. (And I’m out, for tonight at least. Sweet dreams)

My argument is that there is a double standard because offensive remarks made against religion are tolerated, whereas equivalent remarks against other protected groups aren’t. To be fair, mods have admitted this in the past because they rely on the argument, based on unsettled science, that the other areas are genetic.

Just popped in to make sure everyone is still arguing the toss. Good! Well done! Although the shed analogy from my quick skim read did make me chuckle 😀

As you were…

molgrips – Member

SaxonRider, there’s a research paper in here somewhere. STW is clearly some demographic that is more hostile to religion

Astute as always Grips.

To be fair, mods have admitted this in the past because they rely on the argument, based on unsettled science, that the other areas are genetic.

Just to stir it up, but isn’t there a reasonable theory that there’s a God Gene, which makes humans predisposed to religion? the idea was that it did some useful things in prehistory – helping tribe cohesion, setting up a pecking order, stuff like that.

In what sense was gullibility genetically useful?

That is how you stir it up Ben 😉

I dont think there is a gene personally

Oh no, no I’m not.

You really were telling us what the bible meant [ actually you were getting confused about what it actually did say then claiming there was a context for they are an abomination put them to death which would somehow change this “unclear message”] despite your lack of knowledge

I am, however simply telling us to be nice to each other. That is exactly what I am doing.

Nah you are telling us to be nice to them whilst ignoring how “un nice” they are to homosexuals, sinners, heathens- remember when denying god was actually a crime? …unless you want to say stoning folk and telling the rest they will burn in the eternity of hell, for not doing what you think they should, is actually a “nice ” message. Do you want to do that or do you want to claim that is not really what they say to once more demonstrate your grasp of the subject?

@ben never heard that but we are social beings and religion is primarily about social cohesion, its abused by people hungry for power to set religions against each other but that’s another trait of human nature.

Oooft! This went downhill rapidly since I was here last.

You all know that belief in religion is a choice, right?
An expression of free will.
You can choose to believe or not believe in whatever you want. Makes no difference to me.

You can also choose NOT to be a dick about it.

Please. Choose wisely

Why do you assume that the other end of the scale from “practicing religious” is “anti religious”7

Would you assume that someone who does not collect stamps is “anti” stamp collecting?

Is that not a strange assumption to make?

Pigeon holing people by their attitude to your hobby and assuming that non participation implies opposition?

The fact that you see the world and others in that way probably says something about the religious mind, but I’m not a psychologist (and therefore probably an anti-psychologist?) so I can’t be arsed to imagine what that might be.

Did anyone actually tally up the poll?

VMAT2 – the “god” gene.

It’s a neuro-transmitter. It is understood that “spirituality” is measurable, and the tendency is heritable, and partly the heritability is attributed to VWAT2. the gene acts on hormone levels, and spiritual people are “generally” optimistic, perhaps a survival trait…

Could be bollocks though, it is after all, just a pump…

Jam there was an article about religion in New Scientist that argued Religion as in organised religion confirs an evolutionary advantage at the point where humans begin to settle in cities ie the start if settled farming and organised warfare . it gives a larger scale bond and cohesion over the tribal extended family bonds of the past , intestingly it also bonds to and cements the power structures that keep the masses in their place that enables nobility and royalty to enjoy their priveledge .

religion was probably almost inevitable really. We’re some of the only creatures that have an understanding of symbolic language (some chimps and bonobos exhibit this as well in the wild), and huge brains that are complex enough for self awareness.

Once you’ve got language you’ve got myths and stories, group living develops cultural and behavioural norms, throw in vulnerability and fear of outsiders and pack mentality…

“Man” is a social species. We join together in groups. We also seem to have enquiring minds and seek to find meaning and knowledge. Religion seeks to bind/manage societies, provide meaning and supply answers to “the big questions”.

It has been very successful at the binding/managing (largely by the use of fear) but limited in supplying answers. If we are really lucky it will become an historical irrelevance before Homo Sapiens succeed in destroying themselves. Somehow I doubt it.

perchypanther – Member
“Hole”?
Void….empty space…NOT orifice

No. You’ve imagined there’s a “hole”. That’s just a thought you had, not an actual “hole” as in “hole in the ground”.

Just imagine there isn’t a “hole”. Voila. Nowt to do with a god.

4.5

Oh wait, are we still doing numbers?

3

Just imagine there isn’t a “hole”.

Tried that. For 26 years. Didn’t work.

Filled the hole in instead. Job jobbed.

So you filled an imaginary hole with something that doesn’t exist.

Nah you are telling us to be nice to them whilst ignoring how “un nice” they are to homosexuals, sinners, heathens

Umm…

Is there any evidence that Vickypea, SaxonRider, Perchypanther and the other 1s have been nasty to any of those groups?

So you filled an imaginary hole with something that doesn’t exist.

Kinda, I believed there to be a hole and chose to fill it with something I believe does exist.
Belief is funny like that.

Difference is that I don’t ever try to tell anyone else that what I believe is right and what they believe is wrong.

I choose my own path and try not to be a dick about it.

Walk away mol – these threads only ever go one way. 😉

“Not only is the universe queerer than we suppose, it’s queerer than we CAN suppose”: JBS Haldane.

gods, like everything else we come up with, is a product of the activity inside the human brain. Nothing more. It isn’t a description of an observable phenomenon and all the “proofs” so far have turned out to be misinterpretations of actual phenomena (in the case of weeping statues, “miracles”, events described in ancient texts and the like) leaving the atheist responding with – O.K. So you say. Where’s the evidence?

To which comes back the empty claim “There’s this hole…”…

Back to the Nos:

Happy and not bothered to admit I’m a 1.

Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not.

Is it potatoes and corn? Do I win five shekels?

Blind people and deaf people (excepting those are blind and deaf due to the amputation os the pertinent organs)?

Do I win five shekels?

and a goat, don’t forget the goat…

It’s men and women that are the problem, not a belief in God. If everyone did it God’s way, then there wouldn’t be a problem. 🙂

Please define 1: “The problem” and 2: “God’s way” ( of which there seem to be many versions, all competing with each other…)

In fairness, it’s the interpretation of what ‘God’s way’ actually is that’s a large part of the problem, PP 🙂

Agreed molgrips

But now you’re asking me questions Mr Woppit, I’d love to answer on a forum but these things are better dealt with on a one-to-one basis.

If somebody really wanted to know . . .