Why are you atheists so angry?

Science cant be used for bad in the same way that a drink drivers car doesnt crash by itself

Same way as Religion itself can’t be used for bad then, by the same logic.

As for science being used for evil …its people that do evil, not science or technology

..Or Religion. 😉

Back of the net.

You mean like when Truman (the baptist president) unleashed nuclear death on Japan.

Oh he alone did it for religious reasons, did he?

Talk about clutching at straws. 🙄

I win again. Really too easy. You’re going to have to do a lot better than this. Seriously.

How come religious people who force their views on others are ‘devout’ yet non religious people who make a claim that there is no god are deemed ignorant, arrogant and/or insensitive.

People can take just as much strength from knowing they are alone and in complete control of their destiny as someone who takes comfort from thinking some higher being is looking out for them.

It’s all very well saying science has caused suffering in the world but as pointed out, it was people that used the science in an inhumane fashion. But let’s not forget religion has caused a lot more deaths and suffering than science. How many conflicts in the history of the world have been fought over religion. How many people have died due to AIDs because the catholic church has an obscene rule against condoms? And I refuse to acknowledge the existance of a religion than condones child abuse.

How many people in the UK celebrate Nov 5th? Now out of those, how many are actually celebrating the thwarting of a terrorism attack on parliament…

I thought we were celebrating that someone had tried! 😀

I think all the atheists should be made to work on all religious based holidays, as well as Saturdays and Sundays.

I have no problem with that, so long as it’s the same for everyone rather than the religious getting special treatment. Makes no odds to me whether everyone gets Sunday off or everyone gets Tuesdays off.

‘holiday’ = ‘holy day’, so none of those for you either then.

Fine, I’ll have vacations instead.

Fine, I’ll have vacations instead.

Errrr, no you cant. You can spell O’Vatican from Vacation.

I have no problem with that, so long as it’s the same for everyone rather than the religious getting special treatment

Nah, you choose to ‘opt out’ of having holidays. Yer own personal choice.

If such a thing were ever introduced, all of you would suddenly ‘find religion’. Guaranteed. 😀

Errrr, no you cant. You can spell O’Vatican from Vacation.

😆

Brilliant.

Good post, Cougar, but I’m not labouring over anything, just curious.

Personally, I celebrate nothing throughout the year, not even my day of birth.

I do like a good sunset, mind…

You can spell O’Vatican from Vacation.

*applauds*

Nah, you choose to ‘opt out’ of having holidays. Yer own personal choice.

Very well.

Seems the days of the week are based on planet names. That’s science that is, so we’ll take all those.

You can share Sunday and Monday though, since religion recognises the Sun and the Moon.

Also I see the months of the year are based on Roman Gods. No one is worshipping then any more so I guess we all have to give them up.

😀

Personally, I celebrate nothing throughout the year, not even my day of birth.

And I thought I was depressed. 😯

I do like a good sunset, mind…

😉

Those who know, know. Those who don’t, don’t.

Oh he alone did it for religious reasons, did he?

Talk about clutching at straws.

Just pointing out that science created the bomb, but a man of religion gave the order to fire it.

“I do like a good sunset, mind…”

“Those who know, know. Those who don’t, don’t.”

I think I may know what you mean.

Aww, d’ya wanna hug, Graham ?

a man of religion gave the order to fire it.

What, because of his religious beliefs?

No, so stop being silly.

Next you’ll tell me the Vietnam war was all about Religion…. 🙄

Talk about clutching at straws….

I think I may know what you mean.

Surely there must be some sort of Scientific explanation for it…. 😉

Same way as Religion itself can’t be used for bad then, by the same logic.

Well, not really. Science is pretty impartial, it doesn’t determine whether it’s used for good or evil, people do. The same could be said for religion, if you adhere to the theory that it’s entirely the creation of humans.

The good aspects of religion (art, music) is down to the good aspects of human nature, just as the good aspects of science (medicine, photography) are down to the good aspects of human nature. The desire to preserve, the desire to be creative. Just as the unpleasant aspects of both (weapons, racism, sexism) can be attributed to the more unpleasant aspects of human nature.

However, if you believe that Mohammed was speaking directly for Allah, or that the bible is the literal word of God, then religion is the tool of some particularly vindictive, sexist, homophobic, petty and downright unpleasant deities. Can’t wear synthetics? Don’t eat pork? Kill off the firstborn? Women should be subservient to men? Gays should be killed or flogged until they stop being gay? Caste system?

If you’re going to worship a deity, at least find a nice one.

What, because of his religious beliefs?

No, so stop being silly.

Next you’ll tell me the Vietnam war was all about Religion….

Talk about clutching at straws….

Now your making stuff up, but that just sums up religion.

I meant without Googling it, Pyro

That *was* without googling. Lupercalia’s the most fun, unlike it’s semi-Christian* equivalent. And not named after the patron saint of epileptic beekeepers…

*semi-Christian, semi-Hallmark…

If you’re going to worship a deity, at least find a nice one.

What makes you think that any ‘deity’ is necessarily benevolent?

And why are you imagining a deity which possesses Human characteristics and thought processes?

As a Christian I too am angered by the many issues that ‘Greta’ highlights regarding society – oppression, hatred and greed should not be part of any society, termed religious or secular – atheists don’t get the monopoly on changing the world for the better. I believe that these issues are not a result of man’s belief in God but moreover a result of man’s attempts to be God. After all, isn’t religion a man-made concept? The bible doesn’t say Jesus instructed us to “go and make the world religious”. but instead simply said “if you find no peace in that household for your position, leave”. I see very little of this in the view of ‘religion’ that some describe here. This suggests a false position on what Christianity actually is.

As a scientist, I also believe strongly in the pursuit for evidence and the need to add to our understanding of this amazing world. I don’t have an issue with some aspects of evolution nor do I believe that science and ‘religion’ are non-overlapping. It is for this reason that I get frustrated with the view ‘there is no evidence’ for God. Moreover for the language of absolutes used by some when purporting the ‘faith in the absence of God’. This is lazy and lacks effort. There is plenty of historical and experiential evidence for Jesus. The bible for one – 66 books written over roughly 1,500 years by 40+ authors from all walks of life and all pointing to Jesus as the ultimate sign of God’s love for man. To make that up would be impossible. I concede there is no DNA evidence, that I have seen, for Jesus and if you need that then fine but the same is true for aspects of evolution – there is a faith that we evolved from one entity and the evidence we have to date gives us an insight into how that might of happened but it doesn’t provide conclusive ‘proof’.

In terms of experiential evidence, I have seen people healed, lives changed and transformed and experienced an overwhelming sense of Love through following Jesus that confirms to me beyond reasonable doubt that he is who he says he is and is therefore worthy of my time learning about him.

My question is this: It’s clear that the atheist in the film has an issue with the moral wrongs that can be seen in society, which she atributes to religion but where does she or anyone really, get their moral code from?

the patron saint of epileptic beekeepers…

ROFL!

Love it…

Aww, d’ya wanna hug, Graham ?

No ta. You’ll try to touch my winky again.

Next you’ll tell me the Vietnam war was all about Religion….

Was it about Science then?

This suggests a false position on what Christianity actually is.

In that case you need to get your PR & marketing sorted out.

does her or anyones really, ‘moral code’ come from?

read some Kant.

Its one of teh most annoying claims of religion that you need religion to have morals. I haveno religion – I reject it utterly. I have a very strong moral code.

As a scientist, I also believe strongly in the pursuit for evidence and the need to add to our understanding of this amazing world.

In terms of experiential evidence, I have seen people healed, lives changed and transformed and an experienced an overwhelming sense of Love through following Jesus that confirms to me beyond reasonable doubt the he is who is says he is and is worthy of my time is learning about him.

Irony? You need to learn the difference between evidence and anecdote

Jesus may have existed as a jewish mystic wandering around Galillee – that is however no evidence for the existence of god – Indeed there can be no proof of God.

In that case you need to get your PR & marketing sorted out

Couldn’t agree more Phil!

what would you do in the hypothetical (I hope) situation of facing a potentially fatal accident (eg ship sinking) or fatal disease affecting you/someone you know. Would you be tempted to say a little prayer?

Would you like the antivenom/ chemotherapy/ morphine, or shall we sprinkle you with magic water and close our eyes and say some magic words?

Irony? You need to learn the difference between evidence and anecdote

You need to learn the difference between ‘one form of evidence’ and ‘another’. So in a court of law, an eye witness account is not considered evidence???

I have a very strong moral code

]

I’m not disputing that but where does it come from?

I apologise for the typo’s, post edited – note to self – must not rush my typing!

I get frustrated with the view ‘there is no evidence’ for God… …This is lazy and lacks effort. There is plenty of historical and experiential evidence for Jesus. The bible for one – 66 books written over roughly 1,500 years by 40+ authors from all walks of life and all pointing to Jesus as the ultimate sign of God’s love for man. To make that up would be impossible.

Evidence of Jesus is no evidence of a god.

Non of it proves he is the son of god.

phil.w – Member
This suggests a false position on what Christianity actually is.

In that case you need to get your PR & marketing sorted out.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/alex/?cartoon=8878166&cc=8861417

Plus the rest of this mini series

(Not meant to offend BTW!)

There is plenty of historical and experiential evidence for Jesus. The bible for one – 66 books written over roughly 1,500 years by 40+ authors from all walks of life and all pointing to Jesus as the ultimate sign of God’s love for man.

What about the books and authors of other religions?

The Australian Aboriginal mythology is at least 10,000 years old, much older than Christianity, still survives today and and has more authors.

How can you discount that “evidence” but accept your own?

read some Kant.

There’s no need for that tone!

Evidence of Jesus is no evidence of a god.

Non of it proves he is the son of god.

Historical evidence may well prove he existed as a pretty decent bloke, but you wouldn’t give him a library book on a 3 week loan. It took him 40 days to do anything.

teamhurtmore – excellent link, thanks.

EDIT: 🙂

Not troling. A Genuine question here: Do all you atheists celebrate Christmas? If so, how? If not, what do you do instead

Like I said: genuine question. I’m interested

yes i celebrate Christmas, and i do it in the most traditional way:

i have a few days of work, i sleep a lot, i drink a bit, eat a few more mince pies than is probably healthy, i’ll watch star-wars: the empire strikes back, and spend some time with my family.

Christmas is a pagan festival, so’s Easter.

Why are you atheists so angry?

i’m not angry as a rule, but i do shout at the radio every now and then…

(often when dianne abbot, or ed balls is on)

How can you discount that “evidence” but accept your own?

Because the biblical evidence is supported by my experience.

Phil.w – yep, take your point. It is through my belief in Jesus that I also have belief in God. Poorly communicated on my behalf.

I have a very strong moral code.

I think the point he’s trying to make is that you have no objective basis for that moral code – it’s a social construct. It’s one of the problems with Kant’s de-ontological approach to ethics that it doesn’t stand robust scrutiny in a culture which favours pluralism (although it does suggest a clue as to why you are frequently so convinced your right).

One of the other problems I have with Kant is that he seems to pluck the notion that human beings have some intrinsic value out of thin air – in common with a lot of secular philosophy, which seems to take it as read that human beings matter in some way. As far as I can see, if scientific determinism is indeed correct, then human beings have no intrinsic value whatsoever.

Because the biblical evidence is supported by my experience.

So you have direct experience of a Christian God, but you can dismiss the tens of thousands of other Gods, spirits and totems throughout human existence because you know all about them but have never directly experienced them?

As a non-believer that is a step I have trouble with. It seems naive and arrogant (to me) to decide that your relatively recent God is the “real one” and all the others are false.

Indeed a moral code is a social construct – its an evolutionary benefit to co operate.

What a moral code is not is a set of rules handed down from a God. Indeed its the other way round – the religious took the existing moral code and took it for their own

As a scientist, I also believe strongly in the pursuit for evidence and the need to add to our understanding of this amazing world. I don’t have an issue with some aspects of evolution nor do I believe that science and ‘religion’ are non-overlapping. It is for this reason that I get frustrated with the view ‘there is no evidence’ for God. Moreover for the language of absolutes used by some when purporting the ‘faith in the absence of God’. This is lazy and lacks effort. There is plenty of historical and experiential evidence for Jesus. The bible for one – 66 books written over roughly 1,500 years by 40+ authors from all walks of life and all pointing to Jesus as the ultimate sign of God’s love for man. To make that up would be impossible.

To make what up?
That Jesus as a person existed?
Or that Jesus was a sign of God’s love for man?
The former sure. But as a scientist I’d have thought you’d have problems defending the latter as a rational stance. For a start you’d have to apply the same logical assumptions to all other gods and the claims made of them.
And when you talk about the bible I take it this is the King James version written some 400 years ago, and based on edits and translations of various text as opposed to the Quran which I think is about 1000 years older, so straight off would seem a possible more important text on the subject.