question on belief

Whispered

Hi, as a complete believer in the spiritual aspect of life I would like to ask a question. I personally know two athiests, one of whom cannot talk to me about his (non)beliefs? without getting angry, another of whom I no longer speak to as she insulted (name calling, shouting etc) me because I have strong beliefs. Now recently I and other believers got called an idiot by someone on boards because I/we believe something they dont. So here's my question, as athiests do you respect the fact that some people have beliefs different to yours? Any I've come into contact with (ok so it's only 3 but thats all I can base my thoughts on) have been agressive and in some cases fairly bigoted. I get the impression they look at you as being of lesser intelligence because you believe in things. I would like to think I have been unlucky enough to contact with the ignorant minority and most athiests are accepting people?

Beruthiel

The best way I can put it is, I respect your right to believe anything your heart desires, I do not however, respect those beliefs. I find it inconceivable that one can believe in fairytales after a certain age.
In real life, I would not question another persons beliefs unless they brought it up first and offered it for discussion.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

RealJohn

I would say that the belief that there definitely is no God is just as much a matter of faith as the belief that there is a God.

I think agnostics are the only ones who are in any position to belittle the beliefs of the faithful (be they faithful to God, a god, lots of gods or the idea that there is no god).

That said, anyone who belittles someone because of their beliefs is a jerk. You have a right to believe whatever you like as long as it doesn't damage anyone else.

I have a friend who claims to be an atheist too and we get on fine, except that from time to time, he decides he's going to take issue with the fact that I believe in God, as if it's any of his business. I don't understand why anyone would do that.

5uspect

There is an element on dogmatic atheism out there that is quite aggressive and rather silly.
However you can see where they come from to an extent as most them would be disgruntled ex-catholics with an axe to grind. (I suppose I went through a bit of it myself)

As Beruthiel quite rightly says I respect your right to believe but don't ask me to respect those beliefs.

Dades

helena.ryan wrote: »

Any I've come into contact with (ok so it's only 3 but thats all I can base my thoughts on) have been agressive and in some cases fairly bigoted.

I might suggest you've come into contact with a lot more, but it was never an issue and so never needed to be mentioned.

Many of us here wouldn't talk much about religion, or lack of, outside of Boards. The people you mention sound like they need to tone down their arguments somewhat. That said, we don't know what prompted their outbursts - for example, in another thread here we're being told we're all going to Hell!

There is no shared trait with atheists except a lack of belief in gods - everyone is individual. How some people wish to declare that lack of belief is a personal matter.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Zombrex

helena.ryan wrote: »

So here's my question, as athiests do you respect the fact that some people have beliefs different to yours?

As a human being I respect the fact that others have different beliefs other than mine. I might not respect the belief itself, but everyone has a right to believe what they like, and no one should be force to pretend they believe something they don't.

You will meet atheist and theists alike who won't respect someone for holding different belief to them. That's just the way it goes

helena.ryan wrote: »

I would like to think I have been unlucky enough to contact with the ignorant minority and most athiests are accepting people?

Well atheism isn't a system of beliefs, so there is nothing to say that because a person is an atheist they should be a certain way.

Most people, in general, seem to be accepting people. I imagine that applies to atheists as much as anyone else.

Zombrex

RealJohn wrote: »

I would say that the belief that there definitely is no God is just as much a matter of faith as the belief that there is a God.

You do realise you can replace God with anything and that sentence still holds

belief that there is definitely no X is just as much a matter of faith as the belief that there is an X

Replace X with anything, "london", "Michael Jackson", "unicorns", "sausages"

In a scientific, logical, sense it is impossible to be certain about any assertion ("there are such a thing as sausages and I ate one for breakfast"), particularly one when brings in the supernatural.

You might have eaten sausages for breakfast. Or an evil wizard might have created you from a pumpkin and given you the memory of someone eating sausages.

At the end of the day we deal with what is likely and plausible based on our understand of the natural world. It is more likely (in my view) that I ate sausages than an evil wizard created me with the memory of eating sausages. I can't be certain, but that doesn't stop me believing the former over the latter.

So when this is applied to God the question is not if one can prove there is or isn't a god (as impossible as proving I ate sausages). It is how likely and plausable is the existence of God.

Scofflaw

Mind you, it's true that atheists are argumentative...

cordially,
Scofflaw

5uspect

Scofflaw wrote: »

Mind you, it's true that atheists are argumentative...

cordially,
Scofflaw

We're not.

Scofflaw

5uspect wrote: »

We're not.

Yes you are.

cordially,
Scofflaw

stevejazzx

Scofflaw wrote: »

Yes you are.

cordially,
Scofflaw

No he ISN'T! Argument is an intellectual process. This is just Contradiction it's just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says

....ahhhh brings me back

In relation to the op yes atheists can be loving caring etc we are also frequently nice people who'd buy you a pint and all the rest of it..I mean what is the deal here, what can be achieved from asking such a pointless question
are all atheists bad people? that essentially was the question...no! is the answer [thread closed...please...we already have the 'what's the point of this froum' thread getting far too much air time as it...

Whispered

Actually stevejaxx can you please re-read my op? I don't make assumptions on what a person is like based on what he does and doesn't believe, my question was if there is a tendancy among athiests to be agressive in their argumements and if they tend to be dismissive of others ideas of life, death etc. My question was purely spiritualy/religiously based. Not whether you would buy someone a pint??? I pointed out repeatedly in my OP that what I am saying is based only on the athiests I have spoken to. Is this not a valid question? Or am I not allowed question? I have in no way been agressive, dismissive or anything but respectful of what is being said here. In fact I am interested in what is being said (as on openminded individual) whats wrong with that?

A lot of people are saying they respect peoples rights to have beliefs, just dont expect them to respect the belief. I think thats a great way of looking at it. There are plenty of beliefs I dont hold (such as hell Dades ) but I respect the fact that people do and would never dismiss it as a fairytale or nonsense etc as that is disrespectful. I like the way athiests can back up what they are saying. It bugs me when anybody makes a statement and back it up with a "because it just is" type response. Wicknight had a great response to the "replace x" thing. Really does make you think.

My main thing though is for years people believed the world was flat because it made sense, the sun went around the earth (ok so that was a religious thing) but it made sense. I am not saying athiests are wrong BUT what I am saying is it is a huge assumption to make that the earth is only as we see it now. Ok so we are more developed than we were when the earth was flat but we will be more developed again in another couple hundred years and there is a chance we could look back and laugh at how niave humanity was. Granted, in a couple hundred years a world of athiests may look back at people like me and laugh. but at least I accept the possibility of that.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Whispered

Feel like I'm walking into a trap here Daveirl if I say no, just religious beliefs you will say whats the difference, If I say all beliefs you'll come up with something believed by someone that is so ridic it'l make me look a fool!!

I think people have a right to believe what they want, this should be respected, definately. So long as that belief allows others beliefs to be respected (one of the reasons I'm not too big on christianity and a lot of large religions) and so long as it does not cause harm to others. I know here comes the the onslaught of clippings of people dying during "exorcisms" or a woman getting whipped after being raped, for being alone in a car with a man. I dont agree with this. Nor am I a religious person.

I think the only difference between those two discussions is that fact that most people hold their beliefs dearer to themselves than their views on socialism v's capitalism.

Oh and also (I'm suprised this hasn't been thrown in yet TBH) I am aware of the fact that most wars that ever were, are mostly centered around religion (or at least this is the excuse) my own personal belief is that if there was no religion the world would be a better place. If everyone just did their own thing, with conscience, then the world could be fantastic. It might be like me saying "if everyone was x the world would be better" I just cant see it because it's what I believe.

I am being honest here and questioning myself as I type so I would appreciate serious replies as opposed to dismissive ones please?

Overheal

personally i believe the concept of God is as fundamental to the basis of faith as matter and energy are to the basis of science: for me though i believe the chain that links matter to concepts like fission, weather, the curvature of the earth, etc. is more logical than the existence of god. 'the world is flat because god made it so' 'lightning is the wrath of god' 'rain is what happens when god is crying'. science has since explained all of these.

I can respect why people believe in the existence of God: there are many things we still cannot explain - most of which is superclassed as the Paranormal. In my opinion its very convenient to use God as a foundation to these riddles. However, I still hold firmly to the belief that science will eventually explain such phenomena. And if I do have to believe in 'God' - its not so much God for me, but aliens Crop Circles ftw.

OP I suppose it depends on your approach to the discussion: are you asking why they don't believe or are you telling them they need to believe before they go to hell, for example? Tone of conversation and subject matter is important. Keep in mind youre questioning someone's system of beliefs - just because its atheist doesn't make it any less so.

5uspect

Yes you are.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Okay well maybe...

Helena, your honesty is appreciated. It's nice to get people here that aren't hit and run posters. I think you represent a growing group in society. You've completely cut ties with organised religion yet pick and choose the bits of religion that suit you. You don't accept hell but probably accept heaven (or at least a spirit world?).

My main thing though is for years people believed the world was flat because it made sense, the sun went around the earth (ok so that was a religious thing) but it made sense. I am not saying athiests are wrong BUT what I am saying is it is a huge assumption to make that the earth is only as we see it now. Ok so we are more developed than we were when the earth was flat but we will be more developed again in another couple hundred years and there is a chance we could look back and laugh at how niave humanity was. Granted, in a couple hundred years a world of athiests may look back at people like me and laugh. but at least I accept the possibility of that.

Now this bit is interesting. You compare scientific knowledge of astronomy with your hypothesised view that someday your beliefs may (or may not) be proven correct. And this may be the case. However the skeptical position is that we cannot possibly know. There are a million things that we cannot possibly know at this moment. The scientific method is a tool to learn more about our world and until there is evidence you cannot believe one idea over any other. Remember atheists don't claim to know god doesn't exist, they just have no belief in any gods. The same way you may have no belief in whatsoever in Thor.

Also the ideas presented by a god cannot be tested either rendering them impossible to "prove" in the sense you imply (heliocentricity for example). Scientific theories must be falsifiable. There must exist a way to prove them wrong through experiment. In essence every experiment is an attempt to disprove the theory. If you cannot come up with an unfalsifiable theory how do we test it?

Scofflaw

helena.ryan wrote: »

Feel like I'm walking into a trap here Daveirl if I say no, just religious beliefs you will say whats the difference, If I say all beliefs you'll come up with something believed by someone that is so ridic it'l make me look a fool!!

I think people have a right to believe what they want, this should be respected, definately. So long as that belief allows others beliefs to be respected (one of the reasons I'm not too big on christianity and a lot of large religions) and so long as it does not cause harm to others. I know here comes the the onslaught of clippings of people dying during "exorcisms" or a woman getting whipped after being raped, for being alone in a car with a man. I dont agree with this. Nor am I a religious person.

I think the only difference between those two discussions is that fact that most people hold their beliefs dearer to themselves than their views on socialism v's capitalism.

Oh and also (I'm suprised this hasn't been thrown in yet TBH) I am aware of the fact that most wars that ever were, are mostly centered around religion (or at least this is the excuse) my own personal belief is that if there was no religion the world would be a better place. If everyone just did their own thing, with conscience, then the world could be fantastic. It might be like me saying "if everyone was x the world would be better" I just cant see it because it's what I believe.

I am being honest here and questioning myself as I type so I would appreciate serious replies as opposed to dismissive ones please?

I think what you're describing there is a secularist viewpoint - which is of course open to anyone, whether they have faith or not. It just means that religion and faith have no place in public life - something frequently misunderstood, since 'public' there is in the sense of res publica.

By the way, I don't agree that religion is the cause of wars.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

helena.ryan wrote: »

I am not saying athiests are wrong BUT what I am saying is it is a huge assumption to make that the earth is only as we see it now.

Atheists aren't making that assumption.

Atheists are rejecting the idea that theists have some how made the discovery that there is in fact "more" and that this more is an all powerful deity figure who, coincidently thinks and acts and behaves amazingly similar to how a powerful human would, while also solving all of the big worries humans have, such as providing a solution to death and explaining what bad things happen.

Imagine you have a room, that no one knows what is in the room, and no one can possibly see into the room. Sometimes you might think you see something move, or you think you might hear something from the room, but it is not clear.

The theist says "I know what is in the room, what is in the room is a powerful intelligence called Frank, and Frank wants to communicate with me and give me things, things that amazingly match what I already wanted"

The atheist says "Er no, that is nonsense. You don't even know if there is actually anything in the room, let alone if that something is an intelligence that wants to communicate with you and give you thinks. That is just something you made up, nonsense to fit your own personal desires and needs"

At while point the theist says "Stop disrespecting my beliefs!" and storms out

See the atheist isn't saying there is nothing in the room. There might be something in the room, the atheist doesn't know either way. The atheist is simply rejecting the theist idea that the theist has figured out what is in the room and as classified it as some kind of intelligence with a interest in giving him things.

If one substitutes "the room" for "the origin of the universe" I hope you can see what I mean.

Someone (ie some intelligence) may have created the universe. That is possible. Its equally possible that it was a completely natural event with no purpose. Or in fact it could be something so weird that we as humans living in this universe can't even imagine how "outside" the universe works.

Atheists are simply rejecting the idea put forward by the theists that they have already figured it out and that "it" is a sky god that grants human wishes (I would like to not die, I wonder if by some stroke of luck the super powerful vast intelligence that created the entire universe also was working on that problem. Oh look, he was. What are the odds)

redfacedbear

The only time I have been beligerent in my Atheism is when Theists have been forceful in trying to make me see the error of my ways.

(In my youth I wasted many an hour trying to convert doorstepping Jehovas and Mormons to Atheism).

Other than that I would subscribe to the already stated 'I respect your right to believe but not your actual beliefs.'

Whispered

Up until now I thought athiests were people who simply rejected things for which they have no proof, a sort of "taking everything at face value" type of mindset which I think is never a good thing to do (take things at face value that is) however from the responses I've gotten I see that there is a lot more thought than that.

Wicknight, thank you for clearing this up

"See the atheist isn't saying there is nothing in the room. There might be something in the room, the atheist doesn't know either way. The atheist is simply rejecting the theist idea that the theist has figured out what is in the room and as classified it as some kind of intelligence with a interest in giving him things. "

I am totally clear on what you mean. You havent converted me , but I'm a lot clearer on what athiesm is (I think)

Scofflaw, I also dont believe it was the cause of wars but I think, religion (and a sense of nationality) is what many people believe they are fighting for when killing other pople. (for god and country.......etc) I think the powers that be, and by that I mean government, monarchy etc have their own reasons but use peoples beliefs to have them fight. Look at the crusades, war on terror to name two, both about religion but really about land/oil. I suppose I could be described as having a secular viewpoint, although I never thought of it that way before.

5uspect, I dont think I really pick and choose, it just so happens that certain beliefs I have coincide with different religions. My beliefs on heaven and hell are prob best not discussed on an athiest forum (if interested ask and I'll tell you what they are but I dont think they will be of interest) suffice to say I dont accept heaven or hell in a christian/fire and brimstone/clouds and harps type of way. Rather I see them as mindsets.

My comparision to the world being flat was to point that in the past we were scientificly "sure" of something which turned out to be wrong. We are constantly learing more and more and it is entirely possible, I would almost say probable, that there is a lot more to life that we dont understand, which at the moment is considered supernatural, and as such, rejected without question by some people as lies or delusion.

Talking to you though I see that athiesm is not a complete rejection of peoples beliefs, rather a rejection of faith in anything you cannot prove. Thank you for having the patience to explain that to me.

Can I ask a few more questions?

Most of the references made were to God, I personally dont believe in a giant bearded man in the sky. When you say God are you replacing the word spirituality/religion/belief system with His name? Or is spirituality a different thing to a belief in God?

Also, emotions are felt, rather than proven (I know they can be proven but even if they couldn't you know you felt them) from an athiests point of view, what is love, anger, happiness etc?

I just realised, when typing about God I capital'd His name automatically. Wonder what that says about me, haha. Suppose it's a throwback to school.

Goodnight

God Bless

Zombrex

helena.ryan wrote: »

Most of the references made were to God, I personally dont believe in a giant bearded man in the sky. When you say God are you replacing the word spirituality/religion/belief system with His name? Or is spirituality a different thing to a belief in God?

This is where things get a bit tricky, because as human civilisation has advanced people have altered what they mean by "God" to keep pace with all the things we have discovered natural causes for, so what modern people mean by God is very hazy.

For example, God used to be, as you say, the bearded guy in the sky. He lived in the "heavens", when man kind still believed that the heavens were an actual place above the earth.

God (or gods) used to rule the weather and elements, if it rained from above (down poor from heaven) it was as a direct result of God's actions.

In modern times, as we discovered what is really happening, theists who continue to hold to the idea of a super intelligence that acts for their benefit, have shifted "God" away from areas that can be tested (probably for good reason).

A modern Christian for example will explain to you that "God" lives outside of space and time. He is everywhere yet no where. How they know this is beyond me, the Bible was written in a time when people still believed that God lived in the heavens (heaven is described as a physical place in the Bible).

It gets even more confusing when people start using the term "God" to describe things that are quite removed from what classically would be considered God. You get into this idea that "God" is the energy of the universe, or that God is mother Earth, or mother nature, or just some vague primordial essence.

TBH this to me reflects more the psychological need people have to feel that something, how ever undefined, is looking after them, giving them some kind of purpose. It is more about making people feel better than any serious exploration of the physical universe around us. These people are not interested in what "God" actually is, be it a classic deity or simply some vague idea of energy with purpose, they are far more interested in the psychological feeling generated by such an idea. Its like "Santa". No one cares how he is supposed to get all the toys to all the people in one night. That isn't the point, the point is the idea of a man who comes and gives children presents.

I personally think it does a bit of a deservice to the English language to use the term "God" to describe any form of vague supernatural explanation for how the universe got here, or what purpose humans are supposed to have. But if it makes people happier to use the term "God", well that is I guess the point. Its like the people who buy knock off goods that are made to look exactly like the real thing. You know it isn't real, most people can tell it isn't real. But it still feels nicer than something that obviously isn't the real thing.

helena.ryan wrote: »

Also, emotions are felt, rather than proven (I know they can be proven but even if they couldn't you know you felt them) from an athiests point of view, what is love, anger, happiness etc?

Not quite sure why people always have such a problem with this?

Firstly, theism doesn't explain emotions any more than a naturalist/humanist view of the world. Religion simply says "God gave them to us" and then shuts up about it, which hardly answers your question.

Secondly, athiests don't believe in God. They can believe in a whole host of other things. There is no atheist doctrine on what emotions are. From a rationalist scientific point of view emotions are evolutionary systems used to regulate human behaviour in ways that provide advantageous benefit.

You fall in romantic love to create strong bonds between parents for the purpose of child bearing

You feel emotions such as guilt, empathy and loneliness, because evolution of humans favoured social systems that require people not to be too selfish or self serving or isolate themselves too much from the rest of the group.

You feel emotions such as fear and terror as part of the evolutionary "fight or flight" mechanism, where the body will attempt to regulate the human intelligence getting too cocky and doing something that puts it in danger.

Etc etc.

Now before you say it, no none of that makes human emotions any less wonderful.

Using a food analogy, just because you know how a chocolate cake is made, and you know from a biological point of view how the sugars in the cake are stimulating your taste buds, doesn't mean the cake tastes any less delicious.

In fact I find the whole evolutionary development of these systems far more fascinating than any non-explanation such as "God did it"

When ever I hear "God did it" that doesn't actually answer the question. I always want to know a lot more, such as "why and how". Which at that point I'm told to be quiet. The purpose of religious answers such as "God did it like that because he knows best" seems less to actually explain what is going on and more to simply provide an answer, any answer, so people can go "ah, thats that sorted, now I can stop wondering"

Religious answers in my view sap all the wonder out of things, rather than inspires it. The answer are not provided for understanding, but simply peace of mind so people stop worry that they don't know

pH

helena.ryan wrote: »

My comparision to the world being flat was to point that in the past we were scientificly "sure" of something which turned out to be wrong. We are constantly learing more and more and it is entirely possible, I would almost say probable, that there is a lot more to life that we dont understand, which at the moment is considered supernatural, and as such, rejected without question by some people as lies or delusion.

This is incorrect, you can't take all the folk wisdom and anything humans believed in the last few thousand years and call that science.

It is debatable, but I would argue that science as we understand it today dates from the 19th century, there never was a body of scientific evidence that said the world was flat.

Our scientific knowledge of the world is good enough to reject everything currently touted as supernatural, yes undoubtedly there are many wonderful things that are yet to be discovered about this universe but we can say with certainty things like for example telekinesis, ghosts, ESP and psychics will not be among them.

2Scoops

People can believe whatever they wish but some opinions are supported more by available evidence than others. Some are outright contradicted by the evidence. The fact that a theist, for example, might elicit frustration from others might not be due to the their belief in God per se, but their refusal, or inability, to base that decision on reason.

Not all beliefs are equal when there is relevant evidence to consider. Some beliefs are just unreasonable. In those situations, why should the beliefs be respected? Seriously - why?

One final point, it's easy to not respect someone's belief but still respect the believer. There's never any excuse to be a rude, braying jackass.

2Scoops

helena.ryan wrote: »

If everyone just did their own thing, with conscience, then the world could be fantastic. It might be like me saying "if everyone was x the world would be better" I just cant see it because it's what I believe.

If a plan for a better world begins with either:
1. 'if everyone would just...'
OR
2. 'if everyone would just not...'
then it ain't gonna fly.

Communists, I'm looking at you.

condra

Hi Helena.

I'm sorry that in the real world (offline) you have come across so many atheists who are arrogant and aggressive but I doubt that sort of atheist is in the majority. I certainly hope not.

I think making generalisations is a very natural, human thing, albeit somewhat illogical in many instances.
For example, if most taxi drivers one meets are racist, ignorant and rude, it is illogical to conclude that all taxi drivers are racist, ignorant and rude, but such a conclusion is relatively natural and normal, if even just on a subconcious level.

Apart from giving a pretty crap, long winded (sorry) example of how evolutionary traits can misfire, what I'm basically saying is that if you met so many arrogant, agressive atheists, I would not blame you for thinking that at least the majority of us were like that.

The fact that you decided to investigate further, rather than come to an early conclusion speaks volumes about your logic and open mindedness.

In defense of atheists who get passionate, even to the point of anger and agression, I think a lot of atheists may feel that the world we are living in today is quite grotesque, considering they believe that superstitous belief is rampant, and extremely harmfull to humankind.

Their intentions may be good, even if their methods are/seem cruel.

helena.ryan wrote: »

from an athiests point of view, what is ....

We all have different, individual views. What we have in common is the lack of belief in any god, that is all.

There is no conspiracy

(yet;))

from an athiests point of view, what is love, anger, happiness etc?

From my point of view:
Love, anger, happiness etc are emotions. Emotions are combinations of chemicals / endorphins "fizzling around" (:rolleyes:) in the human brain. It is a very cool example of evolution.
Had we not felt pain, whilst on fire for example, we would not survive to pass on our genes.
Had we not felt pleasure, or a sense of satisfaction, when eating, we would not survive to pass on our genes.
Had we not felt pleasure in sex, we would not (/exist to) pass on our genes.

It works pretty well with emotions about less quantifiable things too, such as anger if someone steals your food or insults you.
Bare in mind that for thousands of years before modern civilisation, there were factors which affected ones chances of reproducing (and providing for offspring), things like social standing, property etc.

God Bless

Dawkins be upon you. You will make a fine atheist one day.

Scofflaw

womoma wrote: »

Dawkins be upon you.

Ew.

repelled,
Scofflaw

Beruthiel

Don't think she meant it in a sexual way Scofflaw, says more about where your mind is than hers...
hehe

Doctor DooM

Just getting back to the OP again, perhaps the reason the only people you have met who identified themselves as atheist have been jerks is because nice people who are atheists have no desire to tell you what they believe or feel the need to belittle you? Potentially, everyone you know who's religion you are not aware of COULD be an atheist. And also, nice.

I used to notice something similar with pagan types in certain rock bars in Dublin, you would hear wanna-be mother goddesses spouting on about how they were raising energy ad nauseum, whereas if you wanted a question answered seriously there was generally a quiet guy in the corner keeping himself to himself who was the actual go to guy, they were just comfortable with what they were, and felt no need to shout about it.

Zombrex

Beruthiel wrote: »

Don't think she meant it in a sexual way Scofflaw, says more about where your mind is than hers...
hehe

ewww ... reminded me of that infamous South Park episode

*shudder*

Scofflaw

Beruthiel wrote: »

Don't think she meant it in a sexual way Scofflaw, says more about where your mind is than hers...
hehe

Completely true. I'm afraid my mental visual imagery department is both inopportune and scurrilous.

Scofflaw

IRLConor

helena.ryan wrote: »

My comparision to the world being flat was to point that in the past we were scientificly "sure" of something which turned out to be wrong.

Aside (my views on the main topic have been adequately covered by others):

Unfortunately, this is a problem which many people (theist or not) have with their understanding of science. It's not their fault, it just seems to be the way science is taught/presented most commonly.

Strictly speaking, "scientifically sure" is an oxymoron. A better phrase would be "our current best scientific understanding is...".

Similar issues exist with "proof" (a proof usually shows that a theory fits with the observed phenomenon, not that the theory is inherently, immutably true) and "theory" (a model, not a hunch).

stevejazzx

Scofflaw wrote: »

Completely true. I'm afraid my mental visual imagery department is both inopportune and scurrilous.

Scofflaw

There! Ha..I always knew you were a robot:)

Whispered

Well done wicknight on making me feel silly you're answer to my emotions question was very clear. I do understand what physically causes emotions but I dont know if I want to accept that love is just a chemical reaction, surely a love a mother has for a child at least feels like it's more than that (I dont have kids so I'm just guessing). I am trying to be very careful when writing about my own experiences, as I know I am in the company of sceptics but one of the most amazing feelings of love I ever got was after a spiritual treatment (during which I was asleep). I woke up and felt better than i had in years. I'm not saying thats proof by any means, but I would like your take on that (without saying i'm lying )

Now I get to really stir things up............ I am a Reiki practitioner :eek::eek::eek::eek: you all hate me now dont you!! Feel free to comment as you see fit but go easy on me! Now what I would like to say is, I dont believe in God in the common sense as I have said before. My spiritual beliefs are based on energy, Reiki is about the movement of this energy. We all have to accept that as living organisms we create and absorb energy so it shouldn't be too hard for people to accept as possible or even probable?

As for the christian idea of god being everywhere, I think, again, this is to do with energy. Energy is everywhere, we can't see it but we know it's everywhere. It cannot be created or destroyed so the amount of energy on earth must be phenomenal. We don't fully understand how this energy works/moves etc so who's to say that manifestations of this energy in certain ways cannot happen? (I'm not just referring to ghosts etc here) We just dont know.


Ph, I'm sorry, but I thought it was a common belief not so long ago in human history, that the world was flat? Am I incorrect? If I am, sorry!!

I dont believe that our scientific knowledege is good enough to reject everything currently touted as supernatural, I really dont, how can so many people be wrong about their expeiences, ok so the reasoning behind the experience may be wrong but there can be no doubt that people have and will, experience things which are considered supernatural. If it ever comes to pass that any "supernatural" experience can be proven it then becomes a natural phenomenon and therefore gets a scientific explaination. So everyone can go "see I told you there was a logical explaination". Except at the moment it's not logical because we dont understand it. I have explained tha terribly so if anyone knows what I mean feel free to clear it up!!

"yes undoubtedly there are many wonderful things that are yet to be discovered about this universe but we can say with certainty things like for example telekinesis, ghosts, ESP and psychics will not be among them."

I thought the whole idea of an athiest point of view is not stating anything with certainty when we can't possibly know. Think about someone form 300 years ago in a modern house, show him your tv remote, tell him that if he presses a button all the way across the room that box in the corner will talk to him. He'd laugh at you(or call you a witch)!! Because he doesn't understand. To his understanding this is impossible, therefore supernatural. How do we know there are not more discoveries to be made which will make us rethink what is supernatural and what is not?

HAHA womoma I see how that "athiest point of view" thing might look but you know what I mean. Can I ask why from an athiest point of view (there I go again) is superstition considered dangerous? Ok so I can see if you take it too far but that is the same for everything, that like saying an athiests point of view may cause someone to go out and murder as they dont fear punishment except for what we can do here on earth, in which case if said athiest has a death wish it doesn't matter anyway. (BTW I'm not saying all murderers are athiests I'm just trying to compare the idea of superstition being dangerous while athiesism (SP?) isn't)


"We all have different, individual views. What we have in common is the lack of belief in any god, that is all. There is no conspiracy" - dont lie, really you're all controlled by the devil, you're lucifers minions sent to earth to undermine god fearing christians, admit it!!!

SDooM I know what you mean about people spouting out things, does that mean that the more loudly an athiest shouts about the non-existance of God the more I can wonder about his/her real beliefs in a "the lady doth protest too much" type of way? I think a lot of people believe in more than they pretend to.

Whispered

stevejazzx wrote: »

There! Ha..I always knew you were a robot:)

As with a lot of you athiest types

stevejazzx

helena.ryan wrote: »

As with a lot of you athiest types

You do not compute...I mean that literally by the way;)

Whispered

:eek: I'm not sure what you mean so eek will be my reply of choice (or would :mad: be more appropiate?)

stevejazzx

helena.ryan wrote: »

:eek: I'm not sure what you mean....

Pesky humans....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGoi1MSGu64

Scofflaw

stevejazzx wrote: »

There! Ha..I always knew you were a robot:)

No mere human could be this good - we're a post-Turing AI collective.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

helena.ryan wrote: »

but I dont know if I want to accept that love is just a chemical reaction

I'm not sure what you mean by "just" a chemical reaction. Just in relation to what?

An atomic bomb is just a chemical reaction, that doesn't stop it blowing up a city

helena.ryan wrote: »

surely a love a mother has for a child at least feels like it's more than that (I dont have kids so I'm just guessing).

You will have to define what you mean by "more"?

You seem to be saying that if emotions are chemical reactions then they some how don't have the same value as if emotions were caused by something else (I assume something supernatural)?

Again, I find this way of viewing it rather strange.

Firstly, some of the most dramatic physical forces in the universe are found in "just" chemical reactions. A star is basically a chemical reaction.

Secondly, what do you think would give emotions more value?

To me the idea that human emotions were given to us by some intelligent deity actually detracts from the wonder of the systems, rather than adds to it. The concept that these systems developed as part of an intricate evolution over millions of years is, to me at least, far more wonderful.

helena.ryan wrote: »

I am trying to be very careful when writing about my own experiences, as I know I am in the company of sceptics but one of the most amazing feelings of love I ever got was after a spiritual treatment (during which I was asleep). I woke up and felt better than i had in years. I'm not saying thats proof by any means, but I would like your take on that (without saying i'm lying )

Well you would have to define "spiritual treatment" ... do you mean that someone put rocks on your head and said they were drawing the bad spirits out of you?

I would imagine the effect it had on you can be explained by the fact that you expected it to have an effect on you. This is known as the placebo effect, and scientists still don't quite understand how it works. The human brain seems capable of doing quite extraordinary things to the human body when the mood of a person is shifted in such a way so that they believe that good things are going to happen to them.

I'm pretty sure though that what ever happened it wasn't due to the explanation of who ever was administering the "treatment" to you.

Again this is the person looking into the box and saying "Ah yes, I know what is happening here .. trolls are entering your body and eating the bad spirits .." or some such, when in fact they have just as much idea of what is actually happening as I or you do. They are attempting to explain in a very human way something they actually know nothing about.

To me psychological/physical effects, such as the placebo effect, are far more fascinating than supernatural nonsense someone can invent to explain something they don't understand.

helena.ryan wrote: »

Now I get to really stir things up............ I am a Reiki practitioner :eek::eek::eek::eek: you all hate me now dont you!! Feel free to comment as you see fit but go easy on me!

Well I would simply say that if there is in fact something actually happening during a Reiki session, I'm pretty sure it isn't anything close to what the spiritual practitioner claims is happening.

helena.ryan wrote: »

My spiritual beliefs are based on energy, Reiki is about the movement of this energy. We all have to accept that as living organisms we create and absorb energy so it shouldn't be too hard for people to accept as possible or even probable?

Well you see thats the thing, you say "energy" but this is just a word to you, a word that sounds good.

I would imagine that if we went into detail you actually have no idea what you actually mean by "energy" in any scientific sense.

I'm totally open to the idea that something may happen during a Reiki session (at a guess I would say it is again an extension of the placebo effect), but it seems rather pointless to wrap what is actually happening up with vague and undefined concepts such as "movement of energy"

What does that actually mean?

I think it is no coincidence that these modern spiritual ideas of the flow of energy from one to another originated around the same time as science started to understand the flow of electricity. These ideas of energy flow replaced older ideas that spirits would some how move between people.

But really it is just someone who doesn't understand what is actually happening attempting to explain it (the person looking into the box and effectively guess as to what is inside).

Humans seem to have this need to find a simple explanation to something that they don't understand.

The placebo effect is very complicated. Doctors still don't understand what is happening. The "movement of energy" very simple (too simple, in that it isn't even defined in any proper sense), and easy to visualize. So for some reason people prefer to believe in the simple explanation, even if that explanation doesn't make any sense.

Energy, in the Newtonian sense, is constantly moving around a human body. This is the proper use of the word, ie you can make a mathematical model of this process, as you can with any transfer of energy.

When you touch someone else's body energy, in various forms such as heat and kinetic, are transfered from your body to theres. Is is a measurable effect.

Does this transfer of energy trigger any healing effect in the body? I've no idea, and neither do you.

It might, or it might not. The healing experienced during a Reiki session could be for a completely different reason. It seems rather pointless therefore to make up explanations to explain something we actually know nothing about.

But going back to the need that religion fills, a lot of people seem uncomfortable with the idea that we don't know something. We want to believe that we do know how something happens so we can repeat this and use it for benefit. That desire to know can be a good thing when turned to a structured exploration of the natural world, such as scientific discover.

But equally it is a bad thing when people accept nonsense explanations for events people actually don't understand, simply so they get the peace of mind of knowing and the false belief that this knowledge will some how help them.

helena.ryan wrote: »

Energy is everywhere, we can't see it but we know it's everywhere.

If you couldn't "see" energy you couldn't see anything, since the photons that hit the back of your eyes are a form of electromagnetic energy.

In fact the modern theories of quantum physics suggest that matter itself (ie us and everything else physical in the universe) are simply a type of energy trapped in what is known as the Higgs field, which gives energy particles the strange property of becoming mass particles (the particles that make up atoms). In effect everything becomes a energy particle, just some energy particles are given mass and become physical.

So again we go back to the position that the reality is actually far more mind bending and wondrous than any explanation a spiritualist can come up with. But its also far more complicated.

helena.ryan wrote: »

It cannot be created or destroyed so the amount of energy on earth must be phenomenal.

Phenomenal compared to what?

There are galaxies colliding with each other at a few million miles an hour generating more heat per square mile than 1,000 suns across a space of hundreds of light years. That, needless to say is a lot of energy.

Equally there are planets far out from stars where the surface is dropped close to absolute zero (a theoretical state where a particle contains no heat energy).

helena.ryan wrote: »

We don't fully understand how this energy works/moves etc so who's to say that manifestations of this energy in certain ways cannot happen?

No one.

But equally, who are the spiritualists to say that the do know how different forms of "energy" manifest themselves. How do they know? Its seems to me they are just guessing.

Just because we don't know something doesn't mean that any made up explanation is some how valid. A made up guess remains a made up guess, and history has taught us that the actual answer is often far different to what people can imagine. Which is why people don't still think everything is made up of four elements (fire,earth,wind,air), or that the Earth is flat. All these things were just guesses, guesses based on "common sense" of the time. As is the idea that undefined energies are moving around the body when someone lays their hands on someone else.

helena.ryan wrote: »

I dont believe that our scientific knowledege is good enough to reject everything currently touted as supernatural

Our knowledge is good enough though to reject the explanations people come up with.

For example someone sees a strange light in a dark house. Well that must be a "ghost". And what is a ghost, well that is the trapped spirit of a dead person who must have died in a terrible way at some point. And oh look, someone was murdered a few miles away from the house a hundred years ago. Why that spirit must be this person, and they are haunting the house because of the negative energy the murder caused.

After awhile the person is so far into the explanation that they forget that all they have to actually go on is a strange light in a dark house. What is the light? No idea at all. And neither does the person coming up with the cost explanation.

They might say "Well science can't prove its not a ghost", but this ignores the question of why does anyone think it is a ghost in the first place. As far as anyone knows it is a light with an as yet unknown source.

See the problem with the "supernatural" isn't the events themselves. The problem is the explanations people make up to try and explain these events as being very interesting and exciting. A strange unexplained light becomes a UFO or a ghost. A healed muscle becomes the result of "positive energy" flowing from one person to another. A headache disappearing becomes demons being released by a stone on your head.

Even the term "supernatural" is silly, because if a phenomena is truly beyond the laws of the universe then it is impossible for us to test this, and therefore impossible to actually categorizers something as supernatural. It also means that it is impossible to know what it actually is, so all "explanations" given are by definition, inaccurate.

helena.ryan wrote: »

how can so many people be wrong about their expeiences

People are wrong all the time

The scientific method anticipates that and has built in checks.

For example any theory must be falsifiable (ie it must be at least logically possible to demonstrate the theory is wrong). All experiments must be repeatable (someone could claim something extra-ordinary yet no one can repeat what he is saying then it is impossible to know if it actually happened or if the scientist is at best, just wrong, or at worst lying)

The point is to increase our actual understanding of the universe around us. No one has every build a car or designed a computer using the "theories" of ghosts or spiritual healing.

In fact no one has been able to verify that any of the supernatural explanations of unexplained phenomena are actually explanations of the the phenomena.

So what is the point of an explanation for something if you don't know that explanation at least someone accurately describes what is happening?

What is the point in making up an explanation (ghosts, energy healing, ufos, demons, angels) for thing we don't yet understand?

condra

Beruthiel wrote: »

Don't think *she meant it in a sexual way

* I am in fact male, but I will take your presumption as a compliment. I love women, women are great, one of my parents is one.

And yeah, I didn't mean it in a sexual way, but the idea of Dawkins upon Helena is quite amusing. Who would have known Scofflaw had such an "active imagination".

I thought it was a common belief not so long ago in human history, that the world was flat?

Yep, and that the universe revolved around the Earth, rather than the Earth revolving around the sun. Science endevours to, and continues to enlighten us.
Imagine what would happen if life, or evidence of extinct life were to be discovered on another planet.

Can I ask why from an athiest point of view is superstition considered dangerous?

I said that some atheists may hold the view that superstition is "rampant, and extremely harmfull to humankind" I share that view.
One might argue that religion causes human rights violations, oppression, war, and stifles the progress of science. Aside from that, mass delusion is not a good thing, period.

It is irrelevant that religion gives some people comfort. Some people find comfort in painting their bodies with chocolate, or in clapping their hands twice before switching off a light.

The truth is the most important thing for humankind, the opposite is more than just ignorance- under the lie that is religion, it is mental slavery.

Beruthiel

womoma wrote: »

* I am in fact male.

Nah.
That's not what your nickname is telling me.

Dades

womoma wrote: »

Imagine what would happen if life, or evidence of extinct life were to be discovered on another planet.

A swift re-interpretation of scriptures to allow the concept of God and alien life to be compatible?

Zillah

Dades wrote: »

A swift re-interpretation of scriptures to allow the concept of God and alien life to be compatible?

Imagine if there was a significant demographic that believed the world was 5000 years old, but then we discovered an overwhelming body of evidence that is staggering in its compelling detail.

I'd imagine there would be many who would simply ignore it.

Whispered

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by "just" a chemical reaction. Just in relation to what?

An atomic bomb is just a chemical reaction, that doesn't stop it blowing up a city ?

I like to think that the people I love now, I have always loved in some way from the time I existed (which I believe to be longer than this lifetime). That love and indeed any strong emotion is more than what our bodies, our imperfect human bodies are capable of creating. Of course that is again just an opinion for which I have no proof and possibly wishful thinking. But not something I just picked up and decided, oh thats a good idea.

Wicknight wrote: »

You seem to be saying that if emotions are chemical reactions then they some how don't have the same value as if emotions were caused by something else (I assume something supernatural)?

Again, I find this way of viewing it rather strange.

No, nothing supernatural or ghostly or anything!! But something more than just a scientific formula to explain to us our highest good feeling and our lowest lows.

Wicknight wrote: »

To me the idea that human emotions were given to us by some intelligent deity actually detracts from the wonder of the systems, rather than adds to it. The concept that these systems developed as part of an intricate evolution over millions of years is, to me at least, far more wonderful.

actually this is my point, I do not believe some intelligence "gave us" our emotions, I do believe we developed them as humanity developed, I just believe we developed them at a higher level as well as a physical level.

Wicknight wrote: »

Well you would have to define "spiritual treatment" ... do you mean that someone put rocks on your head and said they were drawing the bad spirits out of you?.

Was this supposed to be sarcasm?? Do all athiests assume that because you believe in something you believe in everything? The treatment I was referring to was my first reiki treatment.

Wicknight wrote: »

I would imagine the effect it had on you can be explained by the fact that you expected it to have an effect on you. This is known as the placebo effect, and scientists still don't quite understand how it works. The human brain seems capable of doing quite extraordinary things to the human body when the mood of a person is shifted in such a way so that they believe that good things are going to happen to them.

Nope, at the time I though reiki was rubbish tbh. All I knew of it was it is a holistic "massage" so I was expecting a massage. When it was explained that I dont actually get a massage I have to say I was a bit disappointed! But I did not know what to expect from the treatment and it was wonderful. Again personal opinion which I am not presenting as proof.

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm pretty sure though that what ever happened it wasn't due to the explanation of who ever was administering the "treatment" to you.

And what explaination would that be?? My reiki teacher has never pretended to know why it works, just that it does. I would never pretend to know why it work, but I know it does. At the very least it relaxes you. I would challenge any athiest to come to me for a session and tell me it did not relax them. :D:D

Wicknight wrote: »

To me psychological/physical effects, such as the placebo effect, are far more fascinating than supernatural nonsense someone can invent to explain something they don't understand.

I also think the placebo effect is great but heres the thing. There has been studies done with patients where they were given a placebo and they got better. The body healed itself, reiki (I can't speak for other spiritual practises) allows and encourages the body to heal itself. If you call this a placebo then so be it but I know of people suffering for years (my mother being one of them) who found relief with reiki where other things didn't work.

Wicknight wrote: »

Well I would simply say that if there is in fact something actually happening during a Reiki session, I'm pretty sure it isn't anything close to what the spiritual practitioner claims is happening.

Any practitioner worth going to will not tell you, "oh God is taking your pain" or other such things, the fact is we cant explain it, we can feel it and it works. Again it was explained to us as a manipulation of energy, which you can feel when entering a room after a session. My b/f (who is himself a sceptic) can tell when I have been meditating or practising.

Wicknight wrote: »

Well you see thats the thing, you say "energy" but this is just a word to you, a word that sounds good.

I would imagine that if we went into detail you actually have no idea what you actually mean by "energy" in any scientific sense. .

The energy I am referring to is the vibration of atoms at different speeds. This is what makes up matter and is the very basis of everything on earth and the earth itself. It is what we are at the smallest level.

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm totally open to the idea that something may happen during a Reiki session (at a guess I would say it is again an extension of the placebo effect), but it seems rather pointless to wrap what is actually happening up with vague and undefined concepts such as "movement of energy"

What does that actually mean?.

Energy creates magnatism, which creates movement, which creates energy..........etc. We are all made up of energy. It's really nothing supernatural.

Wicknight wrote: »

I think it is no coincidence that these modern spiritual ideas of the flow of energy from one to another originated around the same time as science started to understand the flow of electricity. These ideas of energy flow replaced older ideas that spirits would some how move between people. .

How fair do you think it is that science "develops" yet spirituality copies? Can spirituality not learn and grow too?

Wicknight wrote: »

Energy, in the Newtonian sense, is constantly moving around a human body. This is the proper use of the word, ie you can make a mathematical model of this process, as you can with any transfer of energy.

When you touch someone else's body energy, in various forms such as heat and kinetic, are transfered from your body to theres. Is is a measurable effect.

Does this transfer of energy trigger any healing effect in the body? I've no idea, and neither do you.

It might, or it might not. The healing experienced during a Reiki session could be for a completely different reason. It seems rather pointless therefore to make up explanations to explain something we actually know nothing about..

But I have not tried to explain how it works or why, yes some people put a religious spin onto everything spiritual but I didn't. My understanding of it is obviously very basic but to me it makes sense that if we are made of energy then the transfer of energy will have some effect?

Wicknight wrote: »

But equally it is a bad thing when people accept nonsense explanations for events people actually don't understand, simply so they get the peace of mind of knowing and the false belief that this knowledge will some how help them.

I couldn't agree more, and it's people who accept anything that they are told that give other people who have beliefs a name for being easily led, gullible etc.

Wicknight wrote: »

If you couldn't "see" energy you couldn't see anything, since the photons that hit the back of your eyes are a form of electromagnetic energy.

You're just showing off now :rolleyes: I should rephrase, you cannot see all energy IE radiowaes yet we know they are there.

Wicknight wrote: »

In fact the modern theories of quantum physics suggest that matter itself (ie us and everything else physical in the universe) are simply a type of energy trapped in what is known as the Higgs field, which gives energy particles the strange property of becoming mass particles (the particles that make up atoms). In effect everything becomes a energy particle, just some energy particles are given mass and become physical.

This is what I meant above of energy vibrating at different speeds, this is what reiki is about (as I learned it) and I would hazzard a guess that a lot of "supernatural" happenings can be explained using this theroy when we understand it better. It will then not be supernatural anymore, will have become scientific and the people can say "I told you". Doesn't change the fact that at the moment it is considered supernatural (like my example of the tv remote).

Wicknight wrote: »

Phenomenal compared to what?

There are galaxies colliding with each other at a few million miles an hour generating more heat per square mile than 1,000 suns across a space of hundreds of light years. That, needless to say is a lot of energy.

Equally there are planets far out from stars where the surface is dropped close to absolute zero (a theoretical state where a particle contains no heat energy).

Phenomenal compared to what we are used to dealing with on a daily basis.


Oh My god I have soooooooo much more typing to do!! But must go have lunch now so I'll will be back on to throw my crazy theories around later. Watch this space

Oh but before I go I would like to evoke the great Thomas Eddison, one of the greatest minds known to humanity?? Also very much involved in the spiritual movement of his time. Just goes to show that science and spirituality can sometimes work together.

stevejazzx

Zillah wrote: »

Imagine if there was a significant demographic that believed the world was 5000 years old, but then we discovered an overwhelming body of evidence that is staggering in its compelling detail.

I'd imagine there would be many who would simply ignore it.

Yeah imagine that...if only we could find tonnes and tonnes of fosilised rock somewhere.....hmmm that would shut the christians up ....wouldn't it?

Whispered

womoma wrote: »

And yeah, I didn't mean it in a sexual way, but the idea of Dawkins upon Helena is quite amusing. Who would have known Scofflaw had such an "active imagination". .

I am feeling very uncomfortable with the turn this conversation is taking. I will have you know that I am a young lady and as such would prefer if all conversation of ANYONE "upon" me could be stopped (unless this anyone would happen to be incerdibly rich and handsome)

womoma wrote: »

Yep, and that the universe revolved around the Earth, rather than the Earth revolving around the sun. Science endevours to, and continues to enlighten us..

So it does but occasionally that which is accepted by the masses as fact can be wrong. This does not just hold true for spiritual beliefs.

womoma wrote: »

Imagine what would happen if life, or evidence of extinct life were to be discovered on another planet...

the scientoligists would celebrate anyway.

What is an athiests take on coincidences (ok I know some of you are going to answer with "coincidence", so besides that)

I dont think that the presence of fossils or of anything for that matter can disprove the existance of the supernatural. Ok so it can disprove the theroy of us being put here as human as opposed to developing (I know there's a name for that, is it creationism or something??) but does not really show that there is no such thing as anything but that which is physical. If my beliefs were is anyway correct then spiritualism developed with us developing physically. Sort of grew with us. Is that impossible?

Oh Just wanna say thanks to everybody for being so patient with me and explaining how you think and for being good enough to let me question without getting annoyed about it.
x

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw

helena.ryan wrote: »

And yeah, I didn't mean it in a sexual way, but the idea of Dawkins upon Helena is quite amusing. Who would have known Scofflaw had such an "active imagination".

I am feeling very uncomfortable with the turn this conversation is taking. I will have you know that I am a young lady and as such would prefer if all conversation of ANYONE "upon" me could be stopped (unless this anyone would happen to be incerdibly rich and handsome)

My apologies, then, of course. It was in no way intended personally.

I just happen to find the phrase "Dawkins be upon you" both repellent and mildly hilarious. I don't know anything about you, but I do know what Richard Dawkins looks (and acts) like, and he wouldn't be my cup of tea. A little like Edwina Curry describing John Major as a "bedroom athlete" - the idea is simultaneously risible and disgusting.


contritely,
Scofflaw

Whispered

Scofflaw wrote: »

My apologies, then, of course. It was in no way intended personally.

I just happen to find the phrase "Dawkins be upon you" both repellent and mildly hilarious. I don't know anything about you, but I do know what Richard Dawkins looks (and acts) like, and he wouldn't be my cup of tea. A little like Edwina Curry describing John Major as a "bedroom athlete" - the idea is simultaneously risible and disgusting.


contritely,
Scofflaw

You just made me feel worse!! :eek::eek: