The last funeral I attended was a humanist ceremony.

Why am I not surprised.

When I go, God’s going to have to give up his favourite seat.
Brian Clough

Why am I not surprised

Why are you not surprised?

Okay, so once again the ‘athiest’s’ on here have bludgeoned their point that their interpretation of God, which is based on a load of poorly translated and very old stories, does not and has not ever existed. Actual hard facts, sightings and proof of this image and interpretation of God are absent and nothing else will do, black and white and anyone who holds such a belief is, once again, being castigated as an extremist with very low intelligence. I no longer know who are more dogmatic, and dogma isn’t all that helpful. A succinct and representable summary, I think we can all agree.

It’s a big, free Universe that keeps popping up, seemingly out of very little, expanding a lot, then possibly contracting back to virtually nothing and then popping up all over again, all on its own, with maybe the will to exist being its only mandate. Not some dude in robes and long beard. Scientifically speaking, I guess it’s quite tricky to measure quantum consciousness.

The whole religion thing on here has been incredibly dull and predictable for too long, can we not explore other definitions rather than trot out the same old shite?

their interpretation of God, which is based on a load of poorly translated and very old stories,

Exactly – stories.

Surely science can only tell us about the natural world; it is a useless tool for talking about the supernatural world (if such a thing exists).

To quote Werner Heisenberg (possibly again):
“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you”

In context, his definition of God is one I alluded to in my previous post ^^
“Heisenberg started by analysing spectral lines from metals, formulated a purely mathematical theory to explain them, then realised the mathematical theory had huge potential implications for the nature of reality. He apparently formed the view that physical matter takes up a definite state only when perceived by a conscious being. Once you entertain the idea that consciousness has an importance and existence that goes beyond physical matter, the idea of some sort of notion of something that could be plausibly called a God doesn’t seem so ridiculous anymore.”

The bible is full of metaphors that people who typically argue vociferously against the notion of religion, tend to take way too literally without understanding the metaphor. Much like their view of God.

Opening ones mind to possibilities is much healthier than dogmatism.

IMHO of course 😉

Opening ones mind to possibilities is much healthier than dogmatism.

Whoa….hold on there !!!

Everyone has a belief whether that be science or in a God. No one should force their views on others, and everyone is entitled to their beliefs whatever they may be. You don’t have to agree with someone but you should at least give others the respect for their beliefs that you would expect yourself. Unfortunately the atheists who bang on about having religion forced down their throats don’t seem to realise this works both ways. Live and let live, stop judging everyone by the actions of a few.

To quote Werner Heisenberg…

Are you sure?

“…Otremba does not declare his source, and the quote per se cannot be found in Heisenberg’s published works”

“Heisenberg’s children, Dr. Maria Hirsch and Prof. Dr. Martin Heisenberg, did not recognize their father in this quote. Hirsch suggested that the quote and its attribution to Heisenberg may have been fabricated by a fundamentalist English-speaking Christian seeking support for his faith, and he pointed to the similar precursor remarks of Francis Bacon, in “Of Atheism”

https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Werner_Heisenberg

Anyway, putting falsely attributed quotes to one side, Heisenberg had a Christian faith, so God existed for him. If you don’t believe, God doesn’t exist for you. That’s about all there is to it.

Lots of butthurt RJW (religious) snowflakes on here supporting freedom of expression being limited.

@kcr – I stand (or kneel with head bowed, ready for decapitation) corrected. Hopefully so does Quora. 😉

My point remains over there…..

Aside from this, I was merely comparing the attitudes displayed on this thread to those of Dawkins

I think the attitudes of the religious displayed on this thread are a bit terroristy….you all remind me of Abu Hamza.

Unfortunately the atheists who bang on about having religion forced down their throats don’t seem to realise this works both ways.

No, it really doesn’t work both ways. That’s a ridiculous statement, outside of this thread which you don’t ‘have’ to read.
There are no atheists appointed to the House of Lords purely because of their atheism.
There are no atheists pushing atheist agendas in law making because of what they don’t believe.
There are no atheists knocking on people’s doors to talk to people about their lack of belief.
There are no atheists standing around with megaphones in city high streets polluting the air with how they don’t believe in Allah, Jehova or any other deity.
There are no atheists holding a portion of the U.K. to ransom and enforcing a different set of human rights because of their lack of belief.
There are no atheists hacking away at non consenting, not yet indoctrinated children’s genitalia en masse because of habits and customs that they have always had. Etc, etc.

Atheists get stroppy because they see other people beliefs thrust upon them in a myriad of both insignificant and significant ways, and it’s deemed acceptable because it always been that way. It not right and it shouldn’t happen. By all means believe what you want, but keep it to yourself please.

God is a gas.

http://i59.tinypic.com/1075kzp.jpg

There are no atheists appointed to the House of Lords purely because of their atheism.
There are no atheists pushing atheist agendas in law making because of what they don’t believe.
There are no atheists knocking on people’s doors to talk to people about their lack of belief.
There are no atheists standing around with megaphones in city high streets polluting the air with how they don’t believe in Allah, Jehova or any other deity.
There are no atheists holding a portion of the U.K. to ransom and enforcing a different set of human rights because of their lack of belief.
There are no atheists hacking away at non consenting, not yet indoctrinated children’s genitalia en masse because of habits and customs that they have always had. Etc, etc.

No one from the  Church of Scotland, which is my denomination of choice, is doing any of these things either.

This is the danger of lumping all religious people together and making sweeping statements about them.

This is the danger of lumping all religious people together and making sweeping statements about them.

Agreed. I presume that puts you in the ‘keeping it to yourself’ camp, and that’s great with me. I’d happily do the same with my atheism; my vocal objections are not aimed at religion per se, just the behaviour of a sizeable, and vocal, minority.

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

False equivalence.

Here is an ‘extremist’ atheist
having a drink and lecturing you.

Here is a religious extremist having lectured you and then exploded.

Agreed. I presume that puts you in the ‘keeping it to yourself’ camp, and that’s great with me. I’d happily do the same with my atheism; my vocal objections are not aimed at religion per se, just the behaviour of a sizeable, and vocal, minority.

Don’t be coming on here being all reasonable!!

I might be wrong, but society seems to have gone in general down a bit of dangerous route – whether religion/atheism, left/right political leanings, etc etc, the ability to engage, listen to, discuss politely and accept (and hopefully try to understand) differences of opinion/belief as part of civilised interaction seems to have been lost.

Instead it’s about who can shout loudest from the polar opposite ends, gammons, snowflakes, fairies, and other attempts to demean the other.

I’m sure 99.9999% of religious and non religious people all get along with each other just fine. It’s that tiny percentage who need to be dicks to each other and try to “prove” their point in an absolutist way that ruin it. Don’t be that 0.0001% or whatever.

The bible is full of metaphors that people who typically argue vociferously against the notion of religion, tend to take way too literally without understanding the metaphor

Could you point out which bits are metaphor and which bits are real please? That’d save a lot of time.

This is where it all falls down for me. As recently as when I was at school, we were still taught in RE that the bible is literally true. As soon as you go “well, some of it is a metaphor” it throws the entire work into question. Is the good Samaritan a metaphor? Is Genesis? Is Jesus? Is god? How do you know what you’re supposed to believe?

Everyone has a belief whether that be science or in a God.

Science does not require belief, quite the opposite.

The whole religion thing on here has been incredibly dull and predictable for too long, can we not explore other definitions rather than trot out the same old shite?

Ok let’s do that. You start.

Some people really do believe in this version of God: supporters of ‘intelligent design’, for example – for whom Hart reserves plenty of scorn – and other contemporary Christian and Muslim fundamentalists, too. But throughout the history of monotheism, Hart insists, a very different version of God has prevailed. In a post at The Week, Damon Linker sums up this second version better than I can:

… according to the classical metaphysical traditions of both the East and West, God is the unconditioned cause of reality – of absolutely everything that is – from the beginning to the end of time. Understood in this way, one can’t even say that God “exists” in the sense that my car or Mount Everest or electrons exist. God is what grounds the existence of every contingent thing, making it possible, sustaining it through time, unifying it, giving it actuality. God is the condition of the possibility of anything existing at all.

The one theology book all atheists really should read

@perchypanther The Church of Scotland has a huge influence on our government and how it affects our lives “Religious representatives currently enjoy a legal right to places on council education committees in Scotland. At least three places on each council are reserved for religious nominees, under legislation dating back to 1929 and beyond. In most parts of Scotland this includes at least one Catholic and one representative of the Church of Scotland.”
They influence other agencies too

Science does not require belief, quite the opposite.

Maybe I should have been clearer unless you can prove that a God doesn’t exist then you are choosing to believe that they don’t exist. You may say you know that God doesn’t exist but given how little we know about the universe you can’t categorically rule out the possibility of the existence of a God, (although you can choose to believe based on what you understand that he doesn’t exist) You could legitimately counter this argument by saying you also can’t prove God exists hence you have to accept the possibility that he doesn’t exist, but this is where in faith a relationship with God comes in, which again you could argue is made up or nonsense (sometimes it is, we have all seen how some extremists/nut jobs commit atrocities in the name of their “religion”)

There are no atheists appointed to the House of Lords purely because of their atheism.
There are no atheists pushing atheist agendas in law making because of what they don’t believe.
There are no atheists knocking on people’s doors to talk to people about their lack of belief.
There are no atheists standing around with megaphones in city high streets polluting the air with how they don’t believe in Allah, Jehova or any other deity.

Fair enough I will accept that in a general sense as you have described but not everyone believes everything that current scienctific thinking tells us, which is pushed as fact through schools and the media when much of what we supposedly “know” is based on fairly large assumptions being correct, radio carbon dating is a good example of this, which if wrong totally changes the timeline of “evolution” and the coming about of the planet we live on. I am all for well balanced debate and critical thinking that allows people to make up their own minds and agree that one group shouldn’t seek have its views forced on everyone, but getting back to my point I stand by my statement that ultimately everyone has a faith whether that be for or against God.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/oliver-burkeman-s-blog/2014/jan/14/the-theology-book-atheists-should-read

Sure that looks like an interesting philosophical debate and all. But if god is ‘the light of being itself’ (and he/she may be, and I have no issue with people believing so at all) why does that make it okay for believers of such to enforce rules based on their impossible to evidence opinions on people who don’t believe such, or believe a different version of such. And why should such beliefs qualify for tax breaks? Ie; why am I subsidising them just because they believe something? I believe that they should subsidise me because I believe in Odin, but I’m peeing in the wind I think…

God is what grounds the existence of every contingent thing, making it possible, sustaining it through time, unifying it, giving it actuality.

Ah the Higg’s Boson.

V8ninety you raise a very interesting point here.

It’s too easy to lump “religious people” or “people with faith” into the same camp as the more organised/institutional arm of the belief structure they hold. And as we’ve seen, often it’s the “organisation” that is the facilitator (or at least blind eye turner) to misuse for power/money/status or other gain.

Sure that looks like an interesting philosophical debate and all

It looks like a variant on deism. So, unsprisingly, is something which has been considered by atheists through the ages. It is just that since it is completely unprovable one way or another the real world relevance is limited.
Plus, as you allude to, it quickly becomes apparently that very few religious people actually believe in this. Pretty much all the major religions are interventionist gods.
An interesting test as to whether it is worth engaging with would be to have his book handed out to some average church/mosque goers and see if they agree with it.

Maybe I should have been clearer unless you can prove that a God doesn’t exist then you are choosing to believe that they don’t exist.

So basically kick it down the road and put the emphasis on other people to prove a negative….

Fair enough I will accept that in a general sense as you have described but not everyone believes everything that current scienctific thinking tells us, which is pushed as fact through schools and the media when much of what we supposedly “know” is based on fairly large assumptions being correct, radio carbon dating is a good example of this, which if wrong totally changes the timeline of “evolution” and the coming about of the planet we live on.

OK, until you stop mixing up the meanings of things the debate will go nowhere. Science presents it’s facts, shows it’s working and then takes you along for the ride. It does all the hard work and has all of it’s homework done. It’s not a matter of believe it’s a matter of understanding.
Nice attempt there to call into question Radio Carbon dating – what are the flaws in it? What are the reasons you think it might not be true?

With science you can choose to ignore the evidence etc. not believing it is more like ignoring it – like the climate change deniers who provide no evidence but use the pah – experts what would they know my mate down the pub thinks….

I am all for well balanced debate and critical thinking that allows people to make up their own minds and agree that one group shouldn’t seek have its views forced on everyone, but getting back to my point I stand by my statement that ultimately everyone has a faith whether that be for or against God.

The strange bit there is your suggesting that somebody having faith in something means others have a faith against it? What is this faith is in the woods and nobody sees it?
Again it’s a mixing up of words – a faith in science is not the same as faith in a god.

Even scientific facts have a half life https://youtu.be/8kBD3lOax44

Ok let’s do that. You start.

I did, you missed it, I tried redefining God.

Ah the Higg’s Boson.

Nearly but not quite

Could you point out which bits are metaphor and which bits are real please? That’d save a lot of time.

Dude, seriously? You’re taking the piss right? At least I hope you are.
Where’s the face palm emoji?

Y’all seem a bit frightened to think away from the doctrines and their interpretation and personification of God…

I stand by my statement that ultimately everyone has a faith whether that be for or against God.

Amen to that.

Again it’s a mixing up of words – a faith in science is not the same as faith in a god.

And yet you have faith in our contemporary illusion of money. If we didn’t have that, the bits of paper and numbers on a spreadsheet are valueless.

I’ll also add that your belief that there is no human like God is in many ways a faith

….you all remind me of Abu Hamza

A hook for a hand and burning hatred of the west?

its ALL about faith, some have faith in a creator and others have Faith in what a scientist has told them. Faith.

Maybe I should have been clearer unless you can prove that a God doesn’t exist then you are choosing to believe that they don’t exist

No, using all known facts show there is no god (any of the 3000 or so that have been worshiped) where as the is not one single fact that suggests there is one.

its ALL about faith, some have faith in a creator and others have Faith in what a scientist has told them. Faith.

You have trust not faith in what a scientist will say. This will be backed up by research that is peer reviewed. It isn’t remotely the same thing.

I’ll also add that your belief that there is no human like God is in many ways a faith

OK, so as many groups of people have come up with numerous gods to believe in and explain things they could not at the time. They contradict each other and overlap in so many ways but none have any proof in any way that they exist but I have to believe that they don’t exist?

its ALL about faith, some have faith in a creator and others have Faith in what a scientist has told them. Faith.

All right George Michael, calm down. You’re wrong by the way. There is NO place for faith where science, and evidence is concerned. It’s the absence of evidence that requires faith.

yea, like people have Trust that man has walked on the moon when there is a ton of evidence that says he has not. its Still believed by many to be true though