God Botherer's

Sirius631

MattC59 wrote:

Belief doesn't require evidence.

That said, believing something to be true, without the slightest hint that it might be true, isnt' far from the definition of stupidity !

Bet you're of great comfort to a small child that is frightened of monsters under the bed.

Aggieboy

Mike Healey wrote:

I tell them I worship the Horned One and they have been known to back away from the door.[/i]

Do what I did when a couple of electric company oiks called to tell me that they'd come to 'update' my account and that I needed to sign up with their company. Invited them into the hall, locked the door, eyeballed them both and told them that if they called again or bothered any of my elderly neighbours, they wouldn't get as far as the garden gate. Never saw them in the street again.

AidanR

As a fairly religious person, I'm always torn when I see people evangelising like this. On the one hand, I admire their faith and their guts, but on the other I can't help but feel they're going about things the wrong way. Personally I feel the important message is loving and engaging with your fellow man (not in a sexual way! but I don't have a problem with that as it happens). There's an argument that converting people and saving them from hell is the best way to do that, but I believe things are somewhat more nuanced than that and that the traditional Christian dogma on heaven and hell is unhelpful, divisive and rather elitist. Personally I think practically helping and caring for those who need it is a much better way of expressing God's love.

As for religion and war etc. I think Rick has put it pretty well. It's not as though if you take religion out of the picture war goes away. Rather, it's used as an excuse, which given the fundamentally pacifist message of most religions is quite the bastardisation.

CrackFox

I have a bit of a problem with the notion of God's love. One helpful blogger made a handy list of God's Top 50 Killings from the OT.

http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com ... -rate.html

So would the real God please step forward? Is He an omnipotent despotic pyscho, or a forgiving, loving father? Whatever works best.

Raving Christian fundamentalists quote passages in the Bible to justify violence against homosexuals. The Quran positively encourages the slaughter of non-believers in no uncertain terms. If religious devotees want to demonstrate that theirs is a truly a religion of love and peace, then why don't they remove the passages from their holy books that encourage or excuse violence? As long as such passages remain there will be those who will be inspired by them. No misinterpretations or bastardizations are required. The language is quite plain.

AidanR

Yeah, I find the Old Testament pretty difficult. I don't know enough about theology to really say too much more on that!

However, misinterpretations are necessary if you place things in context. Yes, the Koran has passages mentioning slaughter, but I was under the impression (again, no expert!) that this is only in a case of "kill or be killed" oppression. That this is used to justify mass slaughter of civilians is a bastardisation as far as I'm concerned, and in mainstream Islamic thought. Christian violence against homosexuals is rare, but just the extreme end of a much greater problem where some Christians seem to think it's OK to attack the very core of someone's being and identity. "Love the sinner, hate the sin" just doesn't wash for me in these circumstances. Again, there are passages in the Bible that appear to condemn homosexuality, but you have to take these in the context of the wider message of Jesus - love your neighbour as yourself.

socrates

God doesn't exist eh. Ha ha tell me that as you are about to die. Funny how quite a lot of people change their mind on that one when the end is near.

AidanR

socrates wrote:

God doesn't exist eh. Ha ha tell me that as you are about to die. Funny how quite a lot of people change their mind on that one when the end is near.

I think that largely applies to agnostics. I doubt many strong atheists change their mind on their death beds.

I would get in at this point, though, that believing in God and believing there's no God are both beliefs. Atheism is a belief system just like any religion, and despite what many think they do not have exclusive claim on science.

mask of sanity

AidanR wrote:

socrates wrote:

God doesn't exist eh. Ha ha tell me that as you are about to die. Funny how quite a lot of people change their mind on that one when the end is near.

I think that largely applies to agnostics. I doubt many strong atheists change their mind on their death beds.

I would get in at this point, though, that believing in God and believing there's no God are both beliefs. Atheism is a belief system just like any religion, and despite what many think they do not have exclusive claim on science.

An agnostic isn't someone who is undecided about whether a god exists (they are still by definition atheists) but they are people who claim they don't know their belief (or lack of) to be correct. For that reason I am an agnostic atheist. I don't believe god exists but I don't claim to know that one doesn't.

Also, atheism isn't a belief system, it is a lack of a belief, therefore it cannot be a religion.

I've not heard any atheist making a claim to science, I just think that an understanding of science more often then not leads to atheism. There's a big difference.

Crapaud

AidanR wrote:

... I would get in at this point, though, that believing in God and believing there's no God are both beliefs. Atheism is a belief system just like any religion, and despite what many think they do not have exclusive claim on science.

No it's not!

neiltb

i don't believe in god but I have beliefs.

I believe it's wrong to do or not do a number of things. Can an atheist be allowed a moral code?

AidanR

There is a difference in not believing in God (agnosticism) and believing God doesn't exist (atheism)*. If you accept the premise that you cannot disprove God's existence any more than you can prove it, then the statement "there is no God" is as much a belief as "there is a God".

Perhaps I shouldn't have referred to atheism as a system of beliefs as it is too broad. But then there is surprising breadth within any religion too, with a few generally accepted core principles. Ultimately we all have beliefs. Even empirical sciences are built on a foundation of assumptions, for example the cosmological principle.


* I appreciate that there is some debate over the exact definitions of these words. This is my working definition.

One Man And His Bike

I'm a devout atheist, where do I fit into that pattern above?

When I was signing up for the Army I was asked my religion, I tried to get away with 7th day ravist, when asked what that was I told them "I have to go worship on a dance floor once every Seven days, Saturday night as a preference."

As you may gather, the were less than impressed.

Blacktemplar

Those who are strictly religious are fanatics who believe in something without any proof.

Amusing true story.....

Many moons ago we were driving up the side of Loch Lomond with my eldest (age 4) who asked if that was Loch Ness out the window. "No son" I replied, "it's Loch Lomond" Silence for a bit.

Then the wee fella pipes up again with "Do you believe there's a monster in Loch Ness Dad?"
"Oh yes son, I'm sure there is". A longer silence.

"If you believe in the Loch Ness Monster, how come you don't believe in God then?"
"Look at that lovely mountain son......" :oops:

As to dealing with Jehovas/Mormons - just say you're Jewish or a Muslim and they'll scuttle off sharpish. :twisted:

estampida

The problem is even the rules you have learn to argue points have been based by social rules written within sociaty by people wanting to direct or sanctify the given case or attempt to discredit it (what ever that is)

As an example - the mormon church with white and wholesome skin started around the time that slavery was abolished. This is not a coincedence.

Its more about the guidence they can provide, if you are willing to listen

or a very cunning sales pitch, as some church organisations seem to have massive bank balances and are selling faith

MattC59

socrates wrote:

God doesn't exist eh. Ha ha tell me that as you are about to die. Funny how quite a lot of people change their mind on that one when the end is near.

Nope, that won't make the slightest bit of difference to me. When I die, everything that is me stops, my body will stop converting energy and its atoms will revert to a largely random state. End of.

MountainMonster

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxNp9Evqo3E

Quite an interesting video, amazing to see how religious people are when they hit the extreme.

And yes I know she's a troll, but that does represent a percentage of christians.

Crapaud

AidanR wrote:

There is a difference in not believing in God (agnosticism) and believing God doesn't exist (atheism)*. If you accept the premise that you cannot disprove God's existence any more than you can prove it, then the statement "there is no God" is as much a belief as "there is a God" . ...

It's not believing there is no God, it's disbelief that there is. That's where atheism starts and ends.

You can't disprove any of the thousands of Gods. Are the all real, then or none? Why would your God be the exception?

The whole notion of God{s} is Bronze age superstition.

AidanR wrote:

... Perhaps I shouldn't have referred to atheism as a system of beliefs as it is too broad. But then there is surprising breadth within any religion too, with a few generally accepted core principles. Ultimately we all have beliefs. Even empirical sciences are built on a foundation of assumptions, for example the cosmological principle. ...

Built on? Maybe, but any that are proved to be wrong are discarded and science moves on. This is the major difference between science and religion: science changes over time as new evidence appears, religion is locked into the bronze age.

Harp

ju5t1n wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

I really do fvcking hate religion and all the trouble it causes.

Christmas is quite good though isn’t it?

What in the hell has Santa got to do with a topic on religion ???????

AidanR

Crapaud wrote:

It's not believing there is no God, it's disbelief that there is. That's where atheism starts and ends.

What on earth is the difference between disbelief there is a God and belief that there isn't a God? You state there is no God. You cannot prove this. Therefore it is a belief.

Crapaud wrote:

The whole notion of God{s} is Bronze age superstition.

That just speaks to its longevity as a concept

Crapaud wrote:

AidanR wrote:

... Perhaps I shouldn't have referred to atheism as a system of beliefs as it is too broad. But then there is surprising breadth within any religion too, with a few generally accepted core principles. Ultimately we all have beliefs. Even empirical sciences are built on a foundation of assumptions, for example the cosmological principle. ...

Built on? Maybe, but any that are proved to be wrong are discarded and science moves on. This is the major difference between science and religion: science changes over time as new evidence appears, religion is locked into the bronze age.

Yes, I appreciate there are differences between science and religion. That's why I can quite happily subscribe to both. My point was that belief is much more widespread than most people care to admit. In fact, given that we're not omniscient, it's an absolute necessity for daily function.

Lastly, your assertion that religion hasn't changed is clearly disprovable.

MattC59

Crapaud wrote:

AidanR wrote:

There is a difference in not believing in God (agnosticism) and believing God doesn't exist (atheism)*. If you accept the premise that you cannot disprove God's existence any more than you can prove it, then the statement "there is no God" is as much a belief as "there is a God" . ...

It's not believing there is no God, it's disbelief that there is. That's where atheism starts and ends.

You can't disprove any of the thousands of Gods. Are the all real, then or none? Why would your God be the exception?

The whole notion of God{s} is Bronze age superstition.

AidanR wrote:

... Perhaps I shouldn't have referred to atheism as a system of beliefs as it is too broad. But then there is surprising breadth within any religion too, with a few generally accepted core principles. Ultimately we all have beliefs. Even empirical sciences are built on a foundation of assumptions, for example the cosmological principle. ...

Built on? Maybe, but any that are proved to be wrong are discarded and science moves on. This is the major difference between science and religion: science changes over time as new evidence appears, religion is locked into the bronze age.

Not quite, religion conveniently moves the goal posts every time there is some scientific evidence which contradicts it. Handy that !! :roll:

Crapaud

AidanR wrote:

Crapaud wrote:

It's not believing there is no God, it's disbelief that there is. That's where atheism starts and ends.

What on earth is the difference between disbelief there is a God and belief that there isn't a God? You state there is no God. You cannot prove this. Therefore it is a belief.

It's a lack of belief, ie. none. It's got nothing to do with proof one way or another; there is no evidence for God{s}, ergo there isn't one. By stating that there is a God{s} the onus is on the religious to prove it.

AidanR wrote:

Lastly, your assertion that religion hasn't changed is clearly disprovable.

Go on, then.

AidanR

Crapaud wrote:

AidanR wrote:

Crapaud wrote:

It's not believing there is no God, it's disbelief that there is. That's where atheism starts and ends.

What on earth is the difference between disbelief there is a God and belief that there isn't a God? You state there is no God. You cannot prove this. Therefore it is a belief.

It's a lack of belief, ie. none. It's got nothing to do with proof one way or another; there is no evidence for God{s}, ergo there isn't one. By stating that there is a God{s} the onus is on the religious to prove it.

There's no evidence there isn't a God, ergo there is one. Sounds like a shoddy argument, no?

You believe one way or another. Just because your belief seems utterly self-evident to you doesn't make it any less of a belief.

Crapaud wrote:

AidanR wrote:

Lastly, your assertion that religion hasn't changed is clearly disprovable.

Go on, then.

Well, let's see. Did Judaism exist in the Bronze Age? Did Hinduism exist in the Bronze Age? Did Islam exist in the Bronze Age? To say that religion hasn't changed in 5000 years is ill-informed to say the least.

MountainMonster

AidanR wrote:

Crapaud wrote:

AidanR wrote:

Crapaud wrote:

It's not believing there is no God, it's disbelief that there is. That's where atheism starts and ends.

What on earth is the difference between disbelief there is a God and belief that there isn't a God? You state there is no God. You cannot prove this. Therefore it is a belief.

It's a lack of belief, ie. none. It's got nothing to do with proof one way or another; there is no evidence for God{s}, ergo there isn't one. By stating that there is a God{s} the onus is on the religious to prove it.

There's no evidence there isn't a God, ergo there is one. Sounds like a shoddy argument, no?

You believe one way or another. Just because your belief seems utterly self-evident to you doesn't make it any less of a belief.

Crapaud wrote:

AidanR wrote:

Lastly, your assertion that religion hasn't changed is clearly disprovable.

Go on, then.

Well, let's see. Did Judaism exist in the Bronze Age? Did Hinduism exist in the Bronze Age? Did Islam exist in the Bronze Age? To say that religion hasn't changed in 5000 years is ill-informed to say the least.

The thing is though, the whole "proof" of there being a god is a book written by a collection of people throughout time. How can someone write 200 years after Jesus died that he said this and that? Same with all the chapters written up to 700 years later after Jesus is claimed to have died.

Religion was created as a way to control people, and make them fear doing things. The people were already very poor and lived with basically nothing, so material things and pain couldn't hurt them, so they had to come up with something else i.e. the afterlife and going to hell. This is at least my opinion of it, now religion has turned into a big business and an excuse for people to kill each other.

As much as religious folk can say we can't prove he doesn't exist, we can turn around and say give me some actual evidence he exists, other than a book written by a bunch of dudes. We should form a twilight religion if that is the only proof of the "gospel" as IMO that is about as credible as the bible. Don't even get me started on the topic of religion preaching peace and harmony and mass murders and crusades at the same time. That's another clue the book was written by people at different times......

pb21

I would say atheism is a belief. I also believe everything is a belief.

Everything apart from my mind may not actually exist, but only for me in my mind. It’s a belief that there is a physical world at all.

AidanR

@MountainMonster

I'm not saying there's proof there's a God. And I'm not trying to convince you that there is one. My point is on the nature of belief. It irritates my greatly when people say blithely "there is no God" and imply that anyone who believes otherwise is a misled idiot. That is an arrogant, incorrect and likely rather ironic position. There have been many very intelligent people who have thought an awful lot and come to the conclusion they believe in God, just as there have been many highly intelligent people who have come to the opposite conclusion.

As for religion being created to control people, I would suggest you read the New Testament. It is a deeply subversive book, and very anti-authoritarian. That's not to say, of course, that religion hasn't been invoked as a way of controlling people.

Oh, and your dates on the composition of the Bible are out. The earliest books were written around 65AD, with the canon as it is today first appearing in 367 AD (though the books were obviously written before this date).

MattC59

Faith in God, any god, originally developed as a way of explaining the world around us. Religion is a primitive, but now disgustingly powerful way of controlling the masses.

There is a very accurate line towards the end of the film "The Book of Eli" where all the bibles have been destroyed. When the antagonist "Carnegie is asked why he want the bible so much, he replies
"I grew up with that book, I know it's power"

Later to say

"It’s not just a f*cking book, it’s a weapon aimed straight at the hearts and the minds of the weak and desperate.”

Ben6899

So were dinosaurs before or after Jesus et al?

It's just that the books don't make that very clear either way.

Crapaud

AidanR wrote:

There's no evidence there isn't a God, ergo there is one. Sounds like a shoddy argument, no?

Yes it is shoddy, if not delusional.

AidanR wrote:

You believe one way or another. Just because your belief seems utterly self-evident to you doesn't make it any less of a belief.

I give up.

AidanR wrote:

Well, let's see. Did Judaism exist in the Bronze Age? Did Hinduism exist in the Bronze Age? Did Islam exist in the Bronze Age? To say that religion hasn't changed in 5000 years is ill-informed to say the least.

You're confusing different religions and a religion changing over time. They're not the same. When your Holy Book is infused with the unalterable word of God how can it change? Incidently, which God's the real one ... or are they all real?

bianchimoon

socrates wrote:

God doesn't exist eh. Ha ha tell me that as you are about to die. Funny how quite a lot of people change their mind on that one when the end is near.

:roll:

bianchimoon

socrates wrote:

God doesn't exist eh. Ha ha tell me that as you are about to die. Funny how quite a lot of people change their mind on that one when the end is near.

:roll: