FAITH = GULLIBILITY

rohatch

We should replace the word FAITH with the word GULLIBILITY.

People do not believe in religion because of evidence, they believe it because they are told to otherwise something bad will happen. There are a lot of religious people who have not been exposed to atheism, or any form of contradictory evidence against their bibles.

We are getting to the point from a logical and scientific basis where the religious are largely ridiculed, they provide no answers, atheism is the only sensible option. If you have a belief in God then you have one because you are gullible, stop using the term faith and use a better term.

Turtwig

Boy you really are the militant atheist aren't you?:)

Many people believe because they want to believe, not because they are gullible fools.

red_ice

i wish idiots like this chap would just quit the internet

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

liamw

You will make it! I have gullibility in you!!

No, it doesn't work.

GLaDOS

Religion is designed to protect itself from logic (you must have faith, god works in mysterious ways etc) and so if you're brought up with this hammered into you, I imagine it can be very difficult to get out of that way of thinking.

As such, I don't think its guillibility, just human nature.

BryanL

Science doesn't have all the answers, in fact very few absolutes.Often scientific beliefs are overturned with time and further examination.
To be an Atheist you must have faith? that in the future, science will provide all the answers.
Irony is evangenical atheists, who preach their own gospel against any other faith

Bryan

MagicMarker

Well I guess it would be nice
If I could touch your body
I know not everybody
Has got a body like you

But I've got to think twice
Before I give my heart away
And I know all the games you play
Because I play them too

Oh but I
Need some time off from that emotion
Time to pick my heart up off the floor
And when that love comes down
Without devotion
Well it takes a strong man baby
But I'm showing you the door

'Cause I gotta have gullibility...
Mmm, I gotta have gullibility
'Cause I gotta have gullibility, gullibility,
Mm 'cause I gotta have gullibility-a-gullibility-a-gullibility

Baby
I know you're asking me to stay
Sayin' please, please, please, don't go away
You say I'm giving you the blues
Maybe
You mean every word you say
Can't help but think of yesterday
And another who tied me down to loverboy rules

Before this river
Becomes an ocean
Before you throw my heart back on the floor
Oh baby I reconsider
My foolish notion
Well I need someone to hold me
But I'll wait for something more

Yes I've gotta have gullibility...
Mmm, I gotta have gullibility
'Cause I gotta have gullibility, gullibility, gullibility,
Mm 'cause I gotta have gullibility-a-gullibility-a-gullibility
(return to top)

Na, I don't think this would have worked out too well for George, but then again he is a dirty sinner. :pac:

Turtwig

BryanL wrote: »

Science doesn't have all the answers, in fact very few absolutes.Often scientific beliefs are overturned with time and further examination.
To be an Atheist you must have faith? that in the future, science will provide all the answers.
Irony is evangenical atheists, who preach their own gospel against any other faith

Bryan

It seems you don't understand science at all. Science by it's very nature doesn't produce any absolutes.
Science isn't a belief system it's a self correcting process, religion on the other hand....

Which has been more accurate with its "truths" science or religion?

robindch

rohatch wrote: »

People do not believe in religion because of evidence, they believe it because they are told to otherwise something bad will happen.

This is a narrow and incorrect view -- there are a vast number of reasons why people acquire and hold religious views.

rohatch wrote: »

If you have a belief in God then you have one because you are gullible, stop using the term faith and use a better term.

Again, narrow and incorrect. Some people simply don't know that there is alternative view; others can't accept it for emotional or pseudo-philosophical reasons; others don't understand what they're doing; and so on.

None of these imply any degree of gullibility. You're also denying almost all of the splendid variety of religious belief by pigeon-holing religious believers as inappropriately as religious fundamentalists pigeon-hole their Others.

Vampireskiss

rohatch wrote: »

We should replace the word FAITH with the word GULLIBILITY.

People do not believe in religion because of evidence, they believe it because they are told to otherwise something bad will happen. There are a lot of religious people who have not been exposed to atheism, or any form of contradictory evidence against their bibles.

We are getting to the point from a logical and scientific basis where the religious are largely ridiculed, they provide no answers, atheism is the only sensible option. If you have a belief in God then you have one because you are gullible, stop using the term faith and use a better term.

Your an idiot, if there was evidence to back up peoples belief systems then it wouldn't be called faith it would be fact.

Answer me this, in what context in your opinion should someone use the word faith?

Sam Vimes

BryanL wrote: »

Science doesn't have all the answers, in fact very few absolutes.Often scientific beliefs are overturned with time and further examination.
To be an Atheist you must have faith? that in the future, science will provide all the answers.
Irony is evangenical atheists, who preach their own gospel against any other faith

Bryan

LOL

I don't have to have faith that science will provide all the answers, unlike religious people I'm more than prepared to acknowledge that we may never know all the answers. But just because science doesn't have all the answers doesn't mean the bible does

Dades

Folks, the next person to call another poster (no matter what they post) an idiot or anything similar get a card.

Turtwig

Dades wrote: »

Folks, the next person to call another poster (no matter what they post) an idiot or anything similar get a card.

What if it relates to Intelligent Design?;)

robindch

Malty_T wrote: »

What if it relates to Intelligent Design?;)

References to creationists, flat-earthers, moon-hoaxers, holocaust-deniers, homeopaths, chiropracters and dowsers are handled on a case-by-case basis.

Turtwig

robindch wrote: »

References to creationists, flat-earthers, moon-hoaxers, holocaust-deniers, homeopaths, chiropracters and dowsers are handled on a case-by-case basis.

IDiot - a proponent of intelligent design.
Can we call em that?:)

philologos

ScienceNerd wrote: »

Religion is designed to protect itself from logic (you must have faith, god works in mysterious ways etc) and so if you're brought up with this hammered into you, I imagine it can be very difficult to get out of that way of thinking.

This claim that atheists are endowed with a finer discernment of logic isn't really something that I often see in practice.

I wouldn't say that many people who I know who are Christians would have had it drummed into them either.

Could it be that the assumptions are wrong, and we need to throw them out and start from scratch in how we regard one another?

Tar.Aldarion

Jakkass wrote: »

This claim that atheists are endowed with a finer discernment of logic isn't really something that I often see in practice.

You're looking at him :S
People have weaknesses that will interfere with logic.
You aren't just atheist and hugely more logical by default, yes.

I wouldn't say that many people who I know who are Christians would have had it drummed into them either.

I know two christians in my age group, they certainly had it drilled into them, anecdotal evidence means nothing.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

This claim that atheists are endowed with a finer discernment of logic isn't really something that I often see in practice.

I don't think that was quite his point, it was that religion has self installed protections against critical examination, such as "God works in mysterious ways"

This produces a religion that is immune to testing. The difference between a theists and an atheist is how much this bothers them.

It isn't that atheists have a finer discernment of logic, it is that they have (in a general sense) a greater appreciation of why you must be able to test something in order to accept it, and who are less accepting of personal assessment.

Theists on the other hand seem far more likely to accept things that cannot be rationally tested.

God works in mysterious ways (which is basically if something bad happens it isn't evidence for an evil god or the absence of god, but simply that God has an unknown plan) is untestable.

You can't tell if God does actually work in mysterious ways or if he simply doesn't exist.

This doesn't seem to bother theists, probably because a God that does things that appear bad but who has a good reason for doing so is a better alternative to an evil God or a God that simply doesn't exist.

This is unsatisfactory to an atheist. It is simply picking the outcome that provides the best view of the world from the point of view of the observer.

Valmont

Yet another blanket insult by an uninformed atheist. When will the people spouting such crap realise it doesn't get us and our cause anywhere? I would even argue it harms it to the extent that the public in general begin to associate atheism with moronic statements like this one.

Flamed Diving

BryanL wrote: »

Science doesn't have all the answers, in fact very few absolutes.Often scientific beliefs are overturned with time and further examination.
To be an Atheist you must have faith? that in the future, science will provide all the answers.
Irony is evangenical atheists, who preach their own gospel against any other faith

Bryan

Science doesn't deal in absolutes, my ignorant friend.

Dades

Yes, one of the meanings of "ignorant" is unknowledgeable or uneducated; however as far as I'm concerned it's an insult when directed at someone other than one's self. End of story.

So now you know.

Calibos

Malty_T wrote: »

What if it relates to Intelligent Design?;)

Then it'd be an id'er not an id'iot

red_ice

Dades wrote: »

Folks, the next person to call another poster (no matter what they post) an idiot or anything similar get a card.

Sorry for throwing that out there. But the op is in fairness just trying to stir sh*t.

rohatch

Malty_T wrote: »

Boy you really are the militant atheist aren't you?:)

Religion should not have the power that it does.

Malty_T wrote: »

Many people believe because they want to believe, not because they are gullible fools.

Majority believe because they were brainwashed. Very few people come to religion from an atheistic background.

ScienceNerd wrote: »

Religion is designed to protect itself from logic (you must have faith, god works in mysterious ways etc) and so if you're brought up with this hammered into you, I imagine it can be very difficult to get out of that way of thinking.

This fits the dictionary term for gullible

Vampireskiss wrote: »

Your an idiot

Thanks, but I think you meant "you are". Insults work best when you can write properly.

Vampireskiss wrote: »

Answer me this, in what context in your opinion should someone use the word faith?

I have faith in my wife and my friends.

Jakkass wrote: »

Could it be that the assumptions are wrong, and we need to throw them out and start from scratch

If you mean the bible then yes absolutely

Valmont wrote: »

Yet another blanket insult by an uninformed atheist. When will the people spouting such crap realise it doesn't get us and our cause anywhere?

Our cause?

We are in a country where the church has been fu6king and killing children for as long as they have been here, and their faithfull followers still believe and want them here.

red_ice wrote: »

Sorry for throwing that out there. But the op is in fairness just trying to stir sh*t.

FYP. The op wants religion removed from our society, schools, and government AND put an 18 rating on it.

Twin-go

BryanL wrote: »

Science doesn't have all the answers, in fact very few absolutes.Often scientific beliefs are overturned with time and further examination.
To be an Atheist you must have faith? that in the future, science will provide all the answers.
Irony is evangenical atheists, who preach their own gospel against any other faith

Bryan

Sorry have't got to the rest of the posts yet but I feel I have to comment here.

You say Scientific beliefs are overturned in time. This is quite true because science is still searching for the answers. Moving forward, learning and developing new ideas. Its called Evolution. It's not a matter of having faith that science will provide all the answers. But, Everyday science does provide more and more answeres. Whereas the majority religion in this country is stuck 2000 years in the past. What new ideas does it provide?

robindch

Twin-go wrote: »

Everyday science does provide more and more answeres. Whereas the majority religion in this country is stuck 2000 years in the past. What new ideas does it provide?

The headline religious notions certainly are stuck in the bronze age and beyond.

However, the speed with which the underlying framework is evolving is quite remarkable and that's where you've got to look to see the new ideas.

Notwithstanding endless claims to the contrary, religion does not provide new factual truths, but new political ones which flare up for a while, then stutter and die as their client populations disappear, convert or lose interest.

DOC09UNAM

rohatch wrote: »

We should replace the word FAITH with the word GULLIBILITY.

People do not believe in religion because of evidence, they believe it because they are told to otherwise something bad will happen. There are a lot of religious people who have not been exposed to atheism, or any form of contradictory evidence against their bibles.

We are getting to the point from a logical and scientific basis where the religious are largely ridiculed, they provide no answers, atheism is the only sensible option. If you have a belief in God then you have one because you are gullible, stop using the term faith and use a better term.

Sounds alot like a shitty lost spin off.

Twin-go

robindch wrote: »

The headline religious notions certainly are stuck in the bronze age and beyond.

However, the speed with which the underlying framework is evolving is quite remarkable and that's where you've got to look to see the new ideas.

Notwithstanding endless claims to the contrary, religion does not provide new factual truths, but new political ones which flare up for a while, then stutter and die as their client populations disappear, convert or lose interest.

For me, it seems any changes in the church are purly reactionary. This has been the case for many centuries. In many cases changing their stance because scienctific proof or the will of the people is so overwheming. They stand stubbornly by their ideas in effect forcing people to convert. Capernicus/Galileo, Martin Luther's Reformation, Vatican Council and currently contraception are all areas where the church was/is reactionary to the will of the people rather than leading lights for change and new understandings.

The curch need to get their house in order. They need to stop the damage they are doing to peoples lives. The need a "Reformation 2.0" if you will.

As time goes by the church will have less and less to offer people. And as we as a people become more aware of sceince and the world around or need for God and church will become less and less. First the Agnostic movement will grow and the we develop further Athiests will be in the majority.

red_ice

rohatch wrote: »

FYP. The op wants religion removed from our society, schools, and government AND put an 18 rating on it.

how sad. Also, speaking about yourself in the third person... seriously?

Mark Hamill

I think the OP needs to make a distinction between what people believe and why they believe it. Dont get me wrong, I do believe that a lot of people with religious faith are gullible, at least in terms of that faith, but I dont for one second think that either everyone with relgious faith is gullible, or that those who are gullible, have acquired the basic faith because of it.

I think that most people who believe in god dont do based on gullibility. Sure, they may have poorly thought out reasoning for it, it may be fear based or even just a support for their superiority complexes, but I think the gullibility (if it even comes into it) comes after the initial faith (in god).

Basically I dont think people are gullible for believing in god. I think they are gullible for believing that an 82 year old german virgin who spends all his time in pyjamas is gods special friend.