[Closed] Yep. There it is. Religion. Still busy poisoning everything...

I read this on another thread on here, roughly, ‘there are 2400 religions in this world, each of them believe that the other 2399 are wrong’

jj,

to follow the small minded Dawkins-style route of decrying religion, whilst simultaneously being completely ignorant of its history and impact on your life today is moronic.

You realise that you’re decrying a man who thinks that e.g. quotes from the king james bible are a massive contribution to the richness of the English language and recommends that people should study religion to appreciate facts like that?

(Thats a longhand way of saying that you are fractally wrong.)

These discussions tend to end up looking a bit like this:

Every single monotheist on earth is an atheist about 99.9% of all of the gods from all of history except one.

This is a position that deserves respect and consideration for reasons which remain undefined.

Every single atheist on earth is an atheist about 100% of all of the gods from all of history.

This is a position that deserves distain and accusations of extremism, for reasons which remain undefined.

Makes perfect sense to me…..

I don't think I'm factually incorrect to say that Dawkins approaches his own particular branch of atheism with the kind of zeal that is just as excessive and negative as the theists he despises for doing the same. He also has an unwillingness to accept the limitations of empirical science (read Popper for a nice summary of these limitations) and a purely materialist philosophy, that is, perhaps, typical of biologists, who believe that they have answered most of the larger questions of their area of study, and, who seem to extrapolate from this that they understand everything. I doubt you would find many astrophysicists, or particle physicists with the same degree of unshakeable belief.

I think this review provides some interesting points on the "New Atheists":
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/jan/31/four-horsemen-review-what-happened-to-new-atheism-dawkins-hitchens

JP

I don’t think I’m factually incorrect to say that Dawkins approaches his own particular branch of atheism

I'll stop you right there as being factually incorrect. Dawkins identifies as agnostic, not atheist.

In any case, he doesn't represent non-believers any more than Westboro represents Christianity. See what I said earlier about vocal minorities. He's a handy poster-boy for believers to use to attack atheists, is all.

I don’t think I’m factually incorrect to say that Dawkins approaches his own particular branch of atheism

I’ll stop you right there as being factually incorrect. Dawkins identifies as agnostic, not atheist.

In any case, he doesn’t represent non-believers any more than Westboro represents Christianity. See what I said earlier about vocal minorities. He’s a handy poster-boy for believers to use to attack atheists, is all.

The fact that Dawkins has taken to describing himself latterly as agnostic changes nothing about the way he conducts himself. It's a funny kind of agnostic who devotes so much of his energies to the task of decrying theists.

Aside from this, I was merely comparing the attitudes displayed on this thread to those of Dawkins, not stating that all atheists should be lumped in with him.

JP

The fact that Dawkins has taken to describing himself latterly as agnostic changes nothing about the way he conducts himself.

It's still irrelevant as you're

not stating that all atheists should be lumped in with him.

N'est-ce pas?

The "attitudes displayed on this thread" will be fewer in future thanks to one poster's decision to hurl personal abuse at the moderators via email. STW's owners don't have many red lines but that's one of them, it's a zero-tolerance policy.

Trailrider Jim
Gods are not real, ok?

Of course they're not.

Apart from Odin and his crew that is.

The “attitudes displayed on this thread” will be fewer in future thanks to one poster’s decision to hurl personal abuse at the moderators via email.

And as if by magic a new poster appears , coincidentally named after a moistened teddy bear

Hold on a second. Someone mentioned Dawkins.

I think there is a rule that *requires* the use of the word "shrill". Usually used when someone cannot argue their point but still requires to be offended by facts and logic and stuff. Or something.

AdamW

Member

Hold on a second. Someone mentioned Dawkins.

I think there is a rule that *requires* the use of the word “shrill”. Usually used when someone cannot argue their point but still requires to be offended by facts and logic and stuff. Or something.

Did you read my post at all, or are you just making assumptions?

JP

The fact that Dawkins has taken to describing himself latterly as agnostic changes nothing about the way he conducts himself.

It’s still irrelevant as you’re

not stating that all atheists should be lumped in with him.

N’est-ce pas?

The “attitudes displayed on this thread” will be fewer in future thanks to one poster’s decision to hurl personal abuse at the moderators via email. STW’s owners don’t have many red lines but that’s one of them, it’s a zero-tolerance policy.

I really don't understand what you're arguing here - if it's a point of semantics, please look up the list of fallacious arguments.

JP

So, describing Richard as “shrill” isn’t part of your complaint about how he “conducts” himself?

What’s wrong with the way he “conducts himself”, then?

Yawn. I don't want to reiterate what has already been written before, but read the Guardian article I posted. It provides the main case against him. He's quite a poor thinker, really - his God Delusion is a bad imitation of Bertrand Russell's Why I am Not A Christian.

JP

I really don’t understand what you’re arguing here

Makes two of us. What are you trying to say?

It provides the main case against him. He’s quite a poor thinker, really

So he's a poor thinker. And? Who cares? The only people who ever bring up Dawkins are theists looking for something to pick apart. No atheist on STW ever floated an argument of "yes, but Dawkins says..." It's a straw man.

I really don’t understand what you’re arguing here

Makes two of us. What are you trying to say?

It provides the main case against him. He’s quite a poor thinker, really

So he’s a poor thinker. And? Who cares? The only people who ever bring up Dawkins are theists looking for something to pick apart. No atheist on STW ever floated an argument of “yes, but Dawkins says…” It’s a straw man.

If we're going down the pedantic route here then I have to call you out for being factually incorrect - I'm not a theist, as clearly stated in my original post, nor am I using Dawkins as a straw man. I was merely comparing the posts on this thread to his writings.

JP

Who on earth reads secularism.org ?

Members of a secularist organisation?

so is Evoloution right and the bible wrong then???? just askin?

What do you think?
Here’s a clue:

Evolution is a well-established, observable and demonstrable scientific theory backed up by a couple of centuries of rigorous research trying and failing to prove it wrong, and the bible is a book made from a collection of fables written several hundred years after the events they purport to document at a time when most of the populace was illiterate.

I have to call you out for being factually incorrect – I’m not a theist

I didn't say you were - I'd be daft to assume that unless for some reason I thought you were lying as you said you weren't a few posts earlier. Factually incorrect again. (-:

I was merely comparing the posts on this thread to his writings.

To what end?

If you don't like "straw man" maybe "non-sequitur" is more appropriate? Or "whataboutery"?

Religion is a bunch of rivalling organised cults from the dark ages using fairy tales to control the masses and generate revenue for the corrupt, privileged few. Gods are not real, ok?

6 pages and 2 bans?

I think there is a rule that *requires* the use of the word “shrill”.

“Shill” surely?

I've completely lost track of wtf this thread is on about. But what I can accurately comment on is that I know normal people of almost every faith, and normal atheists, normal agnostics too. Not one feels the need to try and preach/convert/disprove/prove/evangelise. For 99.999999% of people their faith (or lack of) is a personal belief that's part of the framework they live their life by, and a private thing that guides them in just being a decent person.

There's then a tiny but noisy minority in each group that needs to try and prove themselves "right" and everyone else "wrong".

A bit of live and let live is probably the sensible way forward. Dicks doing dickish things in the name of religion aren't generally representative of the religion they claim to represent, they're just hanging their dick coat on a convenient peg. The sooner we separate the acts of the individual from the faith (or otherwise) they are connected to (or claim to be connected to), the better. Just as an ISIS bomber isn't representative of most normal Muslims, or an IRA bomber of normal Catholics, neither is one of the new wave of angry atheists representative of any of the atheists I know.

6 pages and 2 bans?

One, technically.

@andyrm - precisely.

The fact anyone’s even prepared to ask this question in 2019 makes me lose all hope of humankind’s enlightenment. Religion is a bunch of rivalling organised cults from the dark ages using fairy tales to control the masses and generate revenue for the corrupt, privileged few. Gods are not real, ok?

@trailriderjim, brilliant sir. Respect.

Teal'c sums it up properly....

Gods are false

And from me:

Religions are a nasty evil control.

Trailrider Jim

The fact anyone’s even prepared to ask this question in 2019 makes me lose all hope of humankind’s enlightenment. Religion is a bunch of rivalling organised cults from the dark ages using fairy tales to control the masses and generate revenue for the corrupt, privileged few. Gods are not real, ok?

This was your response to someone having a philosophical and 'enlightened' debate about whether to send religion to other planets if we colonised them.

Your reply is anything but enlightened. I am in no way religious but I am not minded to pick a fight with the substantial number of humankind that does believe in a god. I get angry about many things but people's religious beliefs is not one of them. Anything I say to try to convince them of the error of their ways will be about as successful as your attempts through telling them they are brainwashed. Be angry with creationists by all means but it will get you nowhere.

The fact that fact that so many people believe in god in so many forms means that perhaps we need religion as a species.

The promotion of good evidential based science and technological development should not go hand in hand with a denigration of other people's deeply held religious beliefs.

To be fair evolution is just a theory. There is good documented evidence for adaptation of species, but not evolution which is where a species grows or develops an entirely new characteristic which makes it become a totally different species. Added to the fact that science has only determined
what around 4 percent of the universe is made of would mean 96 percent is still unknown.. so on that basis it is impossible to rule out whether God exists (unless you can prove what the other 96 percent is made from?). And the argument that 'well if God exists then who created God?' (i.e he can't exist as no one could create him) holds no water since scientist would have us believe that the universe created itself randomly out of nothing, a question Dawkins failed to answer in debate. My point is that God or evolution both involve a degree of faith so we shouldn't denounce people for believing what they want to believe, whatever it is that they choose to believe. There are many "religious" people who could and do give "religion" a bad name but to the same or greater extent there are many scientists, atheists and evolutionists who would do the same, pol pot, Hitler etc with their views on the master race - I don't judge every evolutionist based on their atrocities so why then judge every religious person based on the actions of a very small minority? The real issue is intolerance to other people's views and beliefs and unfortunately for the unbelieving non religious this works both ways, you expect your views to be respected but then don't show the same respect to anyone who has a different view or opinion- as I have said, everyone ultimately has a faith, whether it be science or religion and everyone is entitled to their faith without having someone else telling them they are wrong and trying to force another faith down their necks.

Awaits Godwin....

The latter nutters are reading secularism.org

Whether someone is secular or not has no relation to whether they are religious or not. Outside of extreme religious zealots anyone sensible would be in favour of secularism (just in case their religion loses out if not any better reason).

who accept evolution, including the Catholic church.

They dont. At best they go for Theistic Evolution eg evolution is broadly correct but god intervened to make it happen.

Gets crisps ready.

Didn’t yer dads give you that helpful advice not to talk politics or religion in the pub 🙂

Catholic church.

They dont. At best they go for Theistic Evolution eg evolution is broadly correct but god intervened to make it happen.

Not convinced about this in a practical setting - I went to a Catholic school in the 80s and 90s, we learned evolution, just like my mates at non catholic/non denominational schools.

Without wanting to seem argumentative to anyone on this thread, it seems there's a chasm between what people "think" is taught/goes on, and the real life reality of it. My theory (and it's only a theory - I've neither the time, inclination or brain bandwidth to devote any significant effort to it) is that most normal people of faith/no faith aren't the card carrying evangelists for their cause that some on the other side of the fence think they are. It's just a small cog in the machine of their decision making process and how they live their life. But I've been exceptionally lucky to have grown up in a town and environment where I mixed with lots of different people, so saw the reality rather than the portrayal.

I’ve neither the time, inclination or brain bandwidth to devote any significant effort to it) is that most normal people of faith/no faith aren’t the card carrying evangelists for their cause that some on the other side of the fence think they are.

^ Exactly this.

OMG (ironic acronym), this is like a doorstep argument with a jehovah's. Can everyone who seriously questions whether god is real, have a word with themselves, please? god is a character based on historic fables. The entity in question is fictitious, ok?

Which leads to ...at one point there has to have been a first for everything

Without wanting to seem argumentative to anyone on this thread, it seems there’s a chasm between what people “think” is taught/goes on, and the real life reality of it.

At the moment the push from some faith groups is to control the curriculum and excuse parts of it.

In other (developed) parts of the world
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/11/the-right-to-expel-children-from-school-isnt-about-freedom-its-about-cruelty
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/oct/15/labor-to-move-to-prevent-gay-teachers-being-sacked-from-religious-schools
Check the date those were 2018
In the US they want to stop teaching Evolution, in places they want to ignore things that they do not like.
There is a point to taking stand and making sure that reality is taught as such and religion studied

I’ve said this many times before, but with any demographic it’s a shouty extremist minority that give the rest a bad name.

I agree. Many atheists feel the same way about the New Atheism (i.e. blanket statements like "religion poisons everything").

Not convinced about this in a practical setting

Obviously practice varies (look at mostly Catholic Italy and their birthrate to see that not all church positions are followed by the flock) but the official position is its theistic evolution. Theistic evolution isnt evolution. Its just admitting the evidence isnt in their favour and then fudging the results.
I went to a Catholic school as well. First few years it was sensible but in the final year a proper god botherer took over and the position became less balanced. The previous headmaster took the approach so long as you showed what he considered to be Christian virtues he wasnt overly fussed about what your position on religion was. A position I was semi impressed with at the time and as I have got older only got more so.
Likewise at 6th form the biology teacher was a creationist but never let that interfere with what he taught. It only came out in side conversations and never directly in his teaching.
Whilst confused about how he managed to balance the two I admire his approach.
In both of those cases I think they were both supporters of secularism (why is it people confuse secularism with atheism?).

Ok ...the martians arrive tomorrow to discover we are all following a deighty of some sort.

Reckon they would have a definitive answer?

jj
time is short so I'll just say....
Wow you really are full of it.
I've just spent a few weeks on a pro/anti Scottish independence thread and pretty much everyone there had more humility and self awareness than you.

Good luck with the big words.
Google ad hominem for useful information on how not to proceed.

OMG (ironic acronym), this is like a doorstep argument with a jehovah’s. Can everyone who seriously questions whether god is real, have a word with themselves, please? god is a character based on historic fables. The entity in question is fictitious, ok?

The problem is Jim its you on the doorstep. I have no doubt in my mind that God does not exist, but have you really written that post thinking you have converted anyone?

Anyway. Modern thinking is that the two aren’t mutually exclusive.

Of course they are not. It is perfectly possible to accept evolution as a robust science based theory whilst having faith in a religion. Frankly, I've no idea how, but apparently it is possible.

To be fair evolution is just a theory

Be careful with "just a theory". We are not talking hypothesis here.

so it was all from 'the big bang'?

Mike, the links you provide are as heinous an indictment of Australia's political leaders as it's religious ones.

They are, but it's been driven by the religious ones. Remind me which ones are preaching hate?

To be fair evolution is just a theory

Be careful with “just a theory”. We are not talking hypothesis here.

What is the alternate theory? what is the evidence against evolution?

so it was all from ‘the big bang’?

That would seem to be a reasonable conclusion.

What is the alternate theory? what is the evidence against evolution?

I'm not aware there is any.

I was initially sceptical about evolution, but then I tried internet dating.
There is definitely a link between physical unattractiveness and the inability to get a girlfriend and reproduce, so maybe that Darwin bloke was onto something after all.
How the hell am I expected to go forth and multiply with a face like a welders bench?!

How the hell am I expected to go forth and multiply with a face like a welders bench?!

Donate at the bank

I suspect handybar is more interested in the act than the result.

might be of interest to Some of you

I suspect handybar is more interested in the act than the result.

$$$$ then

and welcome to your 'inventor' of the 'big bang Theory' ... yep a Catholic priest :O

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

Mike, when a thread on religion crops up do you and others feel the need to search up online to find where religion has ****ed up or done something reprehensible?

Do religious zealots do the same and come back saying global warming and the atomic bomb are the fault of scientists?

There can be conflict amongst religious groups, however religious belief is so prevalent to billions around the globe that exposure to it and more importantly a tolerance of it is what is required. Lets not add more intolerance to the mix.

Indeed, there is a long history of science and mathematics within "religious" structures. Science is based on fact, religion on faith, hence they can co-exist.