The Great AH Census of Religion

Ush1

Jakkass wrote: »

/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.

Science is no more neutral to God than pink unicorns. They are both highly unlikely.

Irrelevant anyway, you said:

"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."

Just because you personally have difficulty understanding things doesn't make them real. You may need to just spend more time doing the research.

As regards morality, ethics and rights, these certainly have scientific explanations which do not require a divine engineer.

As regards "why questions", I suggest you watch this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT4EWCRfdUg

landsleaving

Why did you have to say that SV? It had gotten somewhat civilised in here.

SV

landsleaving wrote: »

Why did you have to say that SV? It had gotten somewhat civilised in here.

Cos it's bloody true!

raah!

Misanthrope wrote: »

No

Well you'll have to defend this. We're made of atoms, atoms don't move unless some force influences them, newtons second law. You can go into quantum mechanics when it comes to brains, but it's still the laws of physics causing the particles to move, and not some magical thing like free will.

Think of it in terms of evolution. Does a cell have free will? Or is it governed by the nature of the molecules of which it's composed? How these molecules interact is determined by the laws of physics. Is a collection of cells any different? Are a collection of different types of cells arranged into different structures to perform different structures any different?

Determinism is directly implied by materialism. If you adopt materialism with no reference to this, or defence, then one can comfortably say you haven't fully considered your position.

The rest was based on the earlier thing in ways, but I'll just read your responses now.

Edit: The rest of your responses were a bit silly. Also, misantrope, try to refrain from comments like "yeah well religion is stupid" for a while, we are only discussing your position. Which is only fair given it's generally people like jakkass defending their position.

And any other materialists feel free to answer these questions. (Materialism is the position you hold when you say there is nothing other than material things, often goes hand in hand with some forms of empiricism)

Nodin

strobe wrote: »

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

Are you like a crazy person?

....after Cleary died the Church let yer woman live on in the house, but when she died they went to throw his son out. Eventually they took procedings against him, and offered him 40,000 to feck off. They sold it a few months later for 700,000.........

Cardinal Brady....don't think we need details there....Cardinal Desmond Connell....yep.....

Killer Pigeon

Jakkass wrote: »

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

A prime mover is more probable. How do you know it even has a consciousness? If the prime mover scenario were true than the creator or the universe mightn't have even intended for us to exist in the first place.

My name is URL

strobe wrote: »

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

Are you like a crazy person?

Of course they do.. is that an excuse for anti-theist fundamentalists to come across as equally as nauseating asshats?

philologos

Terry wrote: »

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.

Thou shalt not murder is the commandment (Exodus 20:13)

Murder = unlawful killing.
Death penalty = lawful killing.

Terry wrote: »

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?

Moses, was on the mountain with God at the time. Aaron his brother, and the Israelites were down below. God tells Moses of what happened, leading to Moses punishing the people for what they did.

Terry wrote: »

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.

Moses was just in the desert at that point. The point when Moses and the Israelites were told that they would spend 40 years in the desert is when after spying in the land of Caanan (modern day Israel) the spies returned and told the congregation including Moses what the land was like. The Israelites were scared to go into the land and take it as God had intended for them to do. Because of this God told them that they would have to wander for 40 years in the desert, meaning that Moses did not get to enter the land of Israel with Joshua (who was Moses' disciple and one of the spies).

If you want to find out more about this read Numbers 13-14 in the Bible.

Terry wrote: »

Seriously though, what was the deal with killing them?

Disobedience to God. Ultimately it is up to Him who lives and who dies. He has given us the gift of life and ultimately He has the right to take it away.

Terry wrote: »

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

Maybe I am. I don't claim to be the best person in the world, and I don't claim to be infallible.

I believe Gandhi was right when he said "I like your Jesus, but I do not like your Christians". We can get it seriously wrong, and I think I may have got it seriously wrong in the past, but all we can do is keep trying to follow Jesus' example.

Terry wrote: »

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?

It is up to God who will go to hell, and who will go to heaven. There is time for everyone. From my reading of it the Bible says that one must believe in Jesus to be saved. Ultimately it is up to God at judgement to decide this though, and I believe that it is His call.

piby

HavingCrack wrote: »

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 ???

It's probably because Boards doesn't necessarily reflect the population as a whole, rather it's a specific subset of the population. For example, only 65% of the population are actually internet users. Further not all of them would frequest this site or vote on its polls. You also have the older generation who wouldn't be massive posters who grew up in strongly Catholic Ireland. I would hazard a guess that 10-20 years from now as they begin pass away the number of atheists will officially increase.

The other thing is that many people might just put down the religion they were brought up in as a passing choice. When I did a brief stint with the RDF I wasn't allowed to say I was atheist because I couldn't swear the oath on the Bible when joining. So there may be a lot of that as well i.e. force of habit. Don't forget normally the head of the household fills in all the details so he/she may often be filling in details incorrectly.

Misanthrope

We need to make sure we understand the difference between ethics and morals,before we all go mixing up the terms.

Ethics is the science of morality.That does not mean they are the same thing.

Ethics involves reasoning.

A moral can be prescribed without any reason or explanation, with the expectation of being followed.eg 'thou shalt not kill'

lets say it is immoral to kill, and I think most christians will second that.But there could be a circumstance where it is ethical to kill,eg shooting a lunatic about to conduct a school massacre, or a mercy killing.

While ethics is the science of morals that does not mean that all morals are ethical


A nutshell definition is

A moral man would never cheat on his wife
An ethical man knows why he shouldn't cheat on her and hence doesn't


Would everyone concur or not?

strobe

Jakkass wrote: »

:a big pile of posts:

LOL. How do you do it man? As soon as I saw the thread title I thought to myself "I wonder how many people Jakkass is debating against at the same time in there." Do you never feel like the Spartan king in the movie 300 or the little dutch kid with his finger in a dyke? (probably best not to google that reference if you are in work).

As you know I disagree with you completely but I have to admire your fortitude.

piby

Jakkass wrote: »

Disobedience to God. Ultimately it is up to Him who lives and who dies. He has given us the gift of life and ultimately He has the right to take it away.

But why did those people deserve to die? Where was the forgiveness that is supposedly espoused by religion? Further if I don't believe in God am I not being disobedient? Why haven't I been struck down so?

Misanthrope

SV wrote: »

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ed9OgLJJ-c

Please watch this trailer.Watch the full show.Listen to the father of that girl he continuously raped.Listen to her mother.But above all listen to the voice of pure evil, that of Oliver O Grady.Listen to the lack of remorse.Nice guy alright

philologos

strobe wrote: »

LOL. How do you do it man? As soon as I saw the thread title I thought to myself "I wonder how many people Jakkass is debating against at the same time in there." Do you never feel like the Spartan king in the movie 300 or the little dutch kid with his finger in a dyke? (probably best not to google that reference if you are in work).

I don't know really strobe. Part of it is just the sheer ignorance I encounter in these threads about what Christians actually believe. Part of it is just the sheer narcissism / secular triumphalism I see in some of the posts. Occasionally, it is dealing with the genuinely interested which is always a nice part of it all I guess.

strobe wrote: »

As you know I disagree with you completely but I have to admire your fortitude.

Thanks for the kind words, it gives me a little tiny bit of incentive to post

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

Ush1 wrote: »

Science is no more neutral to God than pink unicorns. They are both highly unlikely.

Irrelevant anyway, you said:

"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."

Just because you personally have difficulty understanding things doesn't make them real. You may need to just spend more time doing the research.

As regards morality, ethics and rights, these certainly have scientific explanations which do not require a divine engineer.

As regards "why questions", I suggest you watch this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT4EWCRfdUg

52 minutes - fúck that!

Misanthrope

raah! wrote: »

Edit: The rest of your responses were a bit silly. Also, misantrope, try to refrain from comments like "yeah well religion is stupid" for a while, we are only discussing your position. Which is only fair given it's generally people like jakkass defending their position.

My responses were a bit silly.Can you relate this silliness on an empirical scale accepted by the scientific community?

If you are trying to advise me to not make certain comments, quote the actual offending comment not your own paraphrase which serves to smear my argument.
Did I use that line anywhere in this thread?

Misanthrope

My name is URL wrote: »

Of course they do.. is that an excuse for anti-theist fundamentalists to come across as equally as nauseating asshats?

Is that a majority opinion ya.When was the poll conducted?

I see that instead of turning the other cheek as you were told you are in fact lashing out and attempting to smear and slander the opposition.Typical:rolleyes:

landsleaving

Misanthrope wrote: »

My responses were a bit silly.Can you relate this silliness on an empirical scale accepted by the scientific community?

If you are trying to advise me to not make certain comments, quote the actual offending comment not your own paraphrase which serves to smear my argument.
Did I use that line anywhere in this thread?

Use this: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Stupid%20Scale

MagicMarker

SV wrote: »

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.

How many atheists that you've met have called you a muppet or a retard?

How many atheists on this thread have called others a muppet or a retard?

My name is URL

Misanthrope wrote: »

Is that a majority opinion ya.When was the poll conducted?

I see that instead of turning the other cheek as you were told you are in fact lashing out and attempting to smear and slander the opposition.Typical:rolleyes:

What? No, I'm I'm an atheist

How was babby formed?

Misanthrope

landsleaving wrote: »

Use this: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Stupid%20Scale

Alas it is not empirical.Those are just random insults with no actual scaling.Too murky for an idiot like me:D

Killer Pigeon

Ush1 wrote: »

Science is no more neutral to God than pink unicorns. They are both highly unlikely.

Irrelevant anyway, you said:

"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."

Just because you personally have difficulty understanding things doesn't make them real. You may need to just spend more time doing the research.

As regards morality, ethics and rights, these certainly have scientific explanations which do not require a divine engineer.

As regards "why questions", I suggest you watch this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT4EWCRfdUg

Notice the Little red badge with the 'A' symbol on the lapel of Dawkins' jacket. I've seen this used before. I wonder where I can get one.

Misanthrope

MagicMarker wrote: »

How many atheists that you've met have called you a muppet or a retard?

How many atheists on this thread have called others a muppet or a retard?

People who believe what they want to believe most likely can hear what they want to hear and see what they want to see

Killer Pigeon

MagicMarker wrote: »

How many atheists that you've met have called you a muppet or a retard?

How many atheists on this thread have called others a muppet or a retard?

Me :P

My name is URL

Misanthrope wrote: »

People who believe what they want to believe most likely can hear what they want to hear and see what they want to see

That's deep man.. I take it that you've observed all of the science that dictates what those telling you about it have witnessed?

Des Carter

I dont know the details of either creationism or the theory of evolution but from what I can gather the theory of evolution claims that the universe started after the big bang and humans etc evolved from tiny organisms over millions of years.

If this is correct then who caused the big bang and who created the first organisms?????

My guess would be some form of a "GOD".

MagicMarker

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Me :P

Shut up ya muppetard! :pac:

raah!

Misanthrope wrote: »

My responses were a bit silly.Can you relate this silliness on an empirical scale accepted by the scientific community?

If you are trying to advise me to not make certain comments, quote the actual offending comment not your own paraphrase which serves to smear my argument.
Did I use that line anywhere in this thread?

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

That's what I was referencing.

But ignore that edit, just respond to the arguments about free will please. I already know the answer, as it's a direct logical implication, and so should you really, if you "choose to use logic".

MagicMarker

Des Carter wrote: »

I dont know the details of either creationism or the theory of evolution but from what I can gather the theory of evolution claims that the universe started after the big bang and humans etc evolved from tiny organisms over millions of years.

If this is correct then who caused the big bang and who created the first organisms?????

My guess would be some form of a "GOD".

Instead of guessing why not say ''I don't know''.

Do you say ''God'' did it for everything else you don't understand?

My name is URL

MagicMarker wrote: »

Instead of guessing why not say ''I don't know''.

Why don't you? Instead of creating vortexes of disagreement and short lived avatars of whatever Jesus is supposed to not be?