Dead men DO bleed! : On debating with theists.

oeb

Some days I find myself getting very frustrated when discussing religion with people (either in life, or online). I'm sure theists feel the same, something they see as so obvious, just gets rejected out of hand by someone else because it does not fit with their world view (however correct or incorrect it may be). But I read a story online a few days ago that sums it up, and I thought I would share it with you. I can't find my oridginal source, so this is phrased from memory.

A doctor is treating a patient in a mental hospital. This particular man is convinced that he is dead. He still walks around, talks and breathes, but nothing anyone can say will convince him he is in fact alive. During a session, the doctor tries a new approach.
"Can a dead man bleed?"
"Of course not!" answers the man.

Without a word, the doctor reaches out with a pin he had conceled and jabs the man in the finger. A drop of blood quickly forms on the wound.

"Ouch" cries the man "Wow! I can't believe how wrong I was!" he states, "Dead men CAN bleed!"

Does anyone else feel the same frustration? I see threads, like the ones on evolution for example, where some of the posters are just so WRONG that I think they must be trolling, or just taking the piss, but regardless of if they are or not, there is actually people out there who believe this. No amount of conventional science, or clear evidence will convince them otherwise.

Nodin

oeb wrote: »

Does anyone else feel the same frustration? I see threads, like the ones on evolution for example, where some of the posters are just so WRONG that I think they must be trolling, or just taking the piss, but regardless of if they are or not, there is actually people out there who believe this. No amount of conventional science, or clear evidence will convince them otherwise.

You'll find that after a certain time, its best to walk away.....

One of the first encounters I had with a 'fundamentalist', (6 or 7 years ago now), ended with the discussion getting to dating methods. "Aha", sez I to meself, like an eejit, "I have him now" and listed the commonly known ones (radio carbon, tree rings, pottery, context) being no expert. He dismissed them out of hand, and then in detail. "he can't do that!!!" thinks I. Yes, in fact he and they shagging can.

You can point out the holes in their plot, their selective quoting and the rest, but when it gets down to the very core, you can't win, in the sense that some "true believer" is going to round and admit that they're wrong. Be content to know that you've made them come out with various statements that a fair minded person would see as illogical or contradictory. It's like the middle east, which I endlessly debate elsewhere. A 'win' for me there would be when somebody suddenly tries to justify their political position by the Bible, after being refuted on 'real world' issues. You know you've hit the bullseye.

midlandsmissus

Tell me about it.

I do feel like that. but it's different for me.

I don't feel like I'm coming on here to sway people's views and getting frustrated that they're not being swayed. I never set out to do that.

It's when I talk about myself at all, it's having to defend yourself over and over again that gets to me.

It's strange....I used to be an atheist, and now I cant even remember what it was like....

CerebralCortex

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Tell me about it.

I do feel like that. but it's different for me.

I don't feel like I'm coming on here to sway people's views and getting frustrated that they're not being swayed. I never set out to do that.

It's when I talk about myself at all, it's having to defend yourself over and over again that gets to me.

It's strange....I used to be an atheist, and now I cant even remember what it was like....

That is a very strange concept to get to grips with mlm. The path that brought me to atheism, having been raised a Catholic, means that regardless of whether a god exists that is responsible for our creation or that when I'm older I might find comfort in religion, I will never be able to see it as the truth. I apologise but I got a hint of insincerity about the actual nature of your atheism in comparison to the atheists on here. Let me ask you if you truly were an atheist how did you switch all the way to Christianity? Its a fairly large jump. You say you are tired of having to defend yourself then why say something like that which is marked in bold?

midlandsmissus

CerebralCortex wrote: »

That is a very strange concept to get to grips with mlm. The path that brought me to atheism, having been raised a Catholic, means that regardless of whether a god exists that is responsible for our creation or that when I'm older I might find comfort in religion, I will never be able to see it as the truth. I apologise but I got a hint of insincerity about the actual natural of your atheism in comparison to the atheists on here. Let me ask you if you truly were an atheist how did you switch all the way to Christianity? Its a fairly large jump. You say you are tired of having to defend yourself then why say something like that which is marked in bold?

Hi Cerebralcortex,

No, thats a justified question that you asked me. I don't mean defending myself as in answering people's courteous questions. It's others on this board (the same few) who just really grind you down and berate you if you say any opinion.
e.g. I say "I am fine with this....," they say "well you cant be fine with that because your religon says ."....im like "but i dont agree with that bit, because that's more the catholic church's teaching than I feel was originally intended" they say "well how can you call yourself a christian" and eventually always to "you're contradicting yourself", and i'm like GRRR! its just impossible to argue with them because there's always something in christianity that i'm not complying with and then they see my argument as invalid. That's what really frustrates me, becuase it is impossible to comply with everything.

In answer to your question, I dont know how else I can say I was an atheist. I mean how can you be insincere about that, how can you be more atheist than the next person?

I didnt believe in God, I questioned everything, I was opposed to religion, I argued my case with people. I was that way for a long itme. I have a more detailed post about my transition on the christianity board, but lets just say a lot of strange things happened to me which first brought me to being an agnostic, and then to being a christian.

Let me ask you if you truly were an atheist how did you switch all the way to Christianity? I'm not the first person to do this, surely it cant seem that inconceivable to you?

Rev Hellfire

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I got a hint of insincerity about the actual natural of your atheism in comparison to the atheists on here.

And thus the great inter-atheist wars begin...

Zombrex

midlandsmissus wrote: »

It's when I talk about myself at all, it's having to defend yourself over and over again that gets to me.

I imagine the thread you are referring to was the thread about how you used to be an atheist and have now found religion.

I do think the responses were a bit unfair to you, the claim that you weren't really an atheist, and also that these responses made atheism out to be something more than I feel it is.

I think your thread got peoples back up because often "I was an atheist but now I see the light" type stories are used in a sort of propaganda battle to demonstrate that atheism is ultimately unnatural and irrational. Though in fairness atheists often use the "I once believed but now I don't" stories themselves to support atheism.

Both sides seem to respond with the "but you weren't really were you" claims.

It is often said that Christians who are now atheists weren't really Christians because they didn't have Jesus' love and spirit in them, if they did they would never question if Jesus actually existed or not.

Likewise atheists post with bewilderment when someone says that they now believe in God, asking how could someone disregard all the logic and reason behind the atheist position and start accepting personal experience as some how meaning something significant enough to believe in supernatural deities.

Ultimately both arguments come down to the idea of other people defining what you were, often for the purposes of then attacking you, so I can perfectly understand why it would annoy someone.

CerebralCortex

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

And thus the great inter-atheist wars begin...

Not at all I'm not implying there is one way to be atheist or anything I just find it hard to imagine an atheist converting back to a very specific form of belief/religion. When it comes to religion I think it can be as helpful as it is dangerous it all depends on the practitioner.

Mlm I sincerely hope I'm not one of those abrasive atheists I may have been in the past but its not what I aspire to. Thanx for the reply.

eoin5

I get frustrated with believers usually when they come out with ignorant statements like religion does more good than harm or that because so many people are doing it it has to be true.

That stuff irks me!

An Fear Aniar

midlandsmissus wrote: »

It's strange....I used to be an atheist, and now I cant even remember what it was like....

Yeah, me too. I used to be an atheist but now God is in my life and it's wonderful. I'm not a Christian though, and I'm not signed up for any religion, I dislike religion, too much certitude. Jesus never wrote a book, did he?


.

Dave!

Just his memoir, Jesus: A Life.

pH

oeb wrote: »

Does anyone else feel the same frustration? I see threads, like the ones on evolution for example, where some of the posters are just so WRONG that I think they must be trolling, or just taking the piss, but regardless of if they are or not, there is actually people out there who believe this. No amount of conventional science, or clear evidence will convince them otherwise.

Is this necessarily a theist or religious thing? Most of us have things we hold true or believe that no amount of logical debate could ever or would ever shift.

Imagine how frustrated a classical music aficionado would be in a logical discussion with a metal head. By any logical objective analysis, most would agree that Mozart's music is better than some random metal band, but we all know that no amount of logic or debate could ever change that fan's mind.

There's a saying something along the lines "You can't use reason and logic to get someone to change their view if they didn't use reason and logic to establish that view". That goes for heavy metal fans (not picking on them, football fans, ABBA fans etc etc) and theists alike I think.

It's possibly why you shouldn't be using reason and logic in these debates/discussions - it's not going to work, why not try ridicule and emotional appeals instead? - they just might work.

Mark Hamill

oeb wrote: »

Some days I find myself getting very frustrated when discussing religion with people (either in life, or online). I'm sure theists feel the same, something they see as so obvious, just gets rejected out of hand by someone else because it does not fit with their world view (however correct or incorrect it may be). But I read a story online a few days ago that sums it up, and I thought I would share it with you. I can't find my oridginal source, so this is phrased from memory.

A doctor is treating a patient in a mental hospital. This particular man is convinced that he is dead. He still walks around, talks and breathes, but nothing anyone can say will convince him he is in fact alive. During a session, the doctor tries a new approach.
"Can a dead man bleed?"
"Of course not!" answers the man.

Without a word, the doctor reaches out with a pin he had conceled and jabs the man in the finger. A drop of blood quickly forms on the wound.

"Ouch" cries the man "Wow! I can't believe how wrong I was!" he states, "Dead men CAN bleed!"

Should have buried him, then problem solved for everyone.

aidan24326

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

Yeah, me too. I used to be an atheist but now God is in my life and it's wonderful. I'm not a Christian though, and I'm not signed up for any religion, I dislike religion, too much certitude. Jesus never wrote a book, did he?

But shorn of religious rituals, prayer, going to mass, observing religious customs, following doctrine etc, what exactly is left? In what way is god in your life?

CerebralCortex

aidan24326 wrote: »

But shorn of religious rituals, prayer, going to mass, observing religious customs, following doctrine etc, what exactly is left? In what way is god in your life?

Careful the western man will just use the dreaded dot on you.


.

midlandsmissus

Wicknight wrote: »

I imagine the thread you are referring to was the thread about how you used to be an atheist and have now found religion.

I do think the responses were a bit unfair to you, the claim that you weren't really an atheist, and also that these responses made atheism out to be something more than I feel it is.

I think your thread got peoples back up because often "I was an atheist but now I see the light" type stories are used in a sort of propaganda battle to demonstrate that atheism is ultimately unnatural and irrational. Though in fairness atheists often use the "I once believed but now I don't" stories themselves to support atheism.

Both sides seem to respond with the "but you weren't really were you" claims.

It is often said that Christians who are now atheists weren't really Christians because they didn't have Jesus' love and spirit in them, if they did they would never question if Jesus actually existed or not.

Likewise atheists post with bewilderment when someone says that they now believe in God, asking how could someone disregard all the logic and reason behind the atheist position and start accepting personal experience as some how meaning something significant enough to believe in supernatural deities.

Ultimately both arguments come down to the idea of other people defining what you were, often for the purposes of then attacking you, so I can perfectly understand why it would annoy someone.

Hi wicknight,

Thank you for a very interesting reply. I understand to an extent that an atheist could find it hard to believe that some-one like them could turn to religion. Because it is such a complete shift of mentality. It is possible though, because I know I was at the complete other end of the spectrum and I have had a radical change of thinking.

"how could someone disregard all the logic and reason behind the atheist position and start accepting personal experience as some how meaning something significant enough to believe in supernatural deities."

I understand this point of view. But if you consider that we are living on a globe suspended in space which a) can't go on for infinity and b) can't not go on for infinty, alot of things don't make that much sense. What is space? It cant have boundaries and yet it can't not have boundaries. That seems stranger to me than our souls leaving our bodies when we die and going to a higher plane.

CerebralCortex

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Hi wicknight,

Thank you for a very interesting reply. I understand to an extent that an atheist could find it hard to believe that some-one like them could turn to religion. Because it is such a complete shift of mentality. It is possible though, because I know I was at the complete other end of the spectrum and I have had a radical change of thinking.

"how could someone disregard all the logic and reason behind the atheist position and start accepting personal experience as some how meaning something significant enough to believe in supernatural deities."

I understand this point of view. But if you consider that we are living on a globe suspended in space which a) can't go on for infinity and b) can't not go on for infinty, alot of things don't make that much sense. What is space? It cant have boundaries and yet it can't not have boundaries. That seems stranger to me than our souls leaving our bodies when we die and going to a higher plane.

Souls(which is really just conciousness) that can go on for an infinity? Souls that were created by an entity that is infinite yet has human emotions?

As Carl Sagan put it aptly:
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

An Fear Aniar

Dave! wrote: »

Just his memoir, Jesus: A Life.

"How I saved the world and why I wish I hadn't bothered" by JH Christ.


.

midlandsmissus

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Souls(which is really just conciousness) that can go on for an infinity? Souls that were created by an entity that is infinite yet has human emotions?

As Carl Sagan put it aptly:
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

Souls(which is really just conciousness) that can go on for an infinity? Souls that were created by an entity that is infinite yet has human emotions?

How is that stranger than space going on for infinity?

oeb

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Souls(which is really just conciousness) that can go on for an infinity? Souls that were created by an entity that is infinite yet has human emotions?

How is that stranger than space going on for infinity?

Space does not go on for infinity. It's getting bigger all the time.

midlandsmissus

oeb wrote: »

Space does not go on for infinity. It's getting bigger all the time.

Right it doesn't go on for infinity. Where are the edges then.

Copied this from wikipedia to back me up!

The concept of space is considered to be of fundamental importance to an understanding of the universe although disagreement continues between philosophers over whether it is itself an entity, a relationship between entities, or part of a conceptual framework.

Nobody has understood space yet. It therefore doesnt seem to me any less strange than there being a god.

Dave!

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Nobody has understood space yet. It therefore doesnt seem to me any less strange than there being a god.

Why does it have to be one or the other for you?

Couldn't it be, the universe is constantly expanding..... or....... we don't understand it yet.

See? No need for god there

It's just like this:

knowledgeknowledgeknowledge| *gap in knowledge* |knowledgeknowledgeknowledgeknowledge

as opposed to

knowledgeknowledgeknowledge| *god* |knowledgeknowledgeknowledgeknowledge

midlandsmissus

Dave! wrote: »

Why does it have to be one or the other for you?

Couldn't it be, the universe is constantly expanding..... or....... we don't understand it yet.

See? No need for god there

It's just like this:

knowledgeknowledgeknowledge| *gap in knowledge* |knowledgeknowledgeknowledgeknowledge

as opposed to

knowledgeknowledgeknowledge| *god* |knowledgeknowledgeknowledgeknowledge

Because Wicknight origiinally said this to me

how could someone disregard all the logic and reason behind the atheist position and start accepting personal experience as some how meaning something significant enough to believe in supernatural deities."

and I'm saying, how is believing in a supernatural deity stranger than believing we are on a globe suspended in space that cant possibly be either infinite or finite.

Because that's what I personally find strange. There's nothing stranger than life!

oeb

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Because Wicknight origiinally said this to me

how could someone disregard all the logic and reason behind the atheist position and start accepting personal experience as some how meaning something significant enough to believe in supernatural deities."

and I'm saying, how is believing in a supernatural deity stranger than believing we are on a globe suspended in space that cant possibly be either infinite or finite.

Because that's what I personally find strange. There's nothing stranger than life!

See one of the problems with the position of Theists is what's known as 'The God of the Gaps'. We do not say space is finite, or infinite, we take the evidence that we have, and we make an educated guess. What's more, then we keep on gathering evidence, and keep on trying to find out as much as possible. A theist (like yourself) seems happy to simply say "God did it" and leave it at that.

CerebralCortex

I think we need desperately need to get away from this idea of "stranger". For a start I don't think the idea of god is strange I think its simplistic as I've said countless times its just an anthropomorphism of lack of undersatnding(at least evidence leads me to believe that) and its very personal, religion being a manipulation of that process. Strange to me is cool what is strange to me though and I think this is where the confusion came from is that someone would outsource their quest for truth to religion as opposed to science, engineering, philosophy whatever etc. The reason for your existence is all of a sudden just a god who will condemn those who do not worship him (I don't think you believe that) or who made a complete universe vastly greater than our needs just to so he could trial run our ability to be as gracious as he (which is nonsense considering "he" is infinite).

midlandsmissus

oeb wrote: »

See one of the problems with the position of Theists is what's known as 'The God of the Gaps'. We do not say space is finite, or infinite, we take the evidence that we have, and we make an educated guess. What's more, then we keep on gathering evidence, and keep on trying to find out as much as possible. A theist (like yourself) seems happy to simply say "God did it" and leave it at that.

A theist (like yourself) seems happy to simply say "God did it" and leave it at that

Dear Oeb,

Please dont ever assume I say anything, and please don't bunch all theists together. That is a specific kind of ignorance I don't like.
I personally believe in God because of numerous unusual things that happened to me pyschologically and physically. I don't know everything about christianity, and I am reading up on it. I personally think as the bible was written by man, it is not all correct. It is more about your own personal relationship with god.
So em, you're wrong I dont go round saying "la la la God did it" and leave it at that. Just because you're a christian doesn't mean you can't have an analytical mind.

CerebralCortex

midlandsmissus wrote: »

A theist (like yourself) seems happy to simply say "God did it" and leave it at that

Dear Oeb,

Please dont ever assume I say anything, and please don't bunch all theists together. That is a specific kind of ignorance I don't like.
I personally believe in God because of numerous unusual things that happened to me pyschologically and physically. I don't know everything about christianity, and I am reading up on it. I personally think as the bible was written by man, it is not all correct. It is more about your own personal relationship with god.
So em, you're wrong I dont go round saying "la la la God did it" and leave it at that. Just because you're a christian doesn't mean you can't have an analytical mind.

I really don't see how you can be offended by what Oeb said, it has been said on this forum many times I thought you'd come to expect that phrase? I'm curious if you had the above experiences in lets say Tokyo do you think you'd be now researching Shinto? I can understand the belief in god maybe as far as deism like Eintsein but to go all the way to believing christianity is the one is beyond my faculties(for want of a better term).

On the analytical thinking comment, in terms of the nature of the existence of the universe being of any religious persuasion means you never need to have an analytical mind. What think you ?

In fact you now cleary have what you believe to be the truth, the way and the life, why go any further?

Disclaimer: these are all sincere questions, with no mal intent, following the fact that you are in the AA forum I think it fair for me to ask them and willingly concede you the right to ignore them.

oeb

midlandsmissus wrote: »

A theist (like yourself) seems happy to simply say "God did it" and leave it at that

Dear Oeb,

Please dont ever assume I say anything, and please don't bunch all theists together. That is a specific kind of ignorance I don't like.
I personally believe in God because of numerous unusual things that happened to me pyschologically and physically. I don't know everything about christianity, and I am reading up on it. I personally think as the bible was written by man, it is not all correct. It is more about your own personal relationship with god.
So em, you're wrong I dont go round saying "la la la God did it" and leave it at that. Just because you're a christian doesn't mean you can't have an analytical mind.

Clarify your point then.

We do not understand 'space' != There is a god.

midlandsmissus

oeb wrote: »

Clarify your point then.

We do not understand 'space' != There is a god.

That's not what I said. i said: there are alot of things that dont make sense in the world, therefore it is not that illogical to me to believe in a deity.(combined with my experiences of course)

midlandsmissus

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I really don't see how you can be offended by what Oeb said, it has been said on this forum many times I thought you'd come to expect that phrase? I'm curious if you had the above experiences in lets say Tokyo do you think you'd be now researching Shinto? I can understand the belief in god maybe as far as deism like Eintsein but to go all the way to believing christianity is the one is beyond my faculties(for want of a better term).

On the analytical thinking comment, in terms of the nature of the existence of the universe being of any religious persuasion means you never need to have an analytical mind. What think you ?

In fact you now cleary have what you believe to be the truth, the way and the life, why go any further?

Disclaimer: these are all sincere questions, with no mal intent, following the fact that you are in the AA forum I think it fair for me to ask them and willingly concede you the right to ignore them.

He said "all christians do this'. and 'all christians say this'. I hate being grouped. How would you like it if I said 'all atheists are a bunch of pr*cks'! i'll get back to the rest of your comment later, as i have to get off...

oeb

midlandsmissus wrote: »

He said "all christians do this'. and 'all christians say this'. I hate being grouped. How would you like it if I said 'all atheists are a bunch of pr*cks'! i'll get back to the rest of your comment later, as i have to get off...

Well no, I called you a theist, and I stated theists always seem to be making that claim (Which in my opinion you made), and then I went off in a rant about why the 'god of the gaps' argument is pure junk.

midlandsmissus wrote: »

That's not what I said. i said: there are alot of things that dont make sense in the world, therefore it is not that illogical to me to believe in a deity.(combined with my experiences of course)

So, let me get this straight. Your point is that because the evidence that is out there, and our current understanding of it, does not completely satisfy you : That this makes a perfectly good case for god? Would that be correct?

A lack of evidence for one theory, is not a substitution for evidence for another.

Now, would you like to explain to me exactly why it is logical to believe in a deity?

midlandsmissus

oeb wrote: »

Well no, I called you a theist, and I stated theists always seem to be making that claim (Which in my opinion you made), and then I went off in a rant about why the 'god of the gaps' argument is pure junk.



So, let me get this straight. Your point is that because the evidence that is out there, and our current understanding of it, does not completely satisfy you : That this makes a perfectly good case for god? Would that be correct?

A lack of evidence for one theory, is not a substitution for evidence for another.

Now, would you like to explain to me exactly why it is logical to believe in a deity?

oeb,

Let me start by saying I wasn't offended, just annoyed at your bunching me into a collective group. I dont think 'all atheists' do anything, they are all different.
And no, I'm not saying
because we don't understand space=there is a god.
Why do you keep saying that? I'm saying I(am I using enough emphasising fonts here:D) believe in God due to other reasons, and when somebody on here said to me "how can you go form being a logical atheist to being an illogical christian" I then replied that believing in god doesnt seem any more ridiculous to me then alot of things in our current world. I used the example of space to emphasise my point. There was never lack of=proof of. Okay?

oeb

midlandsmissus wrote: »

oeb,

Let me start by saying I wasn't offended, just annoyed at your bunching me into a collective group. I dont think 'all atheists' do anything, they are all different.
And no, I'm not saying
because we don't understand space=there is a god.
Why do you keep saying that? I'm saying I(am I using enough emphasising fonts here:D) believe in God due to other reasons, and when somebody on here said to me "how can you go form being a logical atheist to being an illogical christian" I then replied that believing in god doesnt seem any more ridiculous to me then alot of things in our current world. I used the example of space to emphasise my point. There was never lack of=proof of. Okay?

OK, let me make myself even clearer. I as an atheist, have not heard a single logical argument FOR believing in god. You keep on stating that there is (or at least you have) logical reasons for believing in god.

There is evidence that suggests that the universe is expanding, and it's expansion is a logical argument based on this. That is why that is not such a strange idea. Are you aware of this evidence, or would you like me to go through it with you?

Now, on the other hand, I have yet to come across any evidence that suggests or even hints a divine being. (And I am aware of no scientific evidence that does).

So, there we go, I have told you why believing in god is much more ridiculous than believing the universe is expanding, here is your chance to explain why it is not.

The Mad Hatter

Can I point out a couple of things here?

Firstly (and this has regularly bothered me online), the symbol '!=', to a non-mathematical person, looks an awful lot like a '=' with a typo. I don't think it's a good idea to use mathematical symbols in writing, especially when the person you're writing to may not have studied maths to any significant degree.

Secondly, why shouldn't someone be quite happy to say 'God did it' and leave it at that? Who cares if it's not logical, or even not sensible? Surely people don't need to know how everything works, and the laws that make reality happen. I imagine midlandmissus and others would be quite happy to withdraw from debates about evolution and creationims and all that stuff - and for that who could live quite happily without ever hearing the terms again. Unlike some others on these boards, mm isn't trying to shove her religion down our throats, so I really don't think she should be attacked in the way that she is. Go pick on wolfsbane, he's just reemerged in the BCP thread.

Thirdly, midlandmissus - I think CerebralCortex asked a fair question when he asked why you gravitated towards Christianity specifically rather than deism generally. In other words, there is no more evidence for the Christian god than there is for Brahma, Odin, etc., so why did you decide that it was the Christian god which had revealed itself to you?

oeb

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Can I point out a couple of things here?

Firstly (and this has regularly bothered me online), the symbol '!=', to a non-mathematical person, looks an awful lot like a '=' with a typo. I don't think it's a good idea to use mathematical symbols in writing, especially when the person you're writing to may not have studied maths to any significant degree.

Sorry, I am a programmer, I type that seventy or eighty times a day, it's reflex

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Secondly, why shouldn't someone be quite happy to say 'God did it' and leave it at that? Who cares if it's not logical, or even not sensible? Surely people don't need to know how everything works, and the laws that make reality happen. I imagine midlandmissus and others would be quite happy to withdraw from debates about evolution and creationims and all that stuff - and for that who could live quite happily without ever hearing the terms again. Unlike some others on these boards, mm isn't trying to shove her religion down our throats, so I really don't think she should be attacked in the way that she is. Go pick on wolfsbane, he's just reemerged in the BCP thread.

Because it's wrong, and it fosters ignorance. If I make a post in a public forum stating that the world is flat, is it wrong of people to reply to that thread to correct me?

The Mad Hatter

oeb wrote: »

Because it's wrong, and it fosters ignorance. If I make a post in a public forum stating that the world is flat, is it wrong of people to reply to that thread to correct me?

No, but we're not talking about something as obvious as the shape of the world. If people want to go around believing in God or Reiki or invisible, intangiable pink unicorns, that's completely their business, and if they're not trying to foist those things on other people then I don't see why they can't just be let get on with their lives.

oeb

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

No, but we're not talking about something as obvious as the shape of the world. If people want to go around believing in God or Reiki or invisible, intangiable pink unicorns, that's completely their business, and if they're not trying to foist those things on other people then I don't see why they can't just be let get on with their lives.

Which is all well and good, as long as they keep it to themselves. Posting about it on a public forum is not keeping it to themselves.

lostexpectation

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Tell me about it.

I do feel like that. but it's different for me.

I don't feel like I'm coming on here to sway people's views and getting frustrated that they're not being swayed. I never set out to do that.

It's when I talk about myself at all, it's having to defend yourself over and over again that gets to me.

It's strange....I used to be an atheist, and now I cant even remember what it was like....

keep posting on an atheist board bout your faith and you are going to keep getting asked.

thats not to say don't post here just don't complain again and again when your questioned.

Húrin

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

Yeah, me too. I used to be an atheist but now God is in my life and it's wonderful. I'm not a Christian though, and I'm not signed up for any religion, I dislike religion, too much certitude. Jesus never wrote a book, did he?

No, he asked his followers to:

Mark 16:15 wrote:

He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation."

eoin5 wrote: »

I get frustrated with believers usually when they come out with ignorant statements like religion does more good than harm or that because so many people are doing it it has to be true.

Come on, it's not exactly an uncontested truism that religion does more harm than good!

I agree that the "everyone does it" argument is very bad to rely on, but I think that the idea that most people in history have been wrong about one of the things that mattered most to them, to be even less tenable. The historically socially privileged profile of atheists further disarms this claim.

Fox McCloud wrote: »

My parents are Buddhist, but I wasnt brought up Buddhist they left me decide when i was old enough whether i wanted to get involved in religion. I went to both Catholic and Protestant schools and decided science makes sense in the end!

Why is it always science vs religion? There is no inherent conflict because neither claims to answer the same kinds of questions. I blame Dawkins for creating this false battle. He needs to evolve some more.

Dave!

There's no conflict until religions start to make scientific claims about the nature of the universe, such as that the universe is 10,000 years old, god created us as we are (rather than us evolving). Those are claims about nature, and are completely at odds with our scientific understanding, so of course there's a conflict there as it's preaching ignorance to teach this stuff.

If religions stick to stuff about afterlife, etc., then there's unlikely to be conflict as I can't foresee anybody attempting to explain what we experience after death. There's no reason to postulate an afterlife, but there's not much that can be said if someone is willing to create one out of nothing.

SimpleSam06

Nodin wrote: »

You can point out the holes in their plot, their selective quoting and the rest, but when it gets down to the very core, you can't win, in the sense that some "true believer" is going to round and admit that they're wrong.

Thats because you are fighting them on the wrong battlefield. You can cite scientific references until you are blue in the face, you can even do the experiments right there, and it won't bother them. Thats because they aren't trying to win that fight, they are trying to gather followers and publicity by any means neccessary, purely in an attempt to increase their own secular power. Debating them on the wrong level just adds to their impetus.

For example, take the whole creationism thing. Thats an appeal to human egotism, manifest destiny, the innate feeling that most people have that they are somehow "better" than the molecules of which they are made. Its shrouded in all sorts of theological arguments, but thats the source of it. If you were to tackle them at the source, and say, "hey, you don't really care one way or the other, you just want more followers and contributions to your church coffers by telling people what they want to hear", watch them fold up.

midlandsmissus wrote: »

alot of things don't make that much sense.

We have managed to chip off the tiniest fragment of knowledge from the gigantic column of everything that can be known, so its reasonable to assume that a lot of things when you get right down to it just aren't going to make sense. Two hundred years ago, wireless radio would have been witchcraft. In two hundred years time, we will be able to do things so far removed from our current abilites that they might as well be magic. Trying to explain away things we don't know as "god" is not just intellectually lazy, its dangerous in the sense that it stymies the search for real knowledge.

Atheism holds that there is no god. Agnostics hold that there might be one, and theists claim there definetely is one. The only position that is reasonably defensible is the agnostic one, although somewhat paradoxically the atheist position is the most likely based on what we know. Therein lies the rub however. There is an element of arrogance in both the theist and atheist camps, given that we don't know everything, and in fact we know very very little in the overall scheme of things. Personally I wouldn't waste any time in belief in a deity, I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.

Dave! wrote: »

There's no conflict until religions start to make scientific claims about the nature of the universe

Theres no conflict until religions start making wild claims to get press, is what you mean.

eoin5

Húrin wrote: »

Come on, it's not exactly an uncontested truism that religion does more harm than good!

I agree that the "everyone does it" argument is very bad to rely on, but I think that the idea that most people in history have been wrong about one of the things that mattered most to them, to be even less tenable. The historically socially privileged profile of atheists further disarms this claim.

Nothing is an uncontested truism but I would say that religion almost certainly does more harm than good and if people cant see that then I dont know where they are looking.

Of course most people have been wrong about one of the things that mattered most to them, how many religions are there? Your last sentance non-sequitur.

Dades

Húrin wrote: »

Why is it always science vs religion? There is no inherent conflict because neither claims to answer the same kinds of questions. I blame Dawkins for creating this false battle. He needs to evolve some more.

Science strives to answer all questions. Just because we don't have answers yet doesn't mean those questions are outside of it's remit. How many questions previously only answered by religions have now been given scientific explanations? Does that not give pause for thought?

Tellingly, the only place religion can hide now is in the philosophical and unverifiable.

robindch

Húrin wrote: »

Why is it always science vs religion? There is no inherent conflict because neither claims to answer the same kinds of questions.

Try telling that to a creationist

Húrin

eoin5 wrote: »

Nothing is an uncontested truism but I would say that religion almost certainly does more harm than good and if people cant see that then I dont know where they are looking.

Atheists think that religion almost certainly does more harm than good. Theists say that religion almost certainly does more good than harm. We both can think of numerous examples why our positions are right. However, I don't think that this argument can be resolved based on examples. Earlier this morning I thought up a good argument for my position that was not based on examples, but damn I forgot it!

Of course most people have been wrong about one of the things that mattered most to them, how many religions are there?

I'm talking about theism generally. Most people on earth believe in a God.

Your last sentance non-sequitur.

It's not but it requires more explanation. The apparent fact atheists have been historically socially privileged, in contrast to the observation that religious beliefs can be seen in significant proportions among all social classes, implies that atheism is particular, and stems from, that privileged position rather than indicating some wider truth.

robindch wrote: »

Try telling that to a creationist

I wonder how many billions of words of atheist arguments have been wasted on this topic? How many atheists actually think that most European Christians believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old? I don't think that it even merits discussion. It's a distraction. Why even bother attacking such an absurd belief?

Dades wrote: »

Science strives to answer all questions.

That's ridiculous. Where did Descartes or Bacon say that? What scientist has ever made this claim?

Scientific dismissal of perception (from Descartes) means that it cannot answer questions that depend on perception to find the answers.

Science itself is limited by our human intellects, so while we can go further than our senses can take us, we cannot gain absolute truth no matter how much we chase it. It's like trying to create a perfect projection of the world onto a map. There are no perfectly accurate maps. I recommend a book called Physics and Philosophy by James Jean.

To take the obvious, I don't see any serious scientists trying to prove or disprove God's existence.

robindch

Húrin wrote: »

I wonder how many billions of words of atheist arguments have been wasted on this topic?

Very few in comparison to the number of words wasted by creationists on the topic!

Húrin wrote: »

How many atheists actually think that most European Christians believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old?

Probably not all that many. Certainly, no atheists that I know think this.

Húrin wrote: »

I don't think that it even merits discussion. It's a distraction. Why even bother attacking such an absurd belief?

Lots of reasons. Here are a few:

• Most creationists demean or insult the science and the scientists that helps to provide them with much of the comfort they enjoy and that insolence tends to upset people.
• it's a gateway belief to a lot of other, nastier, more anti-social beliefs. You're probably aware that in the US, creationist beliefs are highly correlated with the anti-global-warming industry.
• A lot of anti-creationists object to the deceptive behavior, misrepresentation and lies that the creationist industry employ.
• Most anti-creationists believe that you should be honest when describing the world and provide children with an accurate picture of it, and not a bronze-age fantasy-based picture of the world.

And so on.

Mark Hamill

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Right it doesn't go on for infinity. Where are the edges then.

Really far away?

The Mad Hatter wrote:

No, but we're not talking about something as obvious as the shape of the world.

To atheists, there being no god is as obvious as the shape of the world.

The Mad Hatter wrote:

If people want to go around believing in God or Reiki or invisible, intangiable pink unicorns, that's completely their business, and if they're not trying to foist those things on other people then I don't see why they can't just be let get on with their lives.

But what people believe depicts how they act in situations. You say people should be allowed to believe what they want as long as they dont interfere with others, but what happens when one of these peoples kids starts to get taught evolution or physics in school, which go against their own beliefs in how the universe was created and the existence of intangible pink unicorns? Is the parent going to stand back and not interfere? No-one can help letting their beliefs effect their day to day lives and therefore the lives of others, be it their kids or anyone else.
People do not get to believe whatever they want unchallenged, because some things are wrong and can (and usually do) lead to bad situations. Now there is no reason these challenges can't be done without respect and dignity, but in my opinion they must happen.

H&#250 wrote: »

That's ridiculous. Where did Descartes or Bacon say that? What scientist has ever made this claim?

What scientist have ever claimed otherwise?

H&#250 wrote: »

Science itself is limited by our human intellects, so while we can go further than our senses can take us, we cannot gain absolute truth no matter how much we chase it. It's like trying to create a perfect projection of the world onto a map.

You may be right that its limited by our intellects, but that doesnt mean it wont strive further (whether it can get there or not), which is all that Dades said.

H&#250 wrote: »

There are no perfectly accurate maps.

Strange, as someone so interestered in the philosphical side of things, I thought this would have been obvious: There are perfectly accurate maps. The perfectly accurate map of the world is the world itself, it just so happens that its completely useless, because of its perfection.

SimpleSam06

Húrin wrote: »

I'm talking about theism generally. Most people on earth believe in a God.

Lets take a closer look at that, though. Most people of the various Christian denominations believe in a god that damns the majority of the population of the planet to an eternity in flaming torment, more or less by an accident of birth.

So either you dismiss the idea out of hand (and if you start dismissing that, where do you stop?) or you accept that most people unlucky enough to be born in China for example will roast in hell, which by most sane standards depicts the Christian deity as some sort of a diabolical fiend that makes the nazgul look like a gang of teenage taggers. Great Cthulhu in his non-euclidean labyrinth doffs his cap in respect. I don't know how anyone can seriously look themselves in the mirror and say they worship that.

The Mad Hatter

Húrin wrote: »

I wonder how many billions of words of atheist arguments have been wasted on this topic? How many atheists actually think that most European Christians believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old? I don't think that it even merits discussion. It's a distraction. Why even bother attacking such an absurd belief?

This is why.

The Mad Hatter

Mark Hamill wrote: »

To atheists, there being no god is as obvious as the shape of the world.

Well, yes, but if someone says the world is flat, you can send them to walk around it to prove them wrong. The fact is tangible. You can't point to NotGod and say how much he isn't there.

But what people believe depicts how they act in situations. You say people should be allowed to believe what they want as long as they dont interfere with others, but what happens when one of these peoples kids starts to get taught evolution or physics in school, which go against their own beliefs in how the universe was created and the existence of intangible pink unicorns? Is the parent going to stand back and not interfere? No-one can help letting their beliefs effect their day to day lives and therefore the lives of others, be it their kids or anyone else.
People do not get to believe whatever they want unchallenged, because some things are wrong and can (and usually do) lead to bad situations. Now there is no reason these challenges can't be done without respect and dignity, but in my opinion they must happen.

Well, firstly, I think the incidence of people being bothered by the disagreement of science and religion is very small. Generally speaking (though the internet belies this I don't think message boards can be taken as representing an accurate proportion of reality), people will go along with whatever aspect of religion or science explains their world to them and then get on with careers and lives that likely have very little to do with either.

Secondly, it may be that if the parents disagree they will try to externally influence the child's education, but the data is there for the child to examine (and by the time they get to studying evolution or physics, the child is usually more than old enough to make their own conclusions). Incidentally, I know you could bring up statistics from the US here, but you have to bear in mind that the US has an appalling public education system.

Dades

Húrin wrote: »

Scientific dismissal of perception (from Descartes) means that it cannot answer questions that depend on perception to find the answers.

Frankly if someone gives me an answer based on "perception", I'll file it under "innocuous", while I wait for the day (which may never come) that someone provides a verifiable answer.

What possible weight would a 'perceived' answer have, except to the person perceiving it?