The Hazards of Belief

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 11-06-2006 7:24pm

for such a reasoned master of philosophy and all the rational arts playboy, you're getting very defensive.

Philosophy would be great if not for philosphers and philosophy students.

I stand by this. No philosopher in the course of human history has discovered anything so crucial or interesting about life that it excuses philosophy students.

Playboy · 11-06-2006 7:27pm

Mordeth wrote:

for such a reasoned master of philosophy and all the rational arts playboy, you're getting very defensive.

I stand by this. No philosopher in the course of human history has discovered anything so crucial or interesting about life that it excuses philosophy students.

Really in all honesty what are age you? I dont have time to be talking to children or idiots. And fyi I study Psychology not philosophy.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 11-06-2006 7:29pm

23, my learned 26 year old.

again, for such an intelligent person I'm surprised you had to ask instead of just looking at my boards profile and doing a small bit of counting. That's how I found out you were 26 and if I can do it, you surely can.

Playboy · 11-06-2006 7:31pm

I did see your age. I just couldnt believe that you were 23 after making a statement like the one you did. Just shows you that age is just a number.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 11-06-2006 7:32pm

I couldn't agree more, you'd expect a 26 year old to be more mature than a simple 23 year old. Especially one versed in the 'disciplines' of psychology and philosophy, but here you are again and again stooping to my level.

Shame playboy, shame.

(edit)

<--- victorious!

pH · 11-06-2006 7:43pm

Playboy wrote:

Conclusion A: This is highly abnormal and possibly suicidal behaviour which would indicate that the individual was suffering from some kind of mental illness.

Conclusion B. The guy woke one morning and decided that it was a good day to test his faith in God without taking any advice from a member of the clergy. Even though the man had no logical reason to believe that God should intervene on his behalf becuase it contradicts the teaching of the church he decided to risk his life anyway. The guy died and therefore was stupid.

So are you saying :

Anyone who tries to test if God exists and will intervene is insane - or only if you bet your life on it? Would risking your arm be insane?

And you also seem to be saying that it's perfectly sane in a dangerous situaution (not of your own making) to expect/pray/ask God to save you, it's somehow testing this that make you insane?

If someone believes that God can/will save then from peril (sane in your opinion) how does the source of the peril (self inflicted or external) make that belief a certain indicator of insanity (as you are claiming)?

no logical reason to believe that God should intervene

You're joking surely? You don't think that a devout follower of Christianity (or Islam for that matter) has any logical reason to believe that God might intervene on earth on their behalf? What may I ask leads you to this conclusion?

Dades · 11-06-2006 9:23pm

Playboy wrote:

Since you mod the forum and fought for its creation I thought you would be concerned about the direction of the forum and its purpose. I am an agnostic so I supported the creation of the forum. What I am expressing here is what I feel this forum has degenerated into. Can you tell me what the purpose of this forum is apart from what I stated that it seemed to be? Why did you want this forum in the first place and do you think it achieves anything such as combating religious misinformation, promoting a positive image for atheists and agnostics alike and promoting positive dialougue between atheists and thiests? How about a responsible attitude instead of childlishly telling me to sling my hook.

You've got to remember this is a public forum. I can't just delete every thread that fails to promote positive atheism. One user was given a ban for the second time this week for basically doing what you accuse us all of doing. And that's basically what you have done - tarred any regulars poster with the same brush. As a student of psychology I don't know how you didn't anticipate the response you got from me. You basically insulted an entire forum.

Some threads are meaningless. Some threads have a point. There are slow days and busy days. I could alter the charter so that posters would not be allowed to represent "us" badly, but frankly there isn't an "us". There is no creed and everybodys (dis)belief, and how it is manifested is different to everyone elses.

And as a student of psychology why are you so surprised at people's reaction to the article? It would have got the same response on most any other forum.

At any rate everyone should calm down.
It's getting close to charter breaking and I want to watch the football instead.

HealingBlight · 11-06-2006 9:59pm

They apparently caught it on video:
http://www.nothingtoxic.com/media/1149852565/Hungry_Lions_Versus_Foolish_Man
Although it doesent show or sound like anything graphic from what I see, its still disturbing because, well, you know whats happening.

Scofflaw · 11-06-2006 10:30pm

The Atheist wrote:

At any rate everyone should calm down.
It's getting close to charter breaking and I want to watch the football instead.

It's the heat, the d*mned heat I tell you!

ISAW and Pocari are giving each other a good kicking in Christianity, too, although that's more of a win-win.

cordially,
Scofflaw

pH · 12-06-2006 12:05am

Scofflaw wrote:

ISAW and Pocari are giving each other a good kicking in Christianity, too, although that's more of a win-win.

Is it not great to see the finer points of Papal history debated with such vigour?

Scofflaw · 12-06-2006 1:08am

pH wrote:

Is it not great to see the finer points of Papal history debated with such vigour?

It's got a certain weird fascination. Certainly they're both enthusiastic, and they both seem to believe that attack is the only form of defence.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Asiaprod · 12-06-2006 10:42am

Scofflaw wrote:

It's got a certain weird fascination. Certainly they're both enthusiastic, and they both seem to believe that attack is the only form of defence.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Well I found that one out the hard way;)

Zombrex · 12-06-2006 12:06pm

Playboy wrote:

ye a community of smart asses who get to together to pat each other on the back about how intelligent they are in comparison to theists and laugh at the misfortune of the mentally ill.

Not just the mentally ill. We laugh at the misfortune of children, puppies and Republicans as well.

Rev Hellfire · 12-06-2006 1:16pm

puppies !

There's always one who just has to push the boundaries.

Zillah · 12-06-2006 2:31pm

No no. Wicknight is confused. We laugh at the misfortunes of children and Republicans, and Republicans drink the blood of both children and puppies, but we don't laugh at the puppies.

I can see how you might get confused though.

Zombrex · 12-06-2006 2:51pm

robindch · 03-08-2006 2:20pm

This weird one just in:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/lincolnshire/5238694.stm

Dades · 03-08-2006 3:13pm

robindch wrote:

This weird one just in:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/lincolnshire/5238694.stm

My official line:
Humourous as is - I'm pretty sure that article has focused on what was just an aside. I think it's a "Church Watch" thing - and the spokesman probably just tacked on the "they can pray if they want to" remark in response to some wag of a journalist.

My unoffical line:
LOL!

Beruthiel · 03-08-2006 4:41pm

Police and Christian groups in Lincolnshire are to combine forces to tackle crime with the power of prayer

that'll work

Thanks for bringing this thread back up, it was posted during my holidays and I completely missed it.
Brilliant

growler · 03-08-2006 6:59pm

"can you send a squad car round ? "

"not for while, sorry, but we could say a few hail marys if that's any help"

( btw, the creationism thread is becoming compulsive reading and highly entertaining)

5uspect · 07-08-2006 5:35pm

growler wrote:

"can you send a squad car round ? "

"not for while, sorry, but we could say a few hail marys if that's any help"

Since prayer can make recovering patients develop complications maybe they should pray for the criminals...

growler wrote:

( btw, the creationism thread is becoming compulsive reading and highly entertaining)

I'm working nights in the lab a lot lately and when I get in I have to log on and see the latest arguement they've thrown up. I hope my input hasn't been too incoherent and rambling!

pbsuxok1znja4r · 07-08-2006 8:34pm

Wicknight wrote:

I would imagine this poor man had serious mental health problems, because he got himself into the situation in the first place. But of course there are plenty of examples of religious people believing God will save them in situations they didn't get themselves into, such as being trapped in a fire or Earthquake.

I suppose the lesson here is God won't save you, even if you believe he exists.

From physical harm, no. Even if he exists, etc.

It's ridiculous how often I find myself telling other Atheists this:
God.
Interventionist God.
Two very different things.
So, as much as I'm sure we'd all like to pretend it does, lack of evidence specifically for an interventionist God does not equate to any real lack of evidence for a God.

I await eagerly the story of a mentally disturbed Atheist who went outside blaspheming and claiming 'God' couldn't touch him, only to be struck dead by lightning from teh heavens! :rolleyes:

5uspect · 07-08-2006 8:58pm

scouser.tommy wrote:

From physical harm, no. Even if he exists, etc.

It's ridiculous how often I find myself telling other Atheists this:
God.
Interventionist God.
Two very different things.
So, as much as I'm sure we'd all like to pretend it does, lack of evidence specifically for an interventionist God does not equate to any real lack of evidence for a God.

I await eagerly the story of a mentally disturbed Atheist who went outside blaspheming and claiming 'God' couldn't touch him, only to be struck dead by lightning from teh heavens! :rolleyes:

But the Abrahamic god like most old gods that people believe in is an interventionist god. the non-interventionist god is just, as far as I see, just a development of these gods without the added bells and whistles. The root belief in a supernatural creator of sorts is still there. There is no reason to believe in or even consider any such idea of a non-interventionist god without evidence as there is to consider the idea that there is a little man in every atom juggling electrons.

Zillah · 07-08-2006 11:38pm

Non-interventionst?! The Judeo-Christian god?

Just off the top of my head:

Parting the Red Sea.
Nuking Sodom.
Torturing Job.
The plagues of Egypt.
The burning bush.
Jesus.

Also there is:

Every miracle ever.
Praying to God for something (and the encouragement of such by the clergy).
Praying to saints for intervention (with God).
Divine visitations.

And thats without any thought behind it. I'm sure people could list thousands of crude interventions that the Judeo-Christian God has made.

pbsuxok1znja4r · 08-08-2006 5:19am

Zillah wrote:

Non-interventionst?! The Judeo-Christian god?

My, aren't we quick to assume I'm talking exclusively about the Judeo-Christian God?

By all means, list as many thousand interventions as you like. It's irrelevant. I guess heads are havin' trouble getting 'round this

Lack of evidence for a Judeo-Christian God != Lack of evidence for a God

=> lack of evidence for a Judeo-Christian God != Atheism

Understand?
kthxbye

5uspect · 08-08-2006 8:10am

But thats my point, do you know of any non-interventionist gods that predate any interventionist gods? All the old gods are very hands on but suddenly get very distant as humanity progresses. The concept of god is already planted in the mind.

Dades · 08-08-2006 9:57am

scouser.tommy wrote:

lack of evidence specifically for an interventionist God does not equate to any real lack of evidence for any God.

But most if not all of the evidence proffered for the existence of a god, is based on interventionist actions, such as miracles, prophets, signs, messengers etc.

Take all that away - to believe in a non-interventionist god is akin to saying "we don't know how we got here - so a god made us".
i.e. making something up out of absolutely nothing up to answer an unanswerable question.

Of course the definition of a god is still key.

Zillah · 08-08-2006 10:56am

Yes that last post was quite good

Dades · 08-08-2006 12:30pm

scouser.tommy wrote:

Well it's most evidence - not all. If an architect designs/builds a house and the house continues to function as designed without any further action on the part of the Architect, then it wouldn't be correct to say the Architect is continually 'intervening'. That's my definition, does it agree with yours?

I'd agree that the house was designed, and that the architect does not intervene. However if your attempting to infer that our planet was designed in the way a house was - we'll part ways there.

On reflection the only non-interventionist argument I've ever heard is the Intelligent Design one. I don't subscribe to those arguments however. (See my sig

)

scouser.tommy wrote:

Unanswerable question, eh? I'm glad you see it that way. If it's so inconclusive then how can you rule out agnosticism? This is my basic point. People seem to throw up the lack of evidence for an interventionist God as some proof for Atheism, as if a non-interventionist God were not even a possibility worth considering. But it is and that implies at least agnosticism. That's about all I'm saying, really.

Agnosticsm is the only real possibility where GOD is anything we don't understand, or implied as a vague answer to questions we can answer. So again, it will come down to the question of what is a god? For me it can only be interventionist. A non-interventionist creator is completely unknowable, as we have no way of assigning any kind of characteristic. And for me to define something as a "god" you need something more than nothing. Others may disagree of course.

robindch · 11-08-2006 11:29am

> B]Zillah[/B Divine visitations.

Courtesy of randi.org, turns out that Jesus seems to have been busy manifesting himself in a tour of continental US over the last year or so:

http://www.nbc5.com/news/4618080/detail.html (Pennsylvania, as a damp stain)
http://www.nbc5.com/news/3968497/detail.html (Arizona, as a dental x-ray)
http://www.nbc5.com/news/4541162/detail.html (Texas, as some condensation)

Meanwhile, down the road in Lubbock, Texas, they're praying for rain:

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060724-063818-3430r

Progress (or, generally, the lack of it) can be tracked here:

http://www.weather.com/outlook/travel/businesstraveler/monthly/USTX0808

stevejazzx · 11-08-2006 11:58am

robindch wrote:

> B]Zillah[/B Divine visitations.

Courtesy of randi.org, turns out that Jesus seems to have been busy manifesting himself in a tour of continental US over the last year or so:

http://www.nbc5.com/news/4618080/detail.html (Pennsylvania, as a damp stain)
http://www.nbc5.com/news/3968497/detail.html (Arizona, as a dental x-ray)
http://www.nbc5.com/news/4541162/detail.html (Texas, as some condensation)

Meanwhile, down the road in Lubbock, Texas, they're praying for rain:

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060724-063818-3430r

Progress (or, generally, the lack of it) can be tracked here:

http://www.weather.com/outlook/travel/businesstraveler/monthly/USTX0808

Those poeple gathering a around a window giving prasie.....:eek: it's like something from life of brian!
The dental xray is pretty impressive though
The shower thing is just....he's auctioning rust, I mean who in their right mind would buy that? 45% of america probably lol

Zillah · 11-08-2006 12:36pm

Zilla, I was just going to edit this bit out, but then I realized that would go against the spirit of our group here, and those that read it, only.
And not fair to you.
I like humor. I also think that appearing in a window or a Taco, well, I can think of many way that would cause a far greater impact. It could be said that it shows a great lack of style. Different strokes for different folks, as they say.
However, the following " Part the sea again you bastard, seriously, go Sodom-ise San Francisco. You've really gone down hill since that pansy New Testament malarky." is not humorous.
I would appreciate a little decorum. I think if you read it in retrospect you will also agree.
If you are not comfortable with this, PM me.
I like a good joke.

EDIT (Zillah):

Perhaps you misunderstood my use of "sodom-ise". I specifically put a hyphen in to seperate it from the verb "sodomise". I was refering to the biblical city that God exploded. I think your criticism is mostly because a lot of the post went over your head. For example, calling the New Testament "pansy" was tongue-in-cheek, God took a far more active and tyrannical role in the world during the Old Testament.

So yeah, I called a mythical being a bastard. Is bad language forbidden...?

Zilla, I was just going to edit this bit out, but then I realized that would go against the spirit of our group here, and those that read it, only.
And not fair to you.

So the only part you left in was the part you didn't like, and you deleted the inoffensive rest of the the post? I'm very sorry for coming across so argumentative but I'm a little peeved at seeing my post arbitrarily butchered over a misunderstanding.

Asiaprod · 11-08-2006 4:31pm

Zillah wrote:

So the only part you left in was the part you didn't like, and you deleted the inoffensive rest of the the post? I'm very sorry for coming across so argumentative but I'm a little peeved at seeing my post arbitrarily butchered over a misunderstanding.

I will pass on answering the first 70% of this post since you expressed you feeling so well, as I did ask you to, in the PM.

For the moment, due to a technical error (namely I am new at this and hit the wrong button) your post was deleted. That was not the intent, since my post would mean nothing if people could not also read what I was responding too. It will be back, it will be seen, and my comment will still stand. By the way, rather than thinking you are talking over my head, try to talk to my level.

"pansy" was tongue-in-cheek......That may not be how it was received and you are responsible for what comes out of your mouth
So yeah, I called a mythical being a bastard. Is bad language forbidden.....no, not the language.

5uspect · 11-08-2006 7:38pm

Zillah wrote:

So yeah, I called a mythical being a bastard. Is bad language forbidden...?

You could also call this mythical being your father which makes you a bastard.
The Abrahamic god is technically a bastard since there is nothing about his parents in the bible so we can assume that either they don't exist or he has something to hide. Jesus was also a bastard, since his parents Mary and God weren't married. Jesus is also god which makes god a doulde bastard really.

Not trying to be a smart arse here just pointing out some of the ridiculous side effects of man made concepts.

Dades · 11-08-2006 8:15pm

It's all in the context I guess.
Try calling a random poster in After Hours a bastard and you'll have an instant internet fatwah declared on you.

Asiaprod · 13-08-2006 2:42am

Sorry for the delay, was away all day.

First up, I cannot get the post back, my mistake was fatal and its gone,
My apologies Zillah, twas not my intent to erase it. I do not need the entire post though to explain the action. It is all condensed into

" Part the sea again you bastard, seriously, go Sodom-ise San Francisco. You've really gone down hill since that pansy New Testament malarky."

Our charter is small and only has 2 points on it. Point two states:

2. Respect those who do not share your beliefs (or lack thereof). Though many here will share certain atheist or agnostic views - it is not acceptable to ridicule the faith or beliefs of others. Something that would be seen as a direct insult in, say, the Christianity or Islam forums will be similarly treated here.

Calling a mythical being a bastard definitely contravenes our charter. Whiter twas in jest, for fun, or what ever else, it did not help the thread and was easily open to misinterpretation. If we break our own charter we cannot expect others to keep. Anyone is free to come to the Atheism/Agnostic forum where we will happily debate, ridicule or tear asunder anyone, but we will do it with respect.

Zillah wrote:

I'm very sorry for coming across so argumentative but I'm a little peeved at seeing my post arbitrarily butchered over a misunderstanding

You are not argumentative, your post was not butchered twas an accident, and I would be peeved too. Thats one button I will not push again in a hurry.
I hope you now understand my point. It is not personal. The charter was broken, the problem is fixed.
I will leave the post open, if it returns back down the same path, I will close it. That applies to any other post that crosses the invisible line.

Zillah · 13-08-2006 4:36am

A pertinent "no-comment".

EDIT:

Further PM has clarified something. Asiaprod had no intention of editing my post, what exists above was supposed to be a follow up post. My apoligies for misunderstanding.

Asiaprod · 13-08-2006 5:22am

Zillah wrote:

A pertinent "no-comment".

Excelent

Scofflaw · 19-08-2006 11:37pm

More hazards of belief:

BBC wrote:

Hundreds drink 'sweet seawater'
Hundreds of people flocked to a beach in the Indian city of Mumbai after reports the seawater had turned sweet.

Several people who drank the muddy water from the Arabian Sea said it had been changed by a miracle and could now cure illnesses.

Authorities in Mumbai said they collected samples for testing but warned against drinking the polluted water because of health risks.

Many saw it as a blessing from Makhdoom Ali Mahimi, a 13th Century Sufi saint.

Reuters news agency reported seeing a man bathing a young boy in a creek near the beach, which it said receives thousands of tonnes of raw sewage and industrial waste every day.

Others, the agency said, were seen gathering water as rubbish and plastic drifted past.

From the BBC.

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch · 30-08-2006 8:14pm

Yikes:

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=17646670&method=full&siteid=66633&headline=miracle-is-sunk--name_page.html

30 August 2006
MIRACLE IS SUNK

A PRIEST has died after trying to demonstrate how Jesus walked on water.

Evangelist preacher Franck Kabele, 35, told his congregation he could repeat the biblical miracle.

But he drowned after walking out to sea from a beach in the capital Libreville in Gabon, west Africa.

One eyewitness said: "He told churchgoers he'd had a revelation that if he had enough faith, he could walk on water like Jesus.

"He took his congregation to the beach saying he would walk across the Komo estuary, which takes 20 minutes by boat.

"He walked into the water, which soon passed over his head and he never came back."

5uspect · 30-08-2006 8:42pm

Darwin award perhaps?

Zombrex · 30-08-2006 10:13pm

robindch wrote:

Yikes:

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=17646670&method=full&siteid=66633&headline=miracle-is-sunk--name_page.html

Obviously he didn't have enough faith :rolleyes:

In fairness to the church they do discourage this type of behaviour, since they know that "revelations from God you personnally" can get one into a lot of trouble. They don't want everyone running off buildings or setting themselves on fire trying to get God to save them

Same reason suicide is a sin, other wise everyone would just top themselves and go straight to heaven.

5uspect · 30-08-2006 10:47pm

Wicknight wrote:

Same reason suicide is a sin, other wise everyone would just top themselves and go straight to heaven.

Thats why suicide cults are so short lived. You have to wonder tho about sucide bombers, they're religious fanatics but probably no more than many fundie christians. Can we expect the religion with the most non-suicidal (also includes going to war to fight for god etc) leanings or the more pro-active aggressive types to survive? Hamilton's Doves and Hawks I guess...

Asiaprod · 31-08-2006 1:15am

5uspect wrote:

Thats why suicide cults are so short lived.

One has to see the funny side of that statement.:D I guess one could say the purpose of these suicide cults is meant to be short lived.

5uspect · 31-08-2006 7:59am

yeah I mean why try to compete with the big three when you can go out in a blaze of CNN glory as a modern day messiah. The other religions only have ceremony and prayer and faith there's no fun in that.

robindch · 13-09-2006 11:08am

The hazards of atheism:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkLFG0CtdEo

(we'll forgive the misspelling

)

5uspect · 13-09-2006 11:26am

Maybe we should create a religion called "aetheism" where we worship a pink china unicorn or something. Then we would have a belief.

pH · 13-09-2006 12:56pm

There was I thinking that the Vatican and the Catholic church didn't do enough against Hitler and the Nazis. Turns out I was wrong, they did act against Hitler!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=402602&in_page_id=1770

Dades · 13-09-2006 6:24pm

pH wrote:

There was I thinking that the Vatican and the Catholic church didn't do enough against Hitler and the Nazis. Turns out I was wrong, they did act against Hitler!

"According to secret Vatican documents recently released wartime pontiff Pope Pius XII attempted a "long distance" exorcism of Hitler which failed to have any effect."

That reminds me of a Father Ted episode I saw this week. Dougal is stuck on the milkfloat with the bomb, and Ted is formulating plans to help him with the other priests.

In the next scene all the priests are saying mass for Dougal on a trailer moving alongside the milkfloat...

Asiaprod · 14-09-2006 1:14am

The Atheist wrote:

In the next scene all the priests are saying mass for Dougal on a trailer moving alongside the milkfloat...

Bummer, I have searcheed the internet and can find no clips of Farther Ted, it never made it to Japan. Anybody got any links?

The Hazards of Belief

Comments