200+ Nigerian schoolgirls kindapped - culprits selling them £7 each

[scaramanga]

Equality of opportunity is a big part of fairness. As for the historic perspective of religion hindering fairness, we have covered that religion can be used as a tool to do wrong as can and have so many other ideologies.

You're right on both counts. What you haven't yet been able to do (which would answer my initial question posed) is why that can't be done without religion.

Why does one have to believe in The Flying Spaghetti Monster to do good?

The point is you say that the good that religion can do can be replaced, yet you then go on to dismiss the notion of fairness, ergo removing something that in an ideological world where scripture is not changed and manipulated, religion can and does to at least to an extent (even in today's far from ideological world) contribute to.

If religion has value because of scripture what is Google? Google's motto is "Don't do bad stuff" or something like that anyway. That's far more accurate and succinct than any religious scripture I've ever heard of and contains everything one could ever need to not do bad stuff. So why not ditch all religion and become Googlists? Same effect right?

 

[DTA]

Ignoring the democracy bits, not really on topic and I think we largely agree that democracy is a good thing.

You're arguing by analogy, calling religion a tool and then arguing as if it's literally a tool. I have already pointed out why I think religion is more than just a tool and I can't see that I've been countered on that.

How often do you talk to scientists about science? Next time you have a chance ask them what they're currently researching, chances are that will be something that's now currently known or well enough understood. Science thrives on unanswered questions, hardly anyone hires scientists to research that which is already known. The very nature of science is that the answer to whatever question is or was "I don't know". That's how science progresses. Sam Harris said in a debate with Depak Chopra: "At a scientific meeting, you're about as likely to find arrogance as you are to find nudity".

By contrast the arrogance that is displayed by those that not only claim that there's a GHod, but that he's on their side and that they know how he feels about human behavior. Now that's arrogance.

Atheism is the rejection of GHod claims. The burden of proof is on those making the claim, religious thinkers have tried to find a way to switch the burden of proof for a long time, I wish you the best outdoing them on that. A rejection like this can't be proven. My rejection is based on the (lack of) evidence. You similarly have no proof for your rejection of the 99.9% of religions you don't believe in, but you don't take that as a reason for believing in them. By your standard that makes you just about as arrogant as me, although I prefer my description of what's arrogant and what isn't.



Atheism is the rejection of GHod claims. Scara is no more one of the faces of atheism than any other atheist is.

You're an atheist about thousands of gods that people believe and believed in. We just go one GHod further (assuming you're a monotheist). The evidence for the GHod of your religion is no better or worse than the claims of the other world religions or smaller religions for that matter.



The unchanged scripture is almost always much worse than modern religion. I'm glad religion has been dragged into the modern world and that most of the teachings of the ancient scriptures have been left by the wayside. Although I think modern society would be much further along if religion was holding us back.



Theocracy? Theocracy? Are you serious? Even this word you'll use in relation to atheists. Where do you get this stuff from? Seriously, who are the thinkers or prophets or priests you get this kind of stuff from? Please point me towards the thinker that claims that modern atheists are for something that can be described as a theocracy.

I'm confident that a massive majority of atheists are for freedom of religion and secularism. Some atheists argue against religion in the hope of convincing people that atheism is a better path, in the hope of intellectually change the way people think. For me, if it takes force, faith or government to change the way someone thinks I wouldn't want them on our side anyway.

The theocracy statement would be a massive insult to most if not all free thinkers. I see Scara hasn't answered yet, but I would be shocked if he isn't a supporter of freedom of religion and rationality in laws and regulation. I honestly think you owe him an apology for you ugly insinuation and comparison. Either that or show some kind of argument where you get from his statements to something that could be described as a theocracy.

I'm on mobile so can't write loads but to answer some of your points.

I used the hammer to produce an exemplified point.

The whole burden of proof point has become hegonomy through repetition, it is no more the burden for those with faith to prove the existence of a deity than it is for the atheist to prove that the that perfect storm of chance created everything that we know and experience and a heap that we don't. So no I don't except that.

You are making assumptions about me to claim that I even reject 99.9 % of religions, all I can say that is not correct. I respect all faiths both present and past, I may not agree with some of the practices but would not be so arrogant as to say they are wrong.

Ok let us make one thing clear atheism does not have exclusive claim to science, not historically and not today their have probably been more scientific discoveries by people of faith then the atheist. Today there are many scientists with faith.

Freethinkers, don't make me laugh, you have reached the conclusion of atheism before you even begin to know the question, all based on incomplete logic and incomplete science, the agnostics by definition are much more free thinkers than you as they are open minded

If I offended scars then what does he do when he calls any deity the flying spaghetti monster and a lot worse... Please try to be consistent.

 

[braineclipse]

So am I. We have to give credit to scara for creating this society. I am just waiting for him to declare himself deity over us all.

All hail the mighty Scara!

I think I might just get BE to put a signature in his posts quoting me saying "This". Although I don't believe you owe me any kind of apology, you don't get to be as forthright with your views as me unless you have a thick skin.

I believe 100% in the freedom of thought. I don't want to control people's thoughts and I don't want to make them conform to my way of thinking - all I want is to show them what's out there, teach them how to apply logic and allow that to follow its logical conclusion.

I also understand that faith in itself is a virtue for some (many) religious people. And that it's pretty impossible to change that method of thought because they see value in the very process of believing without challenging. I have no objection to it unless it infects someone with power over people - I changed my GP because I found out he was religious. Whilst it might not bother many, I can't trust important decisions in the hands of someone who got such an major one so clearly wrong.

Does this mean that I'm invited to the top secret annual glory-glory hookers and blow get together in the Caribbean?

About your last paragraph, I have no problems with someone making a decision like that. But don't underestimate the human ability to compartmentalize their beliefs and live with cognitive dissonance.

 

[DTA]

I think I might just get BE to put a signature in his posts quoting me saying "This". Although I don't believe you owe me any kind of apology, you don't get to be as forthright with your views as me unless you have a thick skin.

I believe 100% in the freedom of thought. I don't want to control people's thoughts and I don't want to make them conform to my way of thinking - all I want is to show them what's out there, teach them how to apply logic and allow that to follow its logical conclusion.

I also understand that faith in itself is a virtue for some (many) religious people. And that it's pretty impossible to change that method of thought because they see value in the very process of believing without challenging. I have no objection to it unless it infects someone with power over people - I changed my GP because I found out he was religious. Whilst it might not bother many, I can't trust important decisions in the hands of someone who got such an major one so clearly wrong.

Firstly despite my reference to your use of the term flying spaghetti monster, I never aimed to cause offense its not my style. I'm glad none was taken, and I was pretty sure that this would be the case.

I think you changing doctors because they are of faith is to put it mildly very harsh to be honest, as i would think the same of anyone changing doctors or use of any professional because their views differ from yours... That is very dangerous ground in my opinion. Your proclamation that they got 'a major one wrong' is an assumption based no more on absolute provable fact than ancient astronaut theory is, so with incomplete evidence you must assume that your so-called logical conclusion is at the very least flawed or incomplete.

Where do atheists get the opinion that people of faith are automatically people of blind faith? Every religion I know of (not extensive or exhaustive) encourages challenge and questioning, despite what those imams priests etc may preech look in to religions yourself and you will see the requirement to question.

 

[Bonsaiboy]

where scripture is not changed and manipulated, religion can and does to at least to an extent (even in today's far from ideological world) contribute to.

Very interesting thread, I'm curious about this statement though, and I'd be grateful if you could expand on it DTA.

Is there a particular scripture you have in mind that you believe has not been changed or manipulated?

And who decides whether or not a scripture has been amended or changed?

 

[DTA]

Very interesting thread, I'm curious about this statement though, and I'd be grateful if you could expand on it DTA.

Is there a particular scripture you have in mind that you believe has not been changed or manipulated?

And who decides whether or not a scripture has been amended or changed?

To be honest I believe that all (certainly those i have read) scriptures have been changed and manipulated by man for personal gain in pursuit of money and power.

That is why it is so important to question, and reach your own understandings based on your own relationship with GHod.

 

[braineclipse]

I'm on mobile so can't write loads but to answer some of your points.

1. I used the hammer to produce an exemplified point.

2. The whole burden of proof point has become hegonomy through repetition, it is no more the burden for those with faith to prove the existence of a deity than it is for the atheist to prove that the that perfect storm of chance created everything that we know and experience and a heap that we don't. So no I don't except that.

3. You are making assumptions about me to claim that I even reject 99.9 % of religions, all I can say that is not correct. I respect all faiths both present and past, I may not agree with some of the practices but would not be so arrogant as to say they are wrong.

4. Ok let us make one thing clear atheism does not have exclusive claim to science, not historically and not today their have probably been more scientific discoveries by people of faith then the atheist. Today there are many scientists with faith.

5. Freethinkers, don't make me laugh, you have reached the conclusion of atheism before you even begin to know the question, all based on incomplete logic and incomplete science, the agnostics by definition are much more free thinkers than you as they are open minded

6. If I offended scars then what does he do when he calls any deity the flying spaghetti monster and a lot worse... Please try to be consistent.

1. And i already said why I think religion is more than a tool. I argued for that point, from what I can see you've yet to answer that. To then revert to the analogy which is essentially just re-stating your original claim without any support is to me rather unimpressive.

2. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

Burden of proof has not become accepted through repetition. Logic and science is not religion, it's not enough to have authorities repeat something. It's a fundamental concept as highlighted by the Russel's teapot example given in that link. If the burden of proof is not on the person making the claim you will end up believing what is false and you will end up with contradictory beliefs. Note that I give Bertrand Russel as the source for my claim here, still waiting for you to name the serious thinkers you're getting your information from.

3. Do you also believe in contradictory religions then? You move from not rejecting to respecting all of a sudden. I can respect a lot of religions whilst still rejecting their claims. I think my original point still stands even if I change the number to 80%.

Again I wonder about arrogance here. It would be arrogant to say that another religion is wrong? As I can't see that you've shared what your particular religious views are I will have to default to most monotheists here. Most of them believe in gods and prophets that clearly would imply that other religions are wrong. Is that arrogant too?

4. You were misrepresenting my views on science and science in general so I responded. Without at any point claiming that atheism has an exclusive claim to science.

5. I'm also an agnostic if that's relevant. Atheist and agnostic to me are not mutually exclusive, the two descriptions deal with two different questions (belief and knowledge). At least by any what I consider to be useful definitions.

You have no idea how I reached my conclusion of atheism. Am I sensing a touch of projection perhaps?

Incomplete logic and incomplete science. That's interesting from someone that rejects the concept of burden of proof. I'll ask again who the thinkers are you're basing your views on? And if you don't mind feel free to point out exactly where my logic fails. Particularly the burden of proof one would be interesting. Who is it that disagrees with Bertrand Russel on this one that I should listen to instead?

If logic and science correctly applied leads to theism instead of atheism then bring your best argument. Bring your logic, or whoever respectable it is that presents it well.

6. I have no idea if it offended Scara or not and I don't particularly care. Claiming that someone's views are theocratic in nature is a horrible thing to say if it's not true. I gave you the option of expanding and explaining, which you've completely dodged so far. I'm sure if you ask Scara to expand and explain the logic behind the flying spaghetti monster example he can outline it for you or paste a link that does. It's a frequently used comparison and example. Calling secular atheistic views theocratic on the other hand, that's a new one to me and unless you actually offer up some reasoning I will look at it as just name calling at best. See the consistency?

 

[braineclipse]

Firstly despite my reference to your use of the term flying spaghetti monster, I never aimed to cause offense its not my style. I'm glad none was taken, and I was pretty sure that this would be the case.

I think you changing doctors because they are of faith is to put it mildly very harsh to be honest, as i would think the same of anyone changing doctors or use of any professional because their views differ from yours... That is very dangerous ground in my opinion. Your proclamation that they got 'a major one wrong' is an assumption based no more on absolute provable fact than ancient astronaut theory is, so with incomplete evidence you must assume that your so-called logical conclusion is at the very least flawed or incomplete.

Where do atheists get the opinion that people of faith are automatically people of blind faith? Every religion I know of (not extensive or exhaustive) encourages challenge and questioning, despite what those imams priests etc may preech look in to religions yourself and you will see the requirement to question.

Atheism is not comparable to ancient astronaut theory like this.

On atheism: The claim being made by religious people is that a GHod or Gods exist. Atheism is the rejection of that claim.

On ancient astronaut theory: The claim being made by believers is that there were ancient astronauts. The rejection of this claim doesn't have a name as far as I know, but let's just say that skeptics reject this claim.

To be honest I believe that all (certainly those i have read) scriptures have been changed and manipulated by man for personal gain in pursuit of money and power.

That is why it is so important to question, and reach your own understandings based on your own relationship with GHod.

At which point the ancient scriptures become books of multiple choice where you can just pick and choose what matches your own opinions and values.

Let's for a second imagine that we did live in a world where a GHod figure that cared about humans enough to have a personal relationship with them. And that he had opinions on right and wrong that he wanted us to follow.

The world I imagine that to be looks very little like the world we actually live in. If such a GHod exists he's either not very good at communicating, doesn't exist, or he doesn't particularly care what we believe. Religions keep fracturing into disagreeing sects, there's no real consistency between religions and even within religions views on right and wrong and even what religious views should be vary greatly. Thousands of years in and this GHod still hasn't been able to convince most of the religious people that equality between the genders is a good idea, never mind views on homosexuality. Took him centuries and centuries to get the slavery thing somewhat right in a half decent majority, but that still remains a problem many places in the world.

All along in all the various sects, in all the various religions that spread and wane along cultural and political pressure as one would expect from a man made idea people have claimed the same personal relationship. With vastly different views on morality, on the nature of the world, on the nature of GHod, of afterlife and this life that claim has persisted.

Seems overwhelmingly likely to me that this experience of a personal relationship with a deity is something the human brain is capable of generating on its own. Not saying that the experience hasn't seemed genuine, or that people have lied, just to be clear.

 

[scaramanga]

All hail the mighty Scara!



Does this mean that I'm invited to the top secret annual glory-glory hookers and blow get together in the Caribbean?

About your last paragraph, I have no problems with someone making a decision like that. But don't underestimate the human ability to compartmentalize their beliefs and live with cognitive dissonance.

Invited? I was told you were bringing the blow.

I don't doubt that many people can compartmentalise such beliefs, but I only want two things from my GP; a decent understanding of any medical condition(s) I may present and a solid ability to reason through use of logic. Doctors are often pretty bad a using logic as the likes of Ben Goldacre will tell you better than I can.

Where religion comes in is that it's a major, life-changing decision for anyone to become religious. There is no logical argument for the existence of GHod, therefore a believer in GHod has flaws in their application of logic. My old GP may not have shown those flaws in his decisions on my treatment but it's not a risk I want to take.

 

[LutonSpurs]

Invited? I was told you were bringing the blow.

I don't doubt that many people can compartmentalise such beliefs, but I only want two things from my GP; a decent understanding of any medical condition(s) I may present and a solid ability to reason through use of logic. Doctors are often pretty bad a using logic as the likes of Ben Goldacre will tell you better than I can.

Where religion comes in is that it's a major, life-changing decision for anyone to become religious. There is no logical argument for the existence of GHod, therefore a believer in GHod has flaws in their application of logic. My old GP may not have shown those flaws in his decisions on my treatment but it's not a risk I want to take.

Seriously Scara - Einstein, Newton and many other famous scientists believed in the existence of a creator. Many contemporary scientists and doctors at the very height of their professions do to.

I am not criticising your decision to change GP, that is your personal decision with you having your childs best interests at heart which I would never question BUT I am questioning the logic. These are very intelligent people, some of the greatest and most logically precise minds in history. Your rule just doesn't seem right to me.

 

[scaramanga]

Firstly despite my reference to your use of the term flying spaghetti monster, I never aimed to cause offense its not my style. I'm glad none was taken, and I was pretty sure that this would be the case.

Just so that the no offence intended stuff is going both ways I thought I'd explain my reasoning for using TFSM.

Firstly, it's not the GHod of anyone on this forum AFAIK - therefore I'm not singling out any particular GHod for disbelief. I doubt all of your gods equally.

Secondly, it's a genuine, sensible argument placing the burden of proof on the one making the unfalsifiable claim. A slightly more whimsical and contemporary version of Russell's teapot.

I think you changing doctors because they are of faith is to put it mildly very harsh to be honest, as i would think the same of anyone changing doctors or use of any professional because their views differ from yours... That is very dangerous ground in my opinion. Your proclamation that they got 'a major one wrong' is an assumption based no more on absolute provable fact than ancient astronaut theory is, so with incomplete evidence you must assume that your so-called logical conclusion is at the very least flawed or incomplete.

See my reply to BE for the above.

Whilst it's clearly wrong to say that anyone religious cannot be a good doctor, and it's also wrong to say that doctors cannot use logic, I think it's entirely reasonable to say that a religious person has proven themselves to have flaws in their logical reasoning.

Just to make it clear, I didn't switch because his beliefs differ from mine, I switched because I want my GP to have a sound basis in logical reasoning.

Where do atheists get the opinion that people of faith are automatically people of blind faith? Every religion I know of (not extensive or exhaustive) encourages challenge and questioning, despite what those imams priests etc may preech look in to religions yourself and you will see the requirement to question.

At some point in the process there has to be a leap of faith into religion. You have to decide that you don't want to believe the more likely solution and choose another. You have to believe that you value belief over logic. You have to decide that you will take belief over the weight of evidence.

Of all of those millions of imams, priests, etc that have been doing this questioning for thousands of years, don't you think that maybe just one of them would have come up with a more convincing argument? I mean the overwhelming weight of the majority has been towards religion for the past few thousand years - us sciencd types have only been looking up at the sky for about 500 years. There's not many of us and our tools have been pretty shoddy for most of that too. Yet there's nothing convincing come from all of those religious scholars?

 

[braineclipse]

Invited? I was told you were bringing the blow.

I don't doubt that many people can compartmentalise such beliefs, but I only want two things from my GP; a decent understanding of any medical condition(s) I may present and a solid ability to reason through use of logic. Doctors are often pretty bad a using logic as the likes of Ben Goldacre will tell you better than I can.

Where religion comes in is that it's a major, life-changing decision for anyone to become religious. There is no logical argument for the existence of GHod, therefore a believer in GHod has flaws in their application of logic. My old GP may not have shown those flaws in his decisions on my treatment but it's not a risk I want to take.

Solid points. I'm still not convinced that religiosity is the best decider on something like this, but then again I'm not sure how a GP would react if you asked him "What are your views on Ben Goldacre?", "do you believe in science based medicine?" or "can you name the hosts on Skeptic's guide to the Universe?". In the US religion is obviously more ingrained, I know there was a directory created for non-religious psychologists/therapists for those that wouldn't want religion in their therapy. Perhaps something similar should exist for science/evidence based medicine.

Seriously Scara - Einstein, Newton and many other famous scientists believed in the existence of a creator. Many contemporary scientists and doctors at the very height of their professions do to.

I am not criticising your decision to change GP, that is your personal decision with you having your childs best interests at heart which I would never question BUT I am questioning the logic. These are very intelligent people, some of the greatest and most logically precise minds in history. Your rule just doesn't seem right to me.

Einstein didn't believe in a personal GHod.

Newton was also an alchemist, but if a modern day GP told me he was an alchemist I would be out of there quicker than I can spell homeopathy backwards (I'm a slow dresser).

The men and women of history have been at least to an extent products of their time and what they've left behind of real value is the knowledge, the argumentation, the scientific progress that's stood the test of time. I don't think it holds up to say that "such and such from history was obviously brilliant and he believed so and so". Argument from authority, and unless that belief is also supported by modern evidence and thinking the value is really primarily (/only?) historical.

Many contemporary scientists, doctors and great people in general do believe, I think that point is stronger. The question becomes I suppose which group is better, if the only knowledge you have about two doctors is that one is religious and one isn't which would be the better choice most of the time? I don't know, but I don't think Scara made a bad choice.

 

[DTA]

1. And i already said why I think religion is more than a tool. I argued for that point, from what I can see you've yet to answer that. To then revert to the analogy which is essentially just re-stating your original claim without any support is to me rather unimpressive.

2. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

Burden of proof has not become accepted through repetition. Logic and science is not religion, it's not enough to have authorities repeat something. It's a fundamental concept as highlighted by the Russel's teapot example given in that link. If the burden of proof is not on the person making the claim you will end up believing what is false and you will end up with contradictory beliefs. Note that I give Bertrand Russel as the source for my claim here, still waiting for you to name the serious thinkers you're getting your information from.

3. Do you also believe in contradictory religions then? You move from not rejecting to respecting all of a sudden. I can respect a lot of religions whilst still rejecting their claims. I think my original point still stands even if I change the number to 80%.

Again I wonder about arrogance here. It would be arrogant to say that another religion is wrong? As I can't see that you've shared what your particular religious views are I will have to default to most monotheists here. Most of them believe in gods and prophets that clearly would imply that other religions are wrong. Is that arrogant too?

4. You were misrepresenting my views on science and science in general so I responded. Without at any point claiming that atheism has an exclusive claim to science.

5. I'm also an agnostic if that's relevant. Atheist and agnostic to me are not mutually exclusive, the two descriptions deal with two different questions (belief and knowledge). At least by any what I consider to be useful definitions.

You have no idea how I reached my conclusion of atheism. Am I sensing a touch of projection perhaps?

Incomplete logic and incomplete science. That's interesting from someone that rejects the concept of burden of proof. I'll ask again who the thinkers are you're basing your views on? And if you don't mind feel free to point out exactly where my logic fails. Particularly the burden of proof one would be interesting. Who is it that disagrees with Bertrand Russel on this one that I should listen to instead?

If logic and science correctly applied leads to theism instead of atheism then bring your best argument. Bring your logic, or whoever respectable it is that presents it well.

6. I have no idea if it offended Scara or not and I don't particularly care. Claiming that someone's views are theocratic in nature is a horrible thing to say if it's not true. I gave you the option of expanding and explaining, which you've completely dodged so far. I'm sure if you ask Scara to expand and explain the logic behind the flying spaghetti monster example he can outline it for you or paste a link that does. It's a frequently used comparison and example. Calling secular atheistic views theocratic on the other hand, that's a new one to me and unless you actually offer up some reasoning I will look at it as just name calling at best. See the consistency?

1. You have not argued that conclusively at at all, religion can be described as an ideology with which certain core beliefs are held sacred. With religion you claim it's the promise of an after life (no proof of dis proof of this has been established) within nationalism the core belief would be the fact that different nationalities/ethnicities are wholly different. Again no proof, we can do this with almost all ideologies including democracy which I believe in, so if you want, I need TP for my bunghole. Thus religion like any other ideology is a tool it's how it's used is the key,

2. No I do not accept this firstly because if you are an atheist then you claim that there is no deity and therefore everything has been created by the 'perfect storm' of chance..... Ok so prove it....you can't, just like those who believe in deity can't.
Burden of proof goes both ways, but somehow the the atheists have produced a hegonomy that it only to those with faith....FALSE. Also from your own link:

3.you can change the number to whatever you want, still doesn't have me in any box who said I rejected any religion?

4. In general atheism likes to pretend to be linked with science to give its self more credence, this is a fallacy most scientific discoveries have been made by men and women of faith.... Fact.

5.agnostic or atheist big difference you are jumping from one to another in each sentence, to argue with that kind of inconsistency is futile. Not impressive.

6.posted re Scara with this, may have been harsh but he is a successful business man and I'm much more likely to go crying to my mum than him over something said on a chat forum than he is, I feel he is made of sterner stuff than that.

 

[DTA]

Atheism is not comparable to ancient astronaut theory like this.

On atheism: The claim being made by religious people is that a GHod or Gods exist. Atheism is the rejection of that claim.

On ancient astronaut theory: The claim being made by believers is that there were ancient astronauts. The rejection of this claim doesn't have a name as far as I know, but let's just say that skeptics reject this claim.



At which point the ancient scriptures become books of multiple choice where you can just pick and choose what matches your own opinions and values.

Let's for a second imagine that we did live in a world where a GHod figure that cared about humans enough to have a personal relationship with them. And that he had opinions on right and wrong that he wanted us to follow.

The world I imagine that to be looks very little like the world we actually live in. If such a GHod exists he's either not very good at communicating, doesn't exist, or he doesn't particularly care what we believe. Religions keep fracturing into disagreeing sects, there's no real consistency between religions and even within religions views on right and wrong and even what religious views should be vary greatly. Thousands of years in and this GHod still hasn't been able to convince most of the religious people that equality between the genders is a good idea, never mind views on homosexuality. Took him centuries and centuries to get the slavery thing somewhat right in a half decent majority, but that still remains a problem many places in the world.

All along in all the various sects, in all the various religions that spread and wane along cultural and political pressure as one would expect from a man made idea people have claimed the same personal relationship. With vastly different views on morality, on the nature of the world, on the nature of GHod, of afterlife and this life that claim has persisted.

Seems overwhelmingly likely to me that this experience of a personal relationship with a deity is something the human brain is capable of generating on its own. Not saying that the experience hasn't seemed genuine, or that people have lied, just to be clear.

Atheism is not just the rejection of that claim.. Far to easy... Atheism is the belief that everything we see and know is constructed not through a deity but through the perfect storm of chance.... Ergo no more provable than ancient astronaught theory... For to long long atheists have claimed burden of proof lies with those with faith.... Erm no you guys have a belief of creation to... So prove it.... If not ancient astronaut theory it is.

Freedom of choice is the thing that you are missing... I try to live my life right... To do the right thing. But I have slipped I have been and acted on much more than I care to admit on a message board.. But I knew I was doing wrong and I regretted it.... So freedom of choice because so many more people than I don't give a ****.

 

[DTA]

Just so that the no offence intended stuff is going both ways I thought I'd explain my reasoning for using TFSM.

Firstly, it's not the GHod of anyone on this forum AFAIK - therefore I'm not singling out any particular GHod for disbelief. I doubt all of your gods equally.

Secondly, it's a genuine, sensible argument placing the burden of proof on the one making the unfalsifiable claim. A slightly more whimsical and contemporary version of Russell's teapot.




See my reply to BE for the above.

Whilst it's clearly wrong to say that anyone religious cannot be a good doctor, and it's also wrong to say that doctors cannot use logic, I think it's entirely reasonable to say that a religious person has proven themselves to have flaws in their logical reasoning.

Just to make it clear, I didn't switch because his beliefs differ from mine, I switched because I want my GP to have a sound basis in logical reasoning.



At some point in the process there has to be a leap of faith into religion. You have to decide that you don't want to believe the more likely solution and choose another. You have to believe that you value belief over logic. You have to decide that you will take belief over the weight of evidence.

Of all of those millions of imams, priests, etc that have been doing this questioning for thousands of years, don't you think that maybe just one of them would have come up with a more convincing argument? I mean the overwhelming weight of the majority has been towards religion for the past few thousand years - us sciencd types have only been looking up at the sky for about 500 years. There's not many of us and our tools have been pretty shoddy for most of that too. Yet there's nothing convincing come from all of those religious scholars?

The same leap of faith must be applied to the perfect storm of chance because there is absolutely no varifiable science to back it up.... Fact.

Dude science has been going on since start of human history... 500 years you are having a laugh. Like stated before most scientific discoveries and breakthroughs have been made by people of faith.

 

[DTA]

Solid points. I'm still not convinced that religiosity is the best decider on something like this, but then again I'm not sure how a GP would react if you asked him "What are your views on Ben Goldacre?", "do you believe in science based medicine?" or "can you name the hosts on Skeptic's guide to the Universe?". In the US religion is obviously more ingrained, I know there was a directory created for non-religious psychologists/therapists for those that wouldn't want religion in their therapy. Perhaps something similar should exist for science/evidence based medicine.



Einstein didn't believe in a personal GHod.

Newton was also an alchemist, but if a modern day GP told me he was an alchemist I would be out of there quicker than I can spell homeopathy backwards (I'm a slow dresser).

The men and women of history have been at least to an extent products of their time and what they've left behind of real value is the knowledge, the argumentation, the scientific progress that's stood the test of time. I don't think it holds up to say that "such and such from history was obviously brilliant and he believed so and so". Argument from authority, and unless that belief is also supported by modern evidence and thinking the value is really primarily (/only?) historical.

Many contemporary scientists, doctors and great people in general do believe, I think that point is stronger. The question becomes I suppose which group is better, if the only knowledge you have about two doctors is that one is religious and one isn't which would be the better choice most of the time? I don't know, but I don't think Scara made a bad choice.

I know this was not directed at me but I just have to pick up some of the discrepancies.

Einstein believed in Pantheism, you do relise that is to most the polar opposite of atheism dont you?

A product of his time that is fu cking hilarious, he was so ahead of his time that he's celebrated today... But not for things that you don't agree on hah? You do realise he probably would have the combined intellect of me you and the rest of this board (in big data fashion) and yet he still had 'faith' yet the atheists claim that science and reason backs thier claim of no deity and the perfect storm of chance creating everything.... Nah I back Einstein over hitchens, one was great and progressed human knowledge the other was a writer whom maybe I didn't rate but must of had some talent, but i didnt see his contribution to human developement as anything special at all. However let peace be opon both their souls

 

[braineclipse]

1. You have not argued that conclusively at at all, religion can be described as an ideology with which certain core beliefs are held sacred. With religion you claim it's the promise of an after life (no proof of dis proof of this has been established) within nationalism the core belief would be the fact that different nationalities/ethnicities are wholly different. Again no proof, we can do this with almost all ideologies including democracy which I believe in, so if you want, I need TP for my bunghole. Thus religion like any other ideology is a tool it's how it's used is the key,

2. No I do not accept this firstly because if you are an atheist then you claim that there is no deity and therefore everything has been created by the 'perfect storm' of chance..... Ok so prove it....you can't, just like those who believe in deity can't.
Burden of proof goes both ways, but somehow the the atheists have produced a hegonomy that it only to those with faith....FALSE. Also from your own link:

3.you can change the number to whatever you want, still doesn't have me in any box who said I rejected any religion?

4. In general atheism likes to pretend to be linked with science to give its self more credence, this is a fallacy most scientific discoveries have been made by men and women of faith.... Fact.

5.agnostic or atheist big difference you are jumping from one to another in each sentence, to argue with that kind of inconsistency is futile. Not impressive.

6.posted re Scara with this, may have been harsh but he is a successful business man and I'm much more likely to go crying to my mum than him over something said on a chat forum than he is, I feel he is made of sterner stuff than that.

1. With your counter example for nationalism you're putting forth one of the worst things of nationalism and something that has been used to present nationalism as more than a tool. It's something that's made nationalism the goal in itself. Just like with religion. Do I really have to offer proof that many religions promise an after life?

2. No, you're wrong. Atheism is the rejection of the GHod claims. This doesn't mean that I have to replace creation stories of the religious with "everything has been created by the perfect storm of chance". It's perfectly reasonable to say honestly "I don't know" about those things that science cannot answer and accept the scientific theories where there's evidence.

Again I ask for a source.

3. My point still stands for most religious people. I don't know what it is you believe so arguing against what seems to be common opinions is all I can do.

4. This is a response to what I said? Please re-read my post.

Atheism pretends to be linked with science? What? Most atheists accept scientific thinking and explanations. Whose pretending?

5. I did not jump from one to another in each sentence. I don't think atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive. I pointed out that I'm also an agnostic. That's not inconsistent and you offer no argument to the contrary.

6. So you have no problems making accusations like that about other people's opinions that you then later either can't or won't back up with reason or argument? All because "you think he can take it".

 

[braineclipse]

1. Atheism is not just the rejection of that claim.. Far to easy... Atheism is the belief that everything we see and know is constructed not through a deity but through the perfect storm of chance.... Ergo no more provable than ancient astronaught theory... For to long long atheists have claimed burden of proof lies with those with faith.... Erm no you guys have a belief of creation to... So prove it.... If not ancient astronaut theory it is.

2. Freedom of choice is the thing that you are missing... I try to live my life right... To do the right thing. But I have slipped I have been and acted on much more than I care to admit on a message board.. But I knew I was doing wrong and I regretted it.... So freedom of choice because so many more people than I don't give a ****.

1. "I don't know". That's the intellectually honest answer to questions we cannot answer. I reject your GHod claims (whatever they are) and I reject your ancient astronaut theory. If that leaves me with no answer at all to some questions that's fine for me. I could go on and on, but why should I when Hitchens has already put it so much better than I could ever dream to:

“The offer of certainty, the offer of complete security, the offer of an impermeable faith that can’t give way, is an offer of something not worth having. I want to live my life taking the risk all the time that I don’t know anything like enough yet; that I haven’t understood enough; that I can’t know enough; that I’m always hungrily operating on the margins of a potentially great harvest of future knowledge and wisdom. I wouldn’t have it any other way.”

In addition to that the explanatory power of the religious answers just isn't there. You correctly say in another post that a lot of great science has been done by theists, but usually when they haven't been satisfied with the "GHod did it" explanation. That explanation, that really explains nothing and just adds another layer of unknown mystery to the question, is harmful to science in my opinion.

2. I don't think that explains the huge discrepancies in opinions between believers who claim to have a personal relationship with a GHod and thus know what he (or she) thinks. That's not a question just of freedom of choice, but claims to knowledge.

 

[braineclipse]

I know this was not directed at me but I just have to pick up some of the discrepancies.

Einstein believed in Pantheism, you do relise that is to most the polar opposite of atheism dont you?

A product of his time that is fu cking hilarious, he was so ahead of his time that he's celebrated today... But not for things that you don't agree on hah? You do realise he probably would have the combined intellect of me you and the rest of this board (in big data fashion) and yet he still had 'faith' yet the atheists claim that science and reason backs thier claim of no deity and the perfect storm of chance creating everything.... Nah I back Einstein over hitchens, one was great and progressed human knowledge the other was a writer whom maybe I didn't rate but must of had some talent, but i didnt see his contribution to human developement as anything special at all. However let peace be opon both their souls

Are you arguing for pantheism now?

As diffuse as your actual beliefs still seem to me it seems to me that you're arguing the case of a personal GHod, one you can have a personal relationship with. This is not the same as pantheism and thus you cannot lean on Einstein's opinion here, not in support of theism. Classic religious thinking to want to argue from authority instead of looking at the actual arguments, but you won't get there with Einstein unless you're actually arguing for pantheism.

Theism is the polar opposite of atheism. If you want to put everything on the same continuum I would say that pantheism is somewhere in between, probably closer to deism than theism.

As for the "hah" part. I have no problems with Einstein's religious beliefs. He was obviously brilliant, one of the best mankind has ever produced. He was a scientist, he got many things right, he was way ahead of his time and he also got some things wrong. He's not known for the great progress he made within religious thinking any more than he's known for his great strides within musical theory. It wasn't his field. And I don't have to agree with him on everything, I don't see him as a prophet or divine. I leave that stuff to the religious.

My point about products of their time was about the men and women of history, I put it after what I said about Newton. It was not directly related to Einstein although it's obviously true that people at least to some extent is a product of their time. Someone being ahead of their time (in some disciplines) doesn't change that.

 

[DTA]

Are you arguing for pantheism now?

As diffuse as your actual beliefs still seem to me it seems to me that you're arguing the case of a personal GHod, one you can have a personal relationship with. This is not the same as pantheism and thus you cannot lean on Einstein's opinion here, not in support of theism. Classic religious thinking to want to argue from authority instead of looking at the actual arguments, but you won't get there with Einstein unless you're actually arguing for pantheism.

Theism is the polar opposite of atheism. If you want to put everything on the same continuum I would say that pantheism is somewhere in between, probably closer to deism than theism.

As for the "hah" part. I have no problems with Einstein's religious beliefs. He was obviously brilliant, one of the best mankind has ever produced. He was a scientist, he got many things right, he was way ahead of his time and he also got some things wrong. He's not known for the great progress he made within religious thinking any more than he's known for his great strides within musical theory. It wasn't his field. And I don't have to agree with him on everything, I don't see him as a prophet or divine. I leave that stuff to the religious.

My point about products of their time was about the men and women of history, I put it after what I said about Newton. It was not directly related to Einstein although it's obviously true that people at least to some extent is a product of their time. Someone being ahead of their time (in some disciplines) doesn't change that.

Has to be a quick reply to some of your points

1. Sorry but I do not accept the get out clause that athesism is the rejection of gods claims. Atheism is the belief there is no deity and therefore when discussing creation its the belief that a perfect storm of chance is responsible. I can accept your answer of don't know, now except mine that I don't know how a deity moulded creation.

2. I think you need to do either more reading on pantheism or on religion. Most religions have strong elements of pantheism within their core beliefs. I can give examples if you need.

3. Agnostics and atheists are not the same thing not even close. Agnostics are as close to theist as they are to atheists.

When I say athesism has created a hegonomy that they are more in tune with science then the theists that's exactly what I mean. hegonomy doesn't represent truth though, like I have stated repeatedly most scientific discoveries have are from people of faith.