The Hazards of Belief

Scofflaw · 12-06-2006 1:08am

pH wrote:

Is it not great to see the finer points of Papal history debated with such vigour?

It's got a certain weird fascination. Certainly they're both enthusiastic, and they both seem to believe that attack is the only form of defence.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Asiaprod · 12-06-2006 10:42am

Scofflaw wrote:

It's got a certain weird fascination. Certainly they're both enthusiastic, and they both seem to believe that attack is the only form of defence.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Well I found that one out the hard way;)

Zombrex · 12-06-2006 12:06pm

Playboy wrote:

ye a community of smart asses who get to together to pat each other on the back about how intelligent they are in comparison to theists and laugh at the misfortune of the mentally ill.

Not just the mentally ill. We laugh at the misfortune of children, puppies and Republicans as well.

Rev Hellfire · 12-06-2006 1:16pm

puppies !

There's always one who just has to push the boundaries.

Zillah · 12-06-2006 2:31pm

No no. Wicknight is confused. We laugh at the misfortunes of children and Republicans, and Republicans drink the blood of both children and puppies, but we don't laugh at the puppies.

I can see how you might get confused though.

Zombrex · 12-06-2006 2:51pm

robindch · 03-08-2006 2:20pm

This weird one just in:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/lincolnshire/5238694.stm

Dades · 03-08-2006 3:13pm

robindch wrote:

This weird one just in:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/lincolnshire/5238694.stm

My official line:
Humourous as is - I'm pretty sure that article has focused on what was just an aside. I think it's a "Church Watch" thing - and the spokesman probably just tacked on the "they can pray if they want to" remark in response to some wag of a journalist.

My unoffical line:
LOL!

Beruthiel · 03-08-2006 4:41pm

Police and Christian groups in Lincolnshire are to combine forces to tackle crime with the power of prayer

that'll work

Thanks for bringing this thread back up, it was posted during my holidays and I completely missed it.
Brilliant

growler · 03-08-2006 6:59pm

"can you send a squad car round ? "

"not for while, sorry, but we could say a few hail marys if that's any help"

( btw, the creationism thread is becoming compulsive reading and highly entertaining)

5uspect · 07-08-2006 5:35pm

growler wrote:

"can you send a squad car round ? "

"not for while, sorry, but we could say a few hail marys if that's any help"

Since prayer can make recovering patients develop complications maybe they should pray for the criminals...

growler wrote:

( btw, the creationism thread is becoming compulsive reading and highly entertaining)

I'm working nights in the lab a lot lately and when I get in I have to log on and see the latest arguement they've thrown up. I hope my input hasn't been too incoherent and rambling!

07-08-2006 8:34pm

Wicknight wrote:

I would imagine this poor man had serious mental health problems, because he got himself into the situation in the first place. But of course there are plenty of examples of religious people believing God will save them in situations they didn't get themselves into, such as being trapped in a fire or Earthquake.

I suppose the lesson here is God won't save you, even if you believe he exists.

From physical harm, no. Even if he exists, etc.

It's ridiculous how often I find myself telling other Atheists this:
God.
Interventionist God.
Two very different things.
So, as much as I'm sure we'd all like to pretend it does, lack of evidence specifically for an interventionist God does not equate to any real lack of evidence for a God.

I await eagerly the story of a mentally disturbed Atheist who went outside blaspheming and claiming 'God' couldn't touch him, only to be struck dead by lightning from teh heavens! :rolleyes:

5uspect · 07-08-2006 8:58pm

scouser.tommy wrote:

From physical harm, no. Even if he exists, etc.

It's ridiculous how often I find myself telling other Atheists this:
God.
Interventionist God.
Two very different things.
So, as much as I'm sure we'd all like to pretend it does, lack of evidence specifically for an interventionist God does not equate to any real lack of evidence for a God.

I await eagerly the story of a mentally disturbed Atheist who went outside blaspheming and claiming 'God' couldn't touch him, only to be struck dead by lightning from teh heavens! :rolleyes:

But the Abrahamic god like most old gods that people believe in is an interventionist god. the non-interventionist god is just, as far as I see, just a development of these gods without the added bells and whistles. The root belief in a supernatural creator of sorts is still there. There is no reason to believe in or even consider any such idea of a non-interventionist god without evidence as there is to consider the idea that there is a little man in every atom juggling electrons.

Zillah · 07-08-2006 11:38pm

Non-interventionst?! The Judeo-Christian god?

Just off the top of my head:

Parting the Red Sea.
Nuking Sodom.
Torturing Job.
The plagues of Egypt.
The burning bush.
Jesus.

Also there is:

Every miracle ever.
Praying to God for something (and the encouragement of such by the clergy).
Praying to saints for intervention (with God).
Divine visitations.

And thats without any thought behind it. I'm sure people could list thousands of crude interventions that the Judeo-Christian God has made.

08-08-2006 5:19am

Zillah wrote:

Non-interventionst?! The Judeo-Christian god?

My, aren't we quick to assume I'm talking exclusively about the Judeo-Christian God?

By all means, list as many thousand interventions as you like. It's irrelevant. I guess heads are havin' trouble getting 'round this

Lack of evidence for a Judeo-Christian God != Lack of evidence for a God

=> lack of evidence for a Judeo-Christian God != Atheism

Understand?
kthxbye

5uspect · 08-08-2006 8:10am

But thats my point, do you know of any non-interventionist gods that predate any interventionist gods? All the old gods are very hands on but suddenly get very distant as humanity progresses. The concept of god is already planted in the mind.

Dades · 08-08-2006 9:57am

scouser.tommy wrote:

lack of evidence specifically for an interventionist God does not equate to any real lack of evidence for any God.

But most if not all of the evidence proffered for the existence of a god, is based on interventionist actions, such as miracles, prophets, signs, messengers etc.

Take all that away - to believe in a non-interventionist god is akin to saying "we don't know how we got here - so a god made us".
i.e. making something up out of absolutely nothing up to answer an unanswerable question.

Of course the definition of a god is still key.

Zillah · 08-08-2006 10:56am

Yes that last post was quite good

Dades · 08-08-2006 12:30pm

scouser.tommy wrote:

Well it's most evidence - not all. If an architect designs/builds a house and the house continues to function as designed without any further action on the part of the Architect, then it wouldn't be correct to say the Architect is continually 'intervening'. That's my definition, does it agree with yours?

I'd agree that the house was designed, and that the architect does not intervene. However if your attempting to infer that our planet was designed in the way a house was - we'll part ways there.

On reflection the only non-interventionist argument I've ever heard is the Intelligent Design one. I don't subscribe to those arguments however. (See my sig

)

scouser.tommy wrote:

Unanswerable question, eh? I'm glad you see it that way. If it's so inconclusive then how can you rule out agnosticism? This is my basic point. People seem to throw up the lack of evidence for an interventionist God as some proof for Atheism, as if a non-interventionist God were not even a possibility worth considering. But it is and that implies at least agnosticism. That's about all I'm saying, really.

Agnosticsm is the only real possibility where GOD is anything we don't understand, or implied as a vague answer to questions we can answer. So again, it will come down to the question of what is a god? For me it can only be interventionist. A non-interventionist creator is completely unknowable, as we have no way of assigning any kind of characteristic. And for me to define something as a "god" you need something more than nothing. Others may disagree of course.

robindch · 11-08-2006 11:29am

> B]Zillah[/B Divine visitations.

Courtesy of randi.org, turns out that Jesus seems to have been busy manifesting himself in a tour of continental US over the last year or so:

http://www.nbc5.com/news/4618080/detail.html (Pennsylvania, as a damp stain)
http://www.nbc5.com/news/3968497/detail.html (Arizona, as a dental x-ray)
http://www.nbc5.com/news/4541162/detail.html (Texas, as some condensation)

Meanwhile, down the road in Lubbock, Texas, they're praying for rain:

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060724-063818-3430r

Progress (or, generally, the lack of it) can be tracked here:

http://www.weather.com/outlook/travel/businesstraveler/monthly/USTX0808

stevejazzx · 11-08-2006 11:58am

robindch wrote:

> B]Zillah[/B Divine visitations.

Courtesy of randi.org, turns out that Jesus seems to have been busy manifesting himself in a tour of continental US over the last year or so:

http://www.nbc5.com/news/4618080/detail.html (Pennsylvania, as a damp stain)
http://www.nbc5.com/news/3968497/detail.html (Arizona, as a dental x-ray)
http://www.nbc5.com/news/4541162/detail.html (Texas, as some condensation)

Meanwhile, down the road in Lubbock, Texas, they're praying for rain:

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060724-063818-3430r

Progress (or, generally, the lack of it) can be tracked here:

http://www.weather.com/outlook/travel/businesstraveler/monthly/USTX0808

Those poeple gathering a around a window giving prasie.....:eek: it's like something from life of brian!
The dental xray is pretty impressive though
The shower thing is just....he's auctioning rust, I mean who in their right mind would buy that? 45% of america probably lol

Zillah · 11-08-2006 12:36pm

Zilla, I was just going to edit this bit out, but then I realized that would go against the spirit of our group here, and those that read it, only.
And not fair to you.
I like humor. I also think that appearing in a window or a Taco, well, I can think of many way that would cause a far greater impact. It could be said that it shows a great lack of style. Different strokes for different folks, as they say.
However, the following " Part the sea again you bastard, seriously, go Sodom-ise San Francisco. You've really gone down hill since that pansy New Testament malarky." is not humorous.
I would appreciate a little decorum. I think if you read it in retrospect you will also agree.
If you are not comfortable with this, PM me.
I like a good joke.

EDIT (Zillah):

Perhaps you misunderstood my use of "sodom-ise". I specifically put a hyphen in to seperate it from the verb "sodomise". I was refering to the biblical city that God exploded. I think your criticism is mostly because a lot of the post went over your head. For example, calling the New Testament "pansy" was tongue-in-cheek, God took a far more active and tyrannical role in the world during the Old Testament.

So yeah, I called a mythical being a bastard. Is bad language forbidden...?

Zilla, I was just going to edit this bit out, but then I realized that would go against the spirit of our group here, and those that read it, only.
And not fair to you.

So the only part you left in was the part you didn't like, and you deleted the inoffensive rest of the the post? I'm very sorry for coming across so argumentative but I'm a little peeved at seeing my post arbitrarily butchered over a misunderstanding.

Asiaprod · 11-08-2006 4:31pm

Zillah wrote:

So the only part you left in was the part you didn't like, and you deleted the inoffensive rest of the the post? I'm very sorry for coming across so argumentative but I'm a little peeved at seeing my post arbitrarily butchered over a misunderstanding.

I will pass on answering the first 70% of this post since you expressed you feeling so well, as I did ask you to, in the PM.

For the moment, due to a technical error (namely I am new at this and hit the wrong button) your post was deleted. That was not the intent, since my post would mean nothing if people could not also read what I was responding too. It will be back, it will be seen, and my comment will still stand. By the way, rather than thinking you are talking over my head, try to talk to my level.

"pansy" was tongue-in-cheek......That may not be how it was received and you are responsible for what comes out of your mouth
So yeah, I called a mythical being a bastard. Is bad language forbidden.....no, not the language.

5uspect · 11-08-2006 7:38pm

Zillah wrote:

So yeah, I called a mythical being a bastard. Is bad language forbidden...?

You could also call this mythical being your father which makes you a bastard.
The Abrahamic god is technically a bastard since there is nothing about his parents in the bible so we can assume that either they don't exist or he has something to hide. Jesus was also a bastard, since his parents Mary and God weren't married. Jesus is also god which makes god a doulde bastard really.

Not trying to be a smart arse here just pointing out some of the ridiculous side effects of man made concepts.

Dades · 11-08-2006 8:15pm

It's all in the context I guess.
Try calling a random poster in After Hours a bastard and you'll have an instant internet fatwah declared on you.

Asiaprod · 13-08-2006 2:42am

Sorry for the delay, was away all day.

First up, I cannot get the post back, my mistake was fatal and its gone,
My apologies Zillah, twas not my intent to erase it. I do not need the entire post though to explain the action. It is all condensed into

" Part the sea again you bastard, seriously, go Sodom-ise San Francisco. You've really gone down hill since that pansy New Testament malarky."

Our charter is small and only has 2 points on it. Point two states:

2. Respect those who do not share your beliefs (or lack thereof). Though many here will share certain atheist or agnostic views - it is not acceptable to ridicule the faith or beliefs of others. Something that would be seen as a direct insult in, say, the Christianity or Islam forums will be similarly treated here.

Calling a mythical being a bastard definitely contravenes our charter. Whiter twas in jest, for fun, or what ever else, it did not help the thread and was easily open to misinterpretation. If we break our own charter we cannot expect others to keep. Anyone is free to come to the Atheism/Agnostic forum where we will happily debate, ridicule or tear asunder anyone, but we will do it with respect.

Zillah wrote:

I'm very sorry for coming across so argumentative but I'm a little peeved at seeing my post arbitrarily butchered over a misunderstanding

You are not argumentative, your post was not butchered twas an accident, and I would be peeved too. Thats one button I will not push again in a hurry.
I hope you now understand my point. It is not personal. The charter was broken, the problem is fixed.
I will leave the post open, if it returns back down the same path, I will close it. That applies to any other post that crosses the invisible line.

Zillah · 13-08-2006 4:36am

A pertinent "no-comment".

EDIT:

Further PM has clarified something. Asiaprod had no intention of editing my post, what exists above was supposed to be a follow up post. My apoligies for misunderstanding.

Asiaprod · 13-08-2006 5:22am

Zillah wrote:

A pertinent "no-comment".

Excelent

Scofflaw · 19-08-2006 11:37pm

More hazards of belief:

BBC wrote:

Hundreds drink 'sweet seawater'
Hundreds of people flocked to a beach in the Indian city of Mumbai after reports the seawater had turned sweet.

Several people who drank the muddy water from the Arabian Sea said it had been changed by a miracle and could now cure illnesses.

Authorities in Mumbai said they collected samples for testing but warned against drinking the polluted water because of health risks.

Many saw it as a blessing from Makhdoom Ali Mahimi, a 13th Century Sufi saint.

Reuters news agency reported seeing a man bathing a young boy in a creek near the beach, which it said receives thousands of tonnes of raw sewage and industrial waste every day.

Others, the agency said, were seen gathering water as rubbish and plastic drifted past.

From the BBC.

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch · 30-08-2006 8:14pm

Yikes:

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=17646670&method=full&siteid=66633&headline=miracle-is-sunk--name_page.html

30 August 2006
MIRACLE IS SUNK

A PRIEST has died after trying to demonstrate how Jesus walked on water.

Evangelist preacher Franck Kabele, 35, told his congregation he could repeat the biblical miracle.

But he drowned after walking out to sea from a beach in the capital Libreville in Gabon, west Africa.

One eyewitness said: "He told churchgoers he'd had a revelation that if he had enough faith, he could walk on water like Jesus.

"He took his congregation to the beach saying he would walk across the Komo estuary, which takes 20 minutes by boat.

"He walked into the water, which soon passed over his head and he never came back."

The Hazards of Belief

Comments