God? Don't be silly!

[nath]

I think it's a bit mean to derail Rynnor's thread given how sensitive it seems to be so I figured the other bits could continue here. My last post in the derailment:

https://forums.freddyshouse.com/general-2/235682-my-ex-colleagues-found-religion-2.html#post3497451

 

[Krazeh]

On this theme did anyone watch Deborah 13: Servant of God on BBC3 last night? If not, it's probably worth catching on iplayer.

Tis about a 13 year old girl, one of 11 kids, who basically lives in isolation with her family on a farm in Dorset and is home taught by her fundamentalist evangelical christian parents.

It was the first thing I've watched in a while that has both genuinely shocked and annoyed me, the level of indoctrination in the home environment and teaching bordered on child abuse imo. It had got to the stage where, as a 13 year old child, she was in tears about being a wicked person and was fearful about ending up in hell.

I'm sorry but no 13 year old should ever be worrying about whether or not they're a wicked person or eternal damnation in hell, religious or not.

 

[nath]

Was it just a fly on the wall doc, or did anyone confront them about what they're doing?

 

[TdC]

good move Nath, let me know if you want posts moved over or anything...

 

[ECA]

The documentary Jesus Camp is very disturbing.
Havn't seen the one krazeh mentioned but ya there were some incredibly disturbing parts in Jesus Camp.

 

[nath]

good move Nath, let me know if you want posts moved over or anything...

Oh, ta - probably no need unless people carry on in rynnors thread though.

 

[Krazeh]

Was it just a fly on the wall doc, or did anyone confront them about what they're doing?

Was a fly on the wall doc showing her home life and following her around as she went round the local town to preach to the misguided teenagers about how they were all lying, thieving blasphemers and would be going to hell.

Closest anything came to being confronted was when she went to spend a week with her brother, who's now at Uni, and had a couple of his housemates sit down with her to try and explain their views. Not that she actually appeared to take any of it in and instead went back to citing the bible and how it was the lord's true word.

I would seriously suggest catching it on iplayer, whether you believe in God or not, just to see how much you can mess kids up by forcing views on them for their entire life.

 

[nath]

Sounds like that Louis Theroux doc about the Westboro Baptist Chuch - only slightly less extreme views. There were 8 year olds talking about how fags should go to hell, though when pressed they showed they had absolutely no idea what a fag was. They looked at their parents as if to say "line?".

 

[chipper]

is this the whole atheism v god topic again?

see im happy been agnostic that way i can just sit on the fence and argue either point whenever i please

personally i find atheism a bit too full on, technically you could call it a belief system as you choose not to believe in a god (thats semantics tho lets not get bogged down in it)

you cannot disprove god which is frankly the only thing keeping most religions going these days im sorry but that is a fact at least as this time therefore any true scientist cannot dismiss it out of hand. the probability is that there is no such being but its not a fact.

and on the flip side no religious person can prove that there is actually a god however due to most religions having "faith" they are quite often closed to any other explanation on the reason for being.

i used to consider myself atheist i would dismiss religion out of hand then i realised i was no better than the person i was discussing it with. so i changed my perspective, while i do not actively follow a religion because i could never blindly follow something like that without evidence to back it up. i do accept that the universe is a magnificent place and anything is possible.


this is a topic that simply chases its own tail and will never ever be settled but by all means carry on cos i love these philosophical discussions

 

[nath]

you cannot disprove god

There's endless things that we cannot disprove. Hell I could come up with a load of ideas right now that we can't disprove and will never be able to. The thing is, that doesn't give that theory/idea any credit/validity. If I started calling my desk lamp Jorgé and said that he had the power to make it rain - that's not something you can disprove. I can use religious defences on any attack you aim at it, but it's still an absolutely ridiculous idea.

The idea of a God has no more or less validity than my lamp Jorgé.

 

[Krazeh]

you cannot disprove god which is frankly the only thing keeping most religions going these days im sorry but that is a fact at least as this time therefore any true scientist cannot dismiss it out of hand. the probability is that there is no such being but its not a fact.

But that's the point about science, a lot of the really big stuff in science is never really 100% proven one way or the other. For example, the theory of gravity is taken as true due to the overwhelming evidence in it's support and the probability of it being wrong is extremely small.

 

[Scouse]

personally i find atheism a bit too full on, technically you could call it a belief system as you choose not to believe in a god (thats semantics tho lets not get bogged down in it

Ah fuck it. I'd taken this offline with Toht but wtf.

Atheism is NOT a belief system. Proof coming up. It's an (edited) PM I sent to Toht but you'll get the drift. Laugh all you like btw, but at least I'm making a stab:

Atheism isn't a belief system - I can show this, using maths:

Please try to follow the whole argument:

Like i've always said, atheism is just another religion.

There is no equation that can equate a belief system with atheism.

(Religion) = (Atheism) just does not compute.

To understand the above equation you have to understand the values in the equation.

Religion, as a value, represents (amongst other things):

>A belief system
>An action (belief) by "believers" (which can produce material results, eg. feelings of wellbeing)


Atheism, as a value, represents:

>No system

It does not represent a belief system of any kind - not even "a belief in an absence of belief"


Now if you went:

(Catholicism) = (Hinduism) = (Islam)

Then it is easy to find the common ground between them as they share in common the the values as specified above.


I'm of the opinion that if you want to believe (regardless of what you believe) then you're free to do so.

However, the important thing about what believers do is believing. Regardless of the belief, the action of believing is a mental leap which requires no justification, no evidence and cannot be argued with on a rational basis, because it is inherently irrational.

Like I said. You are free to be so.

However, "atheism" is a term, coined originally by religious people (it's roots are Greek), which implies a belief system - "the belief that there is no god". In more modern times, however, it's meaning (as defined by most atheists) - simply an "absence of belief system" - is beginning to permeate.

So, back to the maths.

Lets assign a value to the action of believing. For arguments sake, because believing is an action, we'll give it "1".

In the second equation:

(Catholicism) = (Hinduism) = (Islam)

(1) = (1) = (1)

I'm pretty sure you'd agree with that

In the first? Well, since atheism is the absence of a belief system rather than an action we have to assign it a different value. Here, "0".

(Religion) = (Atheism)

(1) = (0)

...

Now, I'm not trying to be patronising (though I usually succeed). I'm trying to show through a quantitative analysis that your opinion of "atheism" is misplaced.

Religion (all of them) has been described as the "opiate of the masses". The reason for that is Religion, like drugs, can fill a painful void. It can make people happy, give meaning to people's lives. As long as people commit the act of belief they can get very tangible, very real, benefits.

"Atheism", however, gives no succour. It exposes people to "the nowness" of life without guidance, without meaning. It is encumbant on atheists to create that meaning for themselves through their actions.

Hopefully the above equations also show the reasons why some people "hate religion". It's not because of the content - it's because they all have one thing in common - the action.

"All religions are the same". (1=1=1)

Some people, especially scientists, abhor that action because of its illogicality, it's innate inability to be proven one way or the other.

So please! If you can avoid it - don't equate atheism with religion in the future. It's insulting.

 

[chipper]

There's endless things that we cannot disprove. Hell I could come up with a load of ideas right now that we can't disprove and will never be able to. The thing is, that doesn't give that theory/idea any credit/validity. If I started calling my desk lamp Jorgé and said that he had the power to make it rain - that's not something you can disprove. I can use religious defences on any attack you aim at it, but it's still an absolutely ridiculous idea.

The idea of a God has no more or less validity than my lamp Jorgé.

yes my point is nath that its the excuse often used by many religious sects. and yes you probably could disprove your all mighty lamp could make it rain because its a phyiscal item that can be observed and studied in great detail and as krazeh said nothing cannot be proven 100% but we can lean greatly in favour of it been unlikely.

fair enough krazeh see your point but whats the big argument opposing it?


im not saying there is a god im saying i dont know that there isnt and frankly for me theres just not enough evidence to make me swing full over to say outright theres no god. dont start giving me examples of the bible and other shit like that. believe me ive done alot of reading up on both sides of the argument and for me personally im just not comfortable saying theres no god im leaning heavily in that direction have done for a number of years.

 

[Scouse]

But that's the point about science, a lot of the really big stuff in science is never really 100% proven one way or the other. For example, the theory of gravity is taken as true due to the overwhelming evidence in it's support and the probability of it being wrong is extremely small.

Actually, we know gravity's wrong. But it's so damn useful....

But I like your point. Science, at its base, is a method of rational thinking. Religion, at it's base, is a belief, regardless of the rationality. Carl Sagan said it best when he said this:

In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Thanks nath, thought of the same move when on the subway home.

Should become a norm really.

Will answer shortly.

And apologies to rynnor if any harm done.

 

[nath]

and yes you probably could disprove your all mighty lamp could make it rain because its a phyiscal item that can be observed and studied in great detail

Ah, but it's a the metaphysical properties of Jorgé that can't be quantified. But they're there. Oh yes. And he does make it rain - through the power of his metaphysical mind. Any proof against this can be denied with more religious like pseudo-logic. I appreciate your stance on God but you're saying there's not enough evidence AGAINST a deity - the same could be said for any other imaginary things. There's absolutely no evidence FOR God and as a result, believing in imaginary friends is just as valid/invalid as believing in some omnipotent being.

 

[Scouse]

im not saying there is a god im saying i dont know that there isnt and frankly for me theres just not enough evidence to make me swing full over to say outright theres no god

What kind of god eh?

I'm not completely anti-belief. I'm anti organised-religion though - because I can prove that, in each and every case, their premise is incorrect and based on fallacy.

Believe in a power if you like, but are you saying, for example, Catholicism is correct?

What bout Hinduism? Jainism? Mandaeanism? Sufism? Judaism? Non-Rabbinic Judaism? Rastafarism? Samaritanism? Ayyavazhi? Mahayanan Buddhism? Sikhism? Confucianism?

How about any of these fuckers?

Hmmmmm. Balance of probabilities....

 

[Krazeh]

fair enough krazeh see your point but whats the big argument opposing it?

Opposing what? The theory of gravity or there not being a god? As far as i'm aware there's no big scientific argument opposing either of them.

im not saying there is a god im saying i dont know that there isnt and frankly for me theres just not enough evidence to make me swing full over to say outright theres no god.

I don't think there ever will be a point where there is enough evidence to say 100% outright there is no god but in terms of probability the arguments are firmly stacked in favour of there not being a god.

 

[chipper]

scouse im not arguing your point m8 not after you explained it so well and you did btw im saying people can and do take it as a belief system because they do not understand what athiesm is about. i just used to assume it was the "belief" there was no god obviously ive changed my stance on that as you may have gathered


nath by that same token i could say god clicked his fingers and created the universe ie the big bang and as a result everything else a creation of divine intervention and by such your lamp may well be a pseudo deity!!! lol please dont take that too seriously im just using it as an example to show just how far you can go with this topic hehe.

wheres the scientific evidence that explains the big bang? im on about the very instant of creation zero hour see this is what ive said in my first post people can and do dance around this subject until everyones brain hurts

for me ill finally believe there is no god when we can explain how the big bang occured becuase that is when everything started and as such if god is not a factor at the beginning then he surely cannot be a factor during the rest of it.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Alrighty, i think i'll start with Scouse:

Apologies, yes, apologies for a wrong terminology.

You see, i personally see religion as a way of life, not as a "religion" in the common sense. I can see how it would be insulting to be compared to religion, but in my mind it is the same. Vegetarian, christian, atheist, agnostic etc.

The point i was making that it's all ok, until you start spouting propaganda. This is often let go too easily in the "there's no god" situation, where "ther'es god" is attacked vigorously.

"There's no god" is, in essence, propaganda of the atheist as much as "jesus saves" is the propaganda of the christian. If it's said in a context that is seen as an attack on religion, or vise versa FOR religion.

Nice math by the way

First of all, you can't generalise about people based on their lack of belief. However, one thing that links all religious people is the fact that they actually believe in something. I'll reiterate, atheism isn't a belief, it's not a way of life it's a LACK of a belief.

2: It's not the same though. Are you against education? Schools? There's nothing but people saying "this is the way the world works" in science classes across the world. If you're OK with people being taught science, I have to assume the reason you don't like people trying to "preach" atheism is that it makes you uncomfortable. Religion has had it's time, there's no place for it now - being religious demonstrates a willingness to turn a blind eye to logic and facts and believe in something that has no basis in reality. In my opinion this is a pretty dodgy thing in this day and age, and it's well and good that people are trying to educate others about how silly it is.

3: Also, I'm anticipating an attack on atheism following this in mind but that's just about as valid as me having a go at some Christian for the crusades. I'm not going to hold any religious folks accountable for shit that other religious folk have done, but I'm damn sure going to point out the absurdness of their belief (if they're happy to discuss it).

1: I can generalise with atheists, as much as people generalise on other ways of life and so forth. Atheists generally do X, is the same as christians generally do X. It's never accurate to 100%, but it's used still.

2: I'm not against science, schools or anything like that, some religious people are, not ALL. I find that religion and science are two whole, completely, absolutely, 100% different things. Even in the main-religion times, there was alchemy, before that was magic. It's like churst and state, different parts. Religion has it's use that science can't provide.

3: Not attacking atheism, attacking atheist propaganda.

Wow...i kept it on topic while others didn't

Now, let's fix that:

About prooving or disproving god, it becomes to the old "science" debate again. Atheists often want proof, which religion in general has no need for. Two different things again.

Many atheists believe in UFOs for example, is that any different then in believing in a god/gods? Simply due to one being a remotely scientific impropability?

 

[DaGaffer]

Personally I find it easier to break it down into more manageable deconstructions when debating with religious types. Its very difficult to argue god/no god for all the reasons discussed above. However, you can drive a coach and horses through most of the stuff in the bible, and the various religious customs are even easier to question.

Ultimately, the best question to ask the religious, is "why are you catholic, moslem, hindu, whatever?" 99% of the time its entirely down to your parents and/or your immediate geography and your religious affiliation is purely a matter of chance. Now unless we're saying all religions are equally valid (and several thousand years of violent history seems to be saying we're not) then God is immediately condemning the majority of the world (because all individual religions are a minority of the population overall) to Hell/purgatory/Milton Keynes purely by virtue of their birth. So that means...God is a racist. Or...(cutting out several steps in the deprogramming)...Occam's razor suggests an omnipotent being with humanity's best interests at heart wouldn't set things up this way, which means the God of the bible probably doesn't exist.

 

[Dark Orb Choir]

Bill O'Reilly believes - thats enough for me not to tbh....


YouTube - Bill gets pwned by Dawkins

 

[chipper]

What kind of god eh?

I'm not completely anti-belief. I'm anti organised-religion though - because I can prove that, in each and every case, their premise is incorrect and based on fallacy.

Believe in a power if you like, but are you saying, for example, Catholicism is correct?

What bout Hinduism? Jainism? Mandaeanism? Sufism? Judaism? Non-Rabbinic Judaism? Rastafarism? Samaritanism? Ayyavazhi? Mahayanan Buddhism? Sikhism? Confucianism?

How about any of these fuckers?

Hmmmmm. Balance of probabilities....

no scouse im very much the same frame of mind as you in that i dont believe in 1 institution i abhor all organised religions. if people want to believe in a deity they should be allowed to do so in their own way not be told by some jumped up prick in a dressing gown

krazeh i was talking about gravity m8 there is no real argument against it

 

[DaGaffer]

Many atheists believe in UFOs for example, is that any different then in believing in a god/gods? Simply due to one being a remotely scientific impropability?

Says who? What's the correlation between UFOlogy and atheism? I think you've pulled that one right out of your arse.

 

[nath]

nath by that same token i could say god clicked his fingers and created the universe ie the big bang and as a result everything else a creation of divine intervention and by such your lamp may well be a pseudo deity!!! lol please dont take that too seriously im just using it as an example to show just how far you can go with this topic hehe.

wheres the scientific evidence that explains the big bang? im on about the very instant of creation zero hour see this is what ive said in my first post people can and do dance around this subject until everyones brain hurts

for me ill finally believe there is no god when we can explain how the big bang occured becuase that is when everything started and as such if god is not a factor at the beginning then he surely cannot be a factor during the rest of it.

My argument is that the lack of evidence disproving something is not a reason to believe in it. Even if we never know what came before the big bang - the idea of God is not a logical step as it poses just as many (if not more) questions than it answers. Theories should be based on observable evidence, if there's no evidence then there should be no belief, just ideas maybe. God is one idea as to what created the universe, but with absolutely no evidence for it it's just that, an idea. It's just as valid as my Jorgé idea - turning that in to a belief displays a willingness to ignore rational thought. This is something I think should be criticised and highlighted for its ignorance.

1: I can generalise with atheists, as much as people generalise on other ways of life and so forth. Atheists generally do X, is the same as christians generally do X. It's never accurate to 100%, but it's used still.

You can, but it's invalid to do so. There is nothing that links one atheist to another other than they lack theological beliefs. You may find groups that are similar, but it's other traits that make them similar, not their atheism. This is not the case with religion - while generalising in most instances is probably unfair, one thing you can link between them is that they actively believe in something that has no basis in reality.

2: I'm not against science, schools or anything like that, some religious people are, not ALL. I find that religion and science are two whole, completely, absolutely, 100% different things. Even in the main-religion times, there was alchemy, before that was magic. It's like churst and state, different parts. Religion has it's use that science can't provide.

Maybe so, but my point was that if you have no problem with people being taught science, how can you take issue with people teaching that belief in God is irrational. Scientifically it is irrational.

Many atheists believe in UFOs for example, is that any different then in believing in a god/gods? Simply due to one being a remotely scientific impropability?

This has nothing to do with atheism - what you're doing is taking a set of peoples potentially irrational beliefs and then linking them to atheism when there's no link to that. Of course there are going to be nutters who are/claim to be atheist - that does nothing to counter an atheist perspective.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Says who? What's the correlation between UFOlogy and atheism? I think you've pulled that one right out of your arse.

I think you misunderstood it as a "must", when it's a "some".

I know of atheists beliving in UFOs, so, it's so.

Nott saying all are, or a majority is, just that some DO.

That's silly no?

 

[chipper]

My argument is that the lack of evidence disproving something is not a reason to believe in it. Even if we never know what came before the big bang - the idea of God is not a logical step as it poses just as many (if not more) questions than it answers. Theories should be based on observable evidence, if there's no evidence then there should be no belief, just ideas maybe. God is one idea as to what created the universe, but with absolutely no evidence for it it's just that, an idea. It's just as valid as my Jorgé idea - turning that in to a belief displays a willingness to ignore rational thought. This is something I think should be criticised and highlighted for its ignorance.

ok nath i cant argue with that and i agree with you i dont want people to think i believe blindly i dont, i need quantifiable evidence to prove or disprove something thats all. but you answered in a very logical way so i shall merely say i am open to the idea of their been a god

 

[nath]

I think you misunderstood it as a "must", when it's a "some".

I know of atheists beliving in UFOs, so, it's so.

Nott saying all are, or a majority is, just that some DO.

That's silly no?

As I said in my post - what relevance does this have to do with atheism? If there was a thread discussing ginger people and I said "I know a couple of ginger's who are racist... hmm" - that'd have no relevance too. Obviously I'd be implying some sort of correlation between hair colour and racism when naturally that's an absurd implication.

It's the same with atheist UFO believers - we're discussing atheism, some atheists believing in UFO's has no impact on the discussion whatsoever.

 

[old.Tohtori]

1: You can, but it's invalid to do so. There is nothing that links one atheist to another other than they lack theological beliefs. You may find groups that are similar, but it's other traits that make them similar, not their atheism. This is not the case with religion - while generalising in most instances is probably unfair, one thing you can link between them is that they actively believe in something that has no basis in reality.

2: Maybe so, but my point was that if you have no problem with people being taught science, how can you take issue with people teaching that belief in God is irrational. Scientifically it is irrational.

3: This has nothing to do with atheism - what you're doing is taking a set of peoples potentially irrational beliefs and then linking them to atheism when there's no link to that. Of course there are going to be nutters who are/claim to be atheist - that does nothing to counter an atheist perspective..

1: And by saying religious people are same, is as invalid. The only link between religious people is religion, other traits make them who they are. Same as you said. While generalisation is unfair, one thing you can link between atheists is the anti-religious rants. See my point?

2: I don't take an issue with people teaching god is irrational, i just find it irrelevant as science has nothing to do with it. It's the preaching of it, in the SAME fashion that religious people preach, that is the problem. No matter what way of life, preaching and converting is wrong in my books.

3: Yes, it has nothing to do with atheism, nor is it meant to be a counter-atheist point(which i'm not trying to do, never have as you might have noticed), it's meant as a "point of variation". Religious people and atheist people alike, no matter how sane, sometimes believe in UFOs and UFOs are as likely as a bearded fella on a cloud if looked at from the pure science perspective.

It's the same with atheist UFO believers - we're discussing atheism, some atheists believing in UFO's has no impact on the discussion whatsoever.

Actually we were discussing, originally, now atheists get up in arms any time they are challenged where just a moment ago they were against religion and it was "fine"

And also how in my books, atheism and religion is the same, with same kind of "nut cases", normal folk, variation etc. Only difference is the belief system or there lack of, aka way of life.

Now, if someone said to me "i don't have any position on anything theological or other such thing, i live my life and that's it", then i could say "now that's no way of life, religion, belief", but as long as you claim yourself as some part of something, you are infact in a belief system.

 

[Krazeh]

2: I don't take an issue with people teaching god is irrational, i just find it irrelevant as science has nothing to do with it. It's the preaching of it, in the SAME fashion that religious people preach, that is the problem. No matter what way of life, preaching and converting is wrong in my books.

So where in your view does teaching people and demonstrating that a rational, evidence based approach leads to the much more likely probability of there being no god become preaching? Do you feel the same way about say, for example, teaching evolution over creationism?