The Great AH Census of Religion

Burning Eclipse

Jakkass wrote: »

Quoted for truth! - Unfortunately a lot of new atheist discourse tends to go like this. People often aren't interested in civil dialogue, but rather are much more interested in going on a rant about how deluded, or irrational you are. More often than not based on nothing of substance.

Like religious beliefs for instance?

Killer Pigeon

Jakkass hasn't posted in over 20 minutes.

Atheist Win :P

piby

Jakkass wrote: »

Personally, I strain to see how this could all be without God. Not only in terms of why we are here, but in terms of morality, ethics, rights and so on.

Morality, ethics, rights and so forth are all a product of human cognition and social advancement. I fail to see how you could argue that if it weren't for God that none of these things would exist? Whereas I believe I can argue that they would have or have arisen seperate from religion because they often benefit the communities they arise in.

King Felix

Zillah wrote: »

He knows I don't believe in him, and that I do not do so because of a lack of evidence. I genuinely do not think he is there. Seems like a wasted opportunity, no? Why wouldn't he give me a nice unambiguous sign?

He does give signs. He comes down and talks to certain individuals and asks them to pass the messages on to the rest of us.

He just doesn't speak to the rest of us because he wants to test our faith in him.

Killer Pigeon

King Felix wrote: »

He does give signs. He comes down and talks to certain individuals and asks them to pass the messages on to the rest of us.

He just doesn't speak to the rest of us because he wants to test our faith in him.

You're implying the existence of a personal God, which almost certainly doesn't exist.

<epicurus quote>

King Felix

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

You're implying the existence of a personal God, which almost certainly doesn't exist.

<epicurus quote>

Or, I'm making a tongue-in-cheek response to Zillah's question of why God doesn't give him a sign?

raah!

Misanthrope wrote: »

Energy and physical matter, both of which are interchangeable.

Do you agree that if there is only energy and physical matter, then notions like "free will" are absurd?

And if this is a "logical and reasoned" position, how do you arrive at this conclusion without the use of free will? What does logical mean in the absence of free will? Logic must be applied, and you are not making choices and thus not making logical choices, how do you justify positions?

How does a lack of free will affect ethical discussions? Is it possible to have an ethical discussion without the notion of culpability?

Also, since people seem to like this sort of thing; "the onus is on you to prove that there is only physical energy and matter". But that sentence doesn't even make sense without some notion of free will, because you won't be able to do anything. You can't be obligated to do anything, because you have no choice. There's not really such a thing as "you" in the sense of a person who makes decisions either, but juts a collectoin of atoms.

Killer Pigeon

King Felix wrote: »

Or, I'm making a tongue-in-cheek response to Zillah's question of why God doesn't give him a sign?

me no get :P

landsleaving

Why is it that despite being an atheist myself, I always side with Christians in these debates?

Atheism is becoming as fundamentalist as those small sections of religious communities which are overly protective of their beliefs. Attacking religious people with science is a failure, and the scientific minds which follow the demi-god they've created in Richard Dawkins (praise be his name) seem to think that religion is amark of ignorance. It's not. It is simply an alternative method of observation of the universe.

True ignorance is believing that you are right and not accepting the idea that others may be when they don't share your views. Science doesn't teach hatred of religion, nor does it have beliefs, so why do atheists use it as a tool to bash religion?

If nothing else, religion is a complex network of social links, and a psychological tool for dealing with the complex questions asked by life. It is not ignorance, but rather a willingness to accept that there are aspects of the world which cannot be explained simply, and therefore finding an explanation, as is our nature as humans. Science is no different, other than in its methods. Whether one is better than the other is up to the individual, and to insult and degrade the attitudes and beliefs of others, whether you be christian, scientist, atheist or idiot, is truly ignorance.

Personally, I prefer to believe in scientific explanation, but I can see the value and the appeal of religion in a society. I guess thats just my different, non-science education speaking though, and I'm completely open to my views being challenged. in fact I welcome it, as it would help me learn more about the world. Some of you would be wiser to do the same, rather than being as insular and closed minded as you claim religious poeple to be.

Oh and cheer up, it's sunny outside!

Killer Pigeon

landsleaving wrote: »

Why is it that despite being an atheist myself, I always side with Christians in these debates?

Atheism is becoming as fundamentalist as those small sections of religious communities which are overly protective of their beliefs. Attacking religious people with science is a failure, and the scientific minds which follow the demi-god they've created in Richard Dawkins (praise be his name) seem to think that religion is amark of ignorance. It's not. It is simply an alternative method of observation of the universe.

True ignorance is believing that you are right and not accepting the idea that others may be when they don't share your views. Science doesn't teach hatred of religion, nor does it have beliefs, so why do atheists use it as a tool to bash religion?

If nothing else, religion is a complex network of social links, and a psychological tool for dealing with the complex questions asked by life. It is not ignorance, but rather a willingness to accept that there are aspects of the world which cannot be explained simply, and therefore finding an explanation, as is our nature as humans. Science is no different, other than in its methods. Whether one is better than the other is up to the individual, and to insult and degrade the attitudes and beliefs of others, whether you be christian, scientist, atheist or idiot, is truly ignorance.

Personally, I prefer to believe in scientific explanation, but I can see the value and the appeal of religion in a society. I guess thats just my different, non-science education speaking though, and I'm completely open to my views being challenged. in fact I welcome it, as it would help me learn more about the world. Some of you would be wiser to do the same, rather than being as insular and closed minded as you claim religious poeple to be.

Oh and cheer up, it's sunny outside!

I like bashing creationists on youtube, that's all. It's a sport.

philologos

Deleted User wrote: »

Know what's not ambiguous? The passages that tell you to kill homosexuals, or your friends and family who try to lead you away from the Abrahamic god, or that you must take your unruly child to the edge of town and stone them, or that a person who works on the Sabbath must be put to death, or that owning slaves is good, or that believing things on faith without a shred of evidence is far preferable to scepticism, or that apostates will burn in hell for all eternity.

Let me deal with this.

You've given a clear example of mishandling the Bible.

The death penalty was prescribed for certain penalties under the Jewish law (Genesis - Deuteronomy) including homosexual acts.

The death penalty was fulfilled under Jesus Christ. Primarily, because Jesus took the penalty we deserved for our sins on the cross. There would be a profound hypocrisy if I insisted that someone else die for their sinfulness, when I have been forgiven for my sin by Jesus.

The modern context in Christianity for the most part (some more liberal denominations would disagree) is that homosexual acts are to be considered immoral as they fall outside God's intended union of marriage, but that the death penalty isn't to be prescribed for the reason described above.

That is the difference between Christianity, and Judaism. Indeed, it is the difference between Christianity and Islam in that we believe the mercy of Jesus Christ triumphs over judgement. We are meant to live and respect others mercifully.

Jesus Himself makes this clear in his parables see Matthew 18, and in His dealing with the woman caught in adultery in John ch 8.

By the by, nowhere in the Bible says that holding slaves is good. It is legal in the Jewish law under certain circumstances:
1) Slaves that flee aren't to be returned to abusive masters.
2) Masters are called not to abuse their slaves.
3) They are free to go out.
4) They are to be given the Sabbath rest along with the entire nation of Israel.
5) Foreign citizens of Israel were to be regarded as fellow Israelites.

I've given you a full explanation, and full reasoning as to this.

Deleted User wrote: »

I certainly hope you don't get your morals from that god. He is a despicable mass murderer with an unhealthy obsession with what goes on in human bedrooms.

I do, because God is a more reputable standard of morality than any man.

Deleted User wrote: »

I am a de facto atheist. I am almost certain there is no god, but obviously I cannot disprove it.

This is your decision.

SV

Why do militant atheists always come across like complete ássholes?

Ush1

SV wrote: »

Why do militant atheists always come across like complete ássholes?

Unlike the pope or priests who are militant theists?

Misanthrope

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Jakkass hasn't posted in over 20 minutes.

Atheist Win :P

He's probably getting a munch.But atheism is winning at long last.Having posted in threads on these matters for years now, this is the first time I've ever felt so encouraged by one.

The poll is close to a 3/1 split in favour of common sense.This is in my experience is unprecedented.

I am of course assuming that AH is an accurate cross section of Irish society and not a statistically disproportionate den of atheism.

It shows that Irish people are starting to think for themselves and to tear down the barricades around truth and rationality.Long may it continue.

As for those in the new minority, does this poll change anything for you?Or do you find it emboldens your stance?

As a child,I believed in god so as to fit in.Though I was an atheist by around 12, I was always too intimidated to question anything to do with god.But as I met more and more atheists, I was emboldened and began to ask out loud the questions in my head, none of which have ever been answered with anything but waffle.

How small would your minority have to be before you reconsidered your position?

I'm not being smartass here but how many believers on here either,talk to god, believe god talks to them or communicates through some medium to them,or both?I honestly will not ridicule your answer is affirmative, though I can't speak for others.Anyway just tell the truth please.

My name is URL

SV wrote: »

Why do militant atheists always come across like complete ássholes?

tbh

Killer Pigeon

My view on humanity;

Imagine when a child is born it is represented by an empty pint-glass.

Over time that pint glass can be filled with anything; hate, jealousy, regret, religion or goodness, kindness, commitments ... literally anything. If the person has several ways to occupy life then the glass it a mixture of many things. This glass is the 'Pint Glass of Purpose'. If a person isn't religions and has no faith in God, then the pint glass it not empty; it is filled with other times.

Killer Pigeon

SV wrote: »

Why do militant atheists always come across like complete ássholes?

Because we are. But at least we're clean ones.

philologos

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Morality is a product of evolution.

Evolution may explain how our brains are capable of holding to moral codes. But evolution doesn't provide a moral code itself.

philologos

Ush1 wrote: »

Don't doubt that for a second. Reading some science books may help though.

/head desk :pac:

One can hold to science and believe in God. Science is completely neutral as to the existence of God.

It's ridiculous to use a tool that observes what is material and natural to attempt to prove or disprove, what is supernatural and immaterial.

Killer Pigeon

Jakkass wrote: »

Evolution may explain how our brains are capable of holding to moral codes. But evolution doesn't provide a moral code itself.

Well evolution can explain why nearly all societies around the world view murder, rape and stealing as wrong within their own communities. Humanity, through rational thought, has further advanced on this moral code. The only thing that religion can provide is a moral 'dictator' (excuse my use of the word dictator) which threatens people into adhering to certain morals. However, if we can make people understand why we have moral codes and how they benefit society (and not made to adhere to them just because they will might be punished in an afterlife if they don't). Understanding is the key to moral success in a humanist world, not God or religion.

Misanthrope

raah! wrote: »

Do you agree that if there is only energy and physical matter, then notions like "free will" are absurd?

No

And if this is a "logical and reasoned" position, how do you arrive at this conclusion without the use of free will? What does logical mean in the absence of free will? Logic must be applied, and you are not making choices and thus not making logical choices, how do you justify positions?

I choose to employ logic.Believers choose not to.I could choose not use logic too.But I didn't.Plenty of choice there.

How does a lack of free will affect ethical discussions?

That would depend on the motives and action of the entity preventing free will.

Seeing as ethics are derived from experience, learning and reasoning,someone deprived of free will would be lacking the faculties to understand or develop ethics,or employ them in discussion, unless said faculties were prescribed

Is it possible to have an ethical discussion without the notion of culpability?

culpability for what?

Also, since people seem to like this sort of thing; "the onus is on you to prove that there is only physical energy and matter". But that sentence doesn't even make sense without some notion of free will, because you won't be able to do anything. You can't be obligated to do anything, because you have no choice. There's not really such a thing as "you" in the sense of a person who makes decisions either, but juts a collectoin of atoms

This onus is a product of logic,which as I intimated above, you can choose or choose not to use as your looking glass.
I'm guessing you choose not to.

SV

Ush1 wrote: »

Unlike the pope or priests who are militant theists?

Least they don't come across as ássholes.
Just saying like.

philologos

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Understanding is the key to moral success in a humanist world, not God or religion.

This world, by and large isn't a humanist one. I'm starting to think that it wouldn't be any better a place judging by some of the substance in the posts on this thread.

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Well evolution can explain why nearly all societies around the world view murder, rape and stealing as wrong within their own communities.

Evolution refers to biology. Moral philosophies are something different.

It's interesting, in that I would agree with you in a number of respects there is broad agreement in terms of ethics. I'd personally put this down to our conscience being guided by a similar source God, a source which we can freely reject.

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Which of the following is the most likely?
Epicurus doesn't disprove the existence of the 'prime mover' or the 'initiator' but it might disprove the existence of a personal God who likes to input directly into the affairs of humanity.

A personal God is probably more likely. There is no reason why God wouldn't care about His Creation.

Nodin

SV wrote: »

Least they don't come across as ássholes.

You evidently don't remember of the days of 'no condoms' Casey or his mate Cleary....'Ban this Filth' D'arcy was a right prick too in his day....

And since when did the Pope not come across as an asshole?

Misanthrope

SV wrote: »

Least they don't come across as ássholes.
Just saying like.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/03/16/the_list_the_catholic_church_s_latest_abuse_scandals

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/30/world/europe/30pope.html

Really, they don't come across as assholes?If one buggered you would you say that?

Terry

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't only seek to understand the universe, I seek to understand the why behind the universe. That's the primary difference. This is broadly what I believe.

1. God created the heavens and the earth.
2. God is a Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
3. The Biblical text is divinely inspired, and is infallible in communicating God's word to mankind.
4. Mankind fell from God's standard, and turned away from Him. They disobeyed Him and as a result of this disobedience are worthy of His punishment.
5. Jesus Christ, is fully man and fully God, serving as a bridge between mankind and humankind.
6. Our disobedience (sin) separates us from God. Therefore Jesus who was sinless, took on our sin and was crucified which He didn't deserve on our behalf, so that we might be forgiven.
7. Jesus Christ rose from the dead, 3 days after His crucifixion.
8. It is our choice, whether or not we decide to believe in Him, and be forgiven, or reject Him, and receive His rightful punishment.

Broadly along those lines, although more detail is required when going into certain specifics.

To all of the above; why?
To number 3; please explain the inconsistencies and the double standards.
For example, Moses comes down with the 10 commandments, which include "Thou shalt not kill", and the first thing he does is kill people.

Why didn't he try to reason with them?
He could have said something along the lines of Here, listen lads. I've just been talking to God and he gave me these 10 commandments. Just take a quick look at the first one there. You're going to have to melt down that bit of gold there. He won't be too happy with that at all, or something to that effect in ancient Hebrew?

I can understand him being pissed off, what with being in the desert for 40 odd years, but killing a few sheep shaggers was a bit much. Come on. There was probably a shortage of available women, and they just had to take what they could. They probably just worshipped the sheep because the ****ing things didn't bitch at them all the time.

Seriously though, what was the deal with killing them?

Now I don't find that you have been guilty of the following, but so many other Christians are.

Matthew 7, but attributed to Jesus wrote:

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

What say you of the Christians who regularly ignore this and condemn others to hell for not having the same beliefs, be they moral, religious or other?

HavingCrack

Why is the result of poll on boards regards religion always so at odds with that reported in the census??? Only about 5-10% of the population identified as atheist/agnostic in the last census I think but boards polls are always completely different ???

strobe

SV wrote: »

Least they don't come across as ássholes.
Just saying like.

Priests and the pope don't come across as assholes?

Are you like a crazy person?

SV

No..no they don't come across like assholes.
Most priests I've met have been very nice people actually, y'know..they didn't call me an idiot/muppet/retard/any other deragotory word for not believing what they do.


The pope might a bit sometimes, but he's a bit stupid.

Killer Pigeon

Jakkass wrote: »

This world, by and large isn't a humanist one. I'm starting to think that it wouldn't be any better a place judging by some of the substance in the posts on this thread.

Duhh, the world isn't a majority humanist. I'm saying if it was.

Jakkass wrote: »

Evolution refers to biology. Moral philosophies are something different.

It's interesting, in that I would agree with you in a number of respects there is broad agreement in terms of ethics. I'd personally put this down to our conscience being guided by a similar source God, a source which we can freely reject.

You have to remember that the mind is also a biological entity. Some genes are rewired into the human psyche that make us reach in certain ways to certain things. The most basic example is mothers having the instinct to take care of their young. This has been seen throughout many species and is very important to survival. Natural selection allows survival of the fittest. I'd advise watching the channel 4 three part series 'The Genius of Darwin'. You can watch it on 4od online. It touches a bit more on this topic.