BS: The God Delusion 2010

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 04:50 AM

"If I were trying to convert you, then I'd have more of an obligation to meet your criteria. But I have no desire to proselytize, and I see no obligation to defend what I believe."

That's fair enough, Joe, and you and I (and, I hope, other 'unbelievers') have no quarrel. I would never seek to belittle your faith or to tell you what you should or should not be believing. Trouble is there are many 'people of faith' in the world who are desperate to proselytize and to convert others. The other day I ran into some members of a Christian sect on my local high street. I got into conversation with a very articulate and rather eloquent young man who, at one point, informed me that anyone who didn't accept 'Jesus as his/her saviour' was going to Hell (including Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus etc.). In fact I was left with the impression that anyone who didn't belong to the young man's particular sect was going to Hell. Now you could write such views off as some sort of loony aberration - but fundamentalist religion is on the rise all over the world - yes, even here in relatively godless Britain. Sadly, especially for good people of faith, such as yourself, the time may have come to have a good hard look at all religions and the things that they preach.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 03:51 AM

Could be so, Suib - but I'm not trying to sell anybody anything. At the very least, however, if I live my life with integrity, perhaps people could leave me alone and lay off the condemnation.


-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 03:41 AM

Just about to heartily concur with the wobbling air when I see in Google ads box a link to "Atheist Beliefs" which made me smile. In the light of that, and so much more, I think if Joe's evidence is anything to go by then it's that our humanity is defined by Joyful Integrity no matter what our personal beliefs might be, and that Joyful Integrity is the right and entitlement of all.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 10:29 PM

And all music really is, is wobbling air - the rest is all in the mind. That probably makes me irrational :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 09:47 PM

Thanks, olddude - I've criticised religions often enough, but I don't consider that the same as criticising the individuals. Some do, but it's never my intention.

If I have a religion, it's music.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 09:32 PM

I've never chosen not to believe in God, I just can't.

and I have never seen you write anything Smokey that criticizes others that do .. and you have my respect for that

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 09:25 PM

I have strange inclinations.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Art Thieme
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 09:20 PM

It might be the hard times, but I simply have no invisible means of support!

Art

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 09:12 PM

I dunno, Paul. It seems to me that a life of faith lived in integrity and joy, is wonderful evidence.
It just doesn't fit YOUR criteria. If I were trying to convert you, then I'd have more of an obligation to meet your criteria. But I have no desire to proselytize, and I see no obligation to defend what I believe. If people see something valuable in the way I live life and want to share my faith, that would be wonderful - but that's entirely up to them. I don't want to push nothin' on nobody.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 09:01 PM

"Silly, silly, mousethief. You picked this bit from me to include in your polemic, but unfortunately you completely misread the meaning it's meant to convey,

'If the message fails to come across, blame the recipient. Nice. I'll remember that general principle.'"

Sorry, mate, but my message was very clearly not an attack on free speech, so yes, I can confidently blame you for misreading it. Go and read it properly and stop trying to make it fit your attack mindset. You will find it to be a complaint about the arrogance of religion but quite clearly not a call to stop religions from doing the things I pointed to. Neither explicitly nor implicitly.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 08:58 PM

I give up - even my spelling's gorn to the twilight zone.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 08:56 PM

Pardon my abiguity..

I've never chosen not to believe in God, I just can't.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 08:40 PM

Do we actually have any choice in what we believe or don't believe? I've never chosen not to believe in God, I just can't. Never could, even as a child.

Is this the same for believers?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Paul Burke
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 06:45 PM

That's my evidence.

And of course you know it's not evidence at all, Joe. There are people like your grandmother in every belief - which would make it evidence for every belief- and they can't all be "true" in any useful sense of that elastic word. I'd posit Brother Gregory as counter- evidence to your grandmother. There are Brother Gregories in every belief as well.

As for belief or not, I couldn't give a frankly my dear. It's what you take from that belief that matters. And I can't see how the profession of a religion or the opposite has made the slightest difference to people's social values. As I've said before, show me your St. Francis and I'll show you my Torquemada.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 06:30 PM

ok, Joe... *grin* in honor of the genteel tone, I will refrain from my usual 12 paragraph lecture about the linguistic equivocation on 'valid' and 'evidence'....

Mind you, it's a strain... I may have to drink something alcoholic

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 06:24 PM

Genetics? My dad was raised Quaker, ran away at 15 to join the army and was not religious all my life. (Mom was the baptist) But he was a great spoon player.   It may not be the rhythm it is the grip. I am going to start a thread on how to hold bones, finger placement, arm and wrist movement, how not to knock innocent bystanders senseless with flying musical missiles. Yes I've searched no real direction on how to.

Going to say goodbye to this thread with a great big hug to all who have posted here for aiding my understanding of you good people.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 06:03 PM

Of course there's evidence - just not evidence you'd accept, Mrr. I usually attribute the beginnings of my faith to my grandmother, although there have been many others since her. My grandmother was a woman permeated with faith, and it all made sense in her and the way she lived and who she was. She was full of joy and generosity, without guile or prejudice. Her faith was an integral part of her life, the essence of her integrity. And seeing her, faith made sense to me.

That's my evidence. It doesn't follow all the rules of logical argument - but it's valid evidence, nonetheless. And as I've said before, I want to stay out of the realm of argument. I live my faith, I don't preach it - and it's part of my integrity.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 05:42 PM

Hey Tam
I love you to hon

Thank you

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 05:28 PM

Of course faith means believing without evidence... if there is evidence, you don't need faith to believe it. You can conclude it instead.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mousethief
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 05:14 PM

Silly, silly, mousethief. You picked this bit from me to include in your polemic, but unfortunately you completely misread the meaning it's meant to convey,

If the message fails to come across, blame the recipient. Nice. I'll remember that general principle.

At the heart of every Christian is the stinking evil that they believe they are going to heaven and everyone else is going to hell.

Incorrect. There are Christian universalists.

Atheism is by definition a belief system

Can't agree. Atheism is by definition lack of belief in God. You might as well say not-stamp-collecting is a hobby.

Atheism is about Reality and Inclusivity; it is about the celebration of the commonality of each and every one of us in that not one of us is any greater than any other.

That sounds an awful lot like a belief system. Better to say that atheism means lack of belief in God.

Buddhism is a second to none religion.

Is Buddhism a religion? I've heard Buddhists argue both ways.

Why do superstitious people get all precious over their delusion?

See, this kind of rhetoric just doesn't move the conversation forward. By the way, something is a delusion only if it's false. By saying it's a delusion you're saying you KNOW God doesn't exist. How would you know that?

Is it because deep down they realise the imaginary friend bit is in fact just a metaphor for the whole mindset? or is it because again deep down, they either knowingly or otherwise resent being told how to behave by people in charge of their faith?

This is just Bulverism.

It is all the other stuff attached to Christianity that I find too bitter a pill to swallow.

This is a respectful statement that one could have a discussion over, because Virginia isn't starting out by insulting Christianity or saying she knows it's false.

well here is what the Supreme Court ruled it as a religion

The Supreme Court also overturned the Florida Supreme Court in order to make George Bush president. I wouldn't trust them to tell me the time.

But isn't it time to stop being polite to people who insist on damaging their children's education?

Why, what would being rude do? Would it help them to see the error of their ways and do something else? Like hell. It will only make them feel justified in their doings by the "persecution", and make the snarky ones feel glibly self-righteous.

Why do you believe that?

JohnP: that is a decent approach to go about. But before you can ask for evidence we need to back up one step (at least) and talk about what counts as evidence. Otherwise we may be using the word in two different ways, and talking right past each other. I usually don't give reasons for what I believe online, because I have found that when I do, people pounce on them as if I were presenting a hypothesis in a scientific or logical debate. I don't expect anybody to go along with my beliefs, and greatly appreciate being treated in the same way. What I try to point out are inconsistencies and insufficient attention to the underlying principles of someone's statements.

And the problem with the whole "evidence" thing is that evidence for belief in God isn't scientific evidence. There is no experiment (yet?) one can do and say, "See? God exists." Most people's belief in God (those who have thought about it philosophically) probably rests on a combination of personal experience, historical evidence, and trust in the reports of persons they find trustworthy. None of that is scientific in nature. The existence of God is NOT a scientific question, and treating it as such is a category error.

See, when you say:

I'm also not talking about spiritual experience, which is a well-documented phenomenon and is available to anyone.

you're pre-defining the constraints of the discussion. It's like me saying, "Explain to me why you think light is both a particle or a wave. But no dragging in scientific experiments." Horses for courses. Belief in God and belief in the findings of science just aren't the same kind of thing.

Faith means you believe without having evidence.

See, this is just wrong-headed. It have faith my wife will not have an affair. I don't know she won't, but I believe it. It is not without any evidence, but it is certainly without scientific evidence. So with people's faith in God. They don't have scientific evidence (as I said that is impossible) but that doesn't mean they don't have any evidence at all. Maybe not evidence that you will accept, which is fair enough but not the same thing.

I was responding directly to mousethief's assertion that I can't know what the evidence is that supports a belief in a higher being.

I don't think I said that, and if I did I was mistaken and I apologize.

Also defending my position that I've never been given any reason to think that gods exist, a position which has drawn some fire.

Not from me. If you have no reason to think X, then there is certainly no call to expect you to think X.

People take the word of scientists because they know that there is evidence to back up the stuff that scientists say.

Which they know because the scientists tell them so. Few of us are in the position to replicate the experiments that led to the majority of scientific beliefs. Hell, few of us would even understand them. Truly, most people's understanding and faith in science is based on trust in authority.

Recently bought a pair of bones.... cannot get to grips (hahaha) with them. I have no rhythm.

Bones are impossible. Don't feel bad. I think there must be a bone-playing gene that I failed to inherit.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 04:55 PM

Details on what? Happy to provide...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 04:38 PM

I have 12 patents under my name, all owned by corporations I did business with but my design. I have worked with scientist of all walks of life in a host of various fields. Everything from Nuclear attack subs to fighter jets to voting machines to encryption algorithms to speech recognition to semantic database system to artificial intelligence and the list goes on ... I developed a software facility that is used in every PC today and I gave it to the world for free via publishing instead of patenting it... my mistake , I would be a rich man instead of struggling ... in short .. if you look to science to prove your position in no God you are petting the wrong dog.

Scientists like everyone else are trying to figure out life. The scientific method doesn't apply to the search for the creator or the non existence of a Creator. That is a belief system, one that most atheists seem to deny they have (IE a belief system).

It is ok to have whatever belief system you choose, but not ok to try and dictate what others should or should not believe. Joe is absolutely correct.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 04:18 PM

For many "believers," a primary aspect of their religion is their belief in their own superiority, and their condemnation of others for this and that and the other thing. Most times, you wonder what it is that they do believe, because most of their time and energy seems to be spent condemning others. Perhaps one could say the primary aspect of their faith is xenophobia, the fear of anyone and anything other than themselves. They insist that they have certain knowledge of whatever it is they know, and contend that anything other that what they know for certain, is false.

We see this same kind of thinking expressed in a number of the posts above - except that it comes from people who actively profess that all religious belief is false.

Both sides profess that only they know the truth, and that all others are wrong and need to be suppressed and controlled - even to the point of suggesting that there should be control over what people teach their children and what rituals they celebrate in their own homes.

I can tolerate most things and most people of good will, but I draw the line at the point where people think they have a right to control or condemn what I am and who I am and what I think.

John P gave a list of beliefs-

What evidence can you offer that:
God talks.
God listens.
God has a personality, in that it takes notice of individual humans.
Jesus died for your sins.
Jesus died and came back to life.
God is everywhere.
God is in heaven.
God is, in some way, three beings in one. Did that arrangement pertain before the birth of Christ?
The Bible is divinely inspired.
Anyone knows what happens to us after we die.
Hell exists.
Heaven exists.

And all I can answer is that I can offer no evidence that he would accept, but that most of these things make sense to me within the context of who I am - although I also must insist that people have vastly different understandings of these beliefs. I can offer no evidence or proof, but yet I have experienced most of these "beliefs" within the context of my life. I wouldn't expect John to believe any of these things because he does not share my faith perspective.


Suibhne says, Atheism is about Reality and Inclusivity; it is about the celebration of the commonality of each and every one of us in that not one of us is any greater than any other.
Funny thing....that's exactly the same thing I hold, but within my theistic, religious context. If that's what atheism is, then why should atheism have any conflict with me?
But then, Suibhne spoils the unity by talking about folklore, superstition, myth, mumbo-jumbo and other such cosmic debris that we could really do without taking too seriously.
How is he so sure that these things are without worth, that only Reason reigns supreme?

Suibhne says something else: Can I just add that I see Religion in much the same way as Folklore? They're manifestations of human irrationality we're all prone to, to a greater or lesser extent. Thus I delight in many aspects of our culture that have a religious vibe - churches, festivals, Christmas, Easter, Catholic Statuary, Green Men, Misericords, churches, cathedrals, etc. etc. but all of these I see purely in terms of their humanity; Folklore likewise, and other so-called Spirituality. So whilst I don't do hocus-pocus, I wouldn't deny another person's right to partake if that is their desire.

I'd agree that there is a very close relationship between religion and folklore. To my mind, much of religion IS folklore, wonderful folklore. The Old Testament stories of Job and Jonah are two of the best examples of folklore in Scripture, as are the creation and flood stories. But I don't see them as "manifestations of human irrationality." Rather, I see them as "manifestations of that which is beyond human rationality."

Pure rationality cannot capture the fullness of what some of us see as the transcendent mysteries of life: love, beauty, life, death, peace, evil, and the reason for existence, for example. If you're in love, you know that no rational explanation can approach the reality of the experience - although the experience is indeed intensely real. Likewise with the beauty of a tree or a sunset - intensely real, but beyond the capabilities of rational explanation.

In about 2005, I worked for about a year as an employee of my Catholic parish, teaching people who wanted to become Catholic. During that year, I was under constant scrutiny by right-wing Catholics. They filed a formal complaint to the bishop, and I had to attend a hearing and go through the process of being exonerated. The pastor told me he had to lay me off "for financial reasons," but last year he finally admitted he terminated me because of pressure from right-wing forces.

I tried to reason with these right-wing ultra-Catholics, but it did no good because we spoke a totally different language. From their religious perspective, they sought Absolute Truth and claimed to possess Absolute Truth; while my religious perspective directs me to explore that which is beyond understanding or definition. I found that if I tried to explain things in their language and their terms, I went places where I did not want to go. When I tried to speak in their terms, I found myself getting defensive and angry and limiting. I found myself closing doors, instead of opening them and exploring what was inside.

I have the same experience when I try to respond to non-believers who seek to force me to defend my beliefs. They, like the ultra-Catholics, want to speak in the language of certainty and argument and combat, while the essence of my being is to drift through life without certain knowledge, exploring the wonders I encounter with an open mind. They place a primary importance on proving others wrong, while all I want to do is explore. How can there ever be any depth of communication between us?

So, I try to be polite to those who insist on certainty, and I try not to rattle their cages.

But it's difficult, especially when they seek to control or limit or suppress or silence me.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 04:07 PM

Dan since you surprised the skunk enough to spray, maybe s/he won't return. I am sure hoping so for the skunk's sake.

I am having a crisis in faith in my old ability to learn new instruments quickly.

Recently bought a pair of bones.... cannot get to grips (hahaha) with them. I have no rhythm.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 04:01 PM

"Buddhism is the same old bullshit in a different box basically; it aspires to enlightenment, elitism and fabricates a spiritual hierachy"

It suggests that if you already aspire to self-realisation and you want to put in the work you then can find out for yourself. There are no special individuals, only people who have an inner impulse to change, simply because they want to. The proof is in the pudding. It's not a matter of faith but observable results to techniques that have been developed over thousands of years. Anyone can choose to suck it and see if they want to, or not if they don't. Buddhists don't proselityse or seek to covert people, or tell them that they will suffer in any way if they don't happen to share that impulse. I don't aspire to climb mount everest or sail the world solo, that drive isn't in me and I don't get it, but it doesn't bug me that other people do.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 03:39 PM

Cool Dude Dan!   Vive le Skoonk! :0)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 03:28 PM

Little Hawk, on science: The rest of the populace, however, just takes their word for it, much like the religious populace takes the word of the religious authorities.

Sorry, Little Hawk, you are once again out to lunch. People take the word of scientists because they know that there is evidence to back up the stuff that scientists say. That's nothing at all like religion. I'm not a scientist but I have no problem at all with the concept that scientists use a methodology that doesn't let in ideas for which there is no evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 03:16 PM

You maybe right Lizzie,
you kinda got me with the grand baby skunk thing ... but that was un-called for .. dang .. it was just mean of him ... mean .. I will let it go .. maybe he did stop smoking ... hell there is enough butts in my yard .. maybe he was addicted also .. but I better not see his skunk face around for awhile ... I am still very pissed. Last night was hell on earth

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 03:02 PM

Dan, don't shoot him...write a song about him.

He didn't ask to be a skunk, it was just his 'karma' this time round... :0)   

He probably has many skunk babies to support and protect, so maybe that's why he over-reacted and viewed you as an attacker...Maybe he's a Grandaddy Skunk?

Or, maybe he's just quit smoking too... ;0)


Skunk Love

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 02:56 PM

John, you said: "All I'm saying is that I don't see any evidence for the existence of gods."

Neither do I. Nor do I see any evidence against the existence of gods either. (shrug) So? What evidence would one expect?

I've noticed all my life what most people base faith on. They base it on:

1. familiarity - If they're quite familiar with something...then they usually have faith in it being as they think it is. That something can be an idea. People repeat and have faith in those ideas they are most familiar with. This includes both scientifically-based and religiously based ideas as well as, for example, political ideas or ideas about what clothing one should or should not wear and what words one should or should not use in a given situation.

2. social customs - see "familiarity" above... ;-)

3. what their parents told them and acted out in front of them: familiarity

4. what their schools told them

And so on...

So, suppose you have a generation of young people growing up in Maoist China, and their government which is vehemently against religion teaches them all to be militant atheists. Well, then that's certainly what most of them will become, unless their parents quietly teach them otherwise, in which case maybe they won't.

Likewise, suppose you have a generation in a staunchly religious country, growing up in schools where they are all taught the religious assumptions common in that culture. Well, then most of them will grow up to follow that religion, because they're familiar with it...unless their parents teach them otherwise. My parents taught me nothing about religion, and I naturally didn't have faith in it as a consequence. We never went to church.

As for science...virtually every organized society on Earth now teaches science to its youngsters in school (maybe a couple of exceptions), so young people everywhere grow up believing in science...but not because they have been confronted with or because they understand much of the evidence. They believe in it because they are familiar with it! ;-) Most of them, if questioned carefully, would soon reveal that their actual awareness of scientific evidence is extremely limited, fragmentary, and quite vague. They have merely accepted it on the basis of faith, because it was all around them and they saw no reason not to.

The exception to the above would be the few people who seek a career in science. Those people know a good deal more about the evidence, obviously.

The rest of the populace, however, just takes their word for it, much like the religious populace takes the word of the religious authorities.

Most of the people out there are proceeding primarily on faith, regardless of whether they are religious or not, and their faith is built upon familiarity with some viewpoint they have become emotionally attached to.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 02:49 PM

Gotta remember also, I am a hot headed Irish shithead who got out of the hospital got sprayed by a skunk and is trying to quit smoking ... terrible combination ... doesn't mean it is right to go off on my friends... it is just something right now I can't control ... my family is going to heaven putting up with me at the moment

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 02:45 PM

.....*blush*.... ok, then

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 02:39 PM

You Bill are one of my favorite people in the world. I will argue with you but that is all it is ... just disagreement .. I don't fight or argue with those I don't care about ... I tend to just walk away .. I only fight with those I truly care for

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 02:33 PM

Dan... you & I have different 'personal' belief..or non-belief ..systems, and sometimes our opinions hit rocky impasses, but I see you, in all these discussions, trying to 'think' and be reasonable and find the best path thru awkward situations. Sometimes we don't exactly disagree, we are just looking at different sides of the same coin. We DO both seem to agree that imposing ones views on everyone else is a bad practice....we are just sensitive to different instances of that behavior.

We can discuss touchy, but important topics reasonably with a little effort....

....and nawwwww... a smoke ain't what you need...maybe a nice song..☺

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 02:17 PM

Lizzie
Skunks are Gods creatures also .. but I am going to kill his ass ... sorry but I am .. that was uncalled for. I wasn't going to hurt him but he felt the need to blast me and make my life a living hell last night LOL ... so sorry God be he is going down !!

ya know when I was sick, I got a PM from a pagan who wanted to light a candle for me .. I cherished that, it touched my heart .. why, because even though that is not my faith and is opposite of my faith, they believed it doesn't matter what I believe, they believe it would help me.. and they offered that out of love for someone they never met face to face .. I was honored and touched by that.. it is all about respect for others that is what I been trying to say. Although I may have been a jerk in the manner which I said it. I am a work in progress

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 02:09 PM

Neil Young, on Marriage, Faith, Christianity, Islam and well...Life! (no mention of skunks though) ;0)

Neil...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 02:07 PM

And the thing about it Bill, if by definition it is or isn't a religion people have the right to believe in the non existence of God. It is their right. And that belief should be respected .. as long as the respect goes both ways for those who have faith in a God also .. The problems occur when my God can beat up your God or your non-God can beat up my God that people get upset, and go off on others even when they regard as friends and I do . I think I have proved it time and time again by actions here and not words..

I freely admit I am a crabby son of a bitch lately .. maybe I need a smoke .. but I tend to respect others and their path in life. I ask that others do that for me and the rest of us that do have a chosen path and pretty much mind our own business. You see for me, my faith is intensely personal .. and for those who knock on doors they couldn't be more wrong doing that .. Free will is the single most important concept in my faith .. Likewise It is wrong to berate others for their personal choices in life .. no belief system or non system is any better than another. It is all personal. When one tries to step on the others rights, then it becomes an issue of contention.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 02:07 PM

Wesley please read back through the thread for Mrzzy's posts for more info.

LH That definition of faith is merely the first and simplest definition and your example is based on evidence in that the car has worked in past so you are confident it will continue to work.

However, I agree that it is not ON to disparage an individual for what he or she does or does not believe. The question on the table implied by the opinion of the OP is 'Does organised religion cause more hurt than good?' In my opinion it does cause more harm. But that is my opinion. It may not be Joe's or Dan's or anyone else's who does not agree with me. That does not mean I don't respect them, their beliefs and their right to have em.

And yes Mrzzy any system that denies a full comprehensive education to children does damage them in the sense that they will be ill equipped to think and decide things for themselves. So they need non- indoctrinating exposure to main religions as well as philosophies, and scientific theory and facts. Best in a tone of acceptance and celebration of diversity. Put it all on the table repeatedly and let them come up with their own conclusions.

Do I think the law should impose this? Ideally yes, but impossible to put in practice.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 02:06 PM

Little Hawk, I'm not disparaging anyone. If asking questions and sharing thoughts is disparagement, then we might as well conclude this conversation. I was responding directly to mousethief's assertion that I can't know what the evidence is that supports a belief in a higher being. Also defending my position that I've never been given any reason to think that gods exist, a position which has drawn some fire. You are, once again, using the word "belief" in a way that is not supported by the current context. I was very specific that I wasn't referring to the fact that "a human being's concept of "God" proves useful or comforting to him in some way". You do, by the way, have a lot of evidence that should lead you think that your car will start when you turn the key. Blindly expecting that it will happen would be stupid, but that's not the same as a lack of evidence that it will. The stupidity would be the conviction that a fallible mechanical object will always work. That's not what we're talking about.

All I'm saying is that I don't see any evidence for the existence of gods. I've been told that such evidence exists, and I want the people who say so to support their assertion. If it is based on personal experience, that's well and good; I have no problem with personal spiritual experience. But perhaps we can find other conclusions that could be drawn from those experiences, ones that don't make the logical leap to a supreme being that thinks and acts. I just want things to make sense and to understand why things make sense to other people. For me, gods don't make sense. Apparently they do to many other people. I just want to know why.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 01:52 PM

Atheism acts LIKE a religion if people organize, hold regular meetings, creat websites and publish documents promoting it in order to 'sell' the idea.... that is, anti-theistic proselytizing.
This is a silly, useless activity in my opinion,,,but it is still basically protected as 'free speech'.

Just replying "I guess I'm an atheist." when asked does NOT make it a religion, and that court may have had a point if a group was trying to form an organization in prison specifically to tout their DISbelief....not a good point, but if someone acts like many religious groups do, lines get fuzzy.

Most atheists do not 'join' anything, and the word is just shorthand for "I don't accept all the stuff churches tell me."

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 01:36 PM

No, faith means you have confidence in something. ;-) For instance, I have faith that my car will get me safely to town, because it has already done so on hundreds of previous occasions. No one can guarantee that it will do so next time, but I have faith that it will.

*****

No one thinks that God is physical. No one thinks that one's dreams for the future are physical either. No evidence can be provided for something that is not physical. But one's dreams for the future can serve as a very real motivator that can have real and tangible effects on the progress of one's life. Shall we, therefore, object to people having dreams for the future merely on the basis that no evidence can be provided to prove that those dreams exist?

If a human being's concept of "God" proves useful or comforting to him in some way, what business does anyone else have disparaging it on the basis that there is "no evidence" to support it? Why should there be any evidence for something which is, by definition, NOT physical?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Wesley S
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 01:36 PM

"But isn't it time to stop being polite to peole who insist on damaging their children's education? "

Mrrzy - More details please.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: olddude
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 01:32 PM

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802
---------------------------------------------------------------

Unless one follows a leader instead of the God they worship, why would anyone need to explain their personal belief system that is quite private to anyone else ? That I don't get ... Likewise I don't expect an atheist to explain their reasoning to me either.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 01:26 PM

JohnP
Faith means you believe without having evidence. So to ask a person of faith for evidence is apart from being pointless is ummm impolite and inconsiderate no matter how gently it is worded.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 12:59 PM

Sorry, the last sentence should be: What evidence can you offer for these ideas?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 12:42 PM

mousethief: See, this is an in to a conversation about what it is reasonable to believe, and what counts as "evidence" for any given proposition. I would love to have a real discussion with any atheist about what is required for a working epistemology that can take into account the ways people actually work vis-a-vis believing, knowing, etc. It's almost impossible to do that online, and without a little background reading. So I'll be polite here: thinking that you have "evidence" for everything you believe, and that they don't have "evidence" for believing in God, is a weeny teeny bit naïve.

I have some questions:
What do I believe that I don't have evidence for?
How is it polite to call me naive and tell me I can't understand the subject matter?

What evidence can you offer that:
God talks.
God listens.
God has a personality, in that it takes notice of individual humans.
Jesus died for your sins.
Jesus died and came back to life.
God is everywhere.
God is in heaven.
God is, in some way, three beings in one. Did that arrangement pertain before the birth of Christ?
The Bible is divinely inspired.
Anyone knows what happens to us after we die.
Hell exists.
Heaven exists.

You'll notice that I'm not talking about what place religion or belief has in peoples' lives, or whether or not it inspires them to good deeds. I'm also not talking about spiritual experience, which is a well-documented phenomenon and is available to anyone. "Christianity" is defined primarily by a belief in the resurrection of Christ, by the concept that he died for your sins, and by the notion that he is part of a Trinity. Why do you believe that?

John

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stu
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 12:42 PM

" He excused this on account of karmic justice - that she somehow deserved it!"

This attitude of 'blame the victim' is one of the fundamental misunderstandings of the way karma works. In fact, it's possible for a buddhist to ignore the law of karma completely and concentrate on developing compassion which will in the end address the whole issue of karmic debut; you don't have to believe in karma or reincarnation to be a buddhist.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 12:29 PM

But isn't it time to stop being polite to peole who insist on damaging their children's education?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 12:27 PM

No dogma and no concept of blasphemy. In fact it encourages introspection and questioning.

I wouldn't be so sure, CS. I've known a few Buddhists in my time hung up on such bollox concepts as Karma and reincarnation. One was a bus driver who went sailing passed an old woman who was running for the bus stop struggling with her shopping. He excused this on account of karmic justice - that she somehow deserved it! Buddhism is the same old bullshit in a different box basically; it aspires to enlightenment, elitism and fabricates a spiritual hierachy the same way Christianity believes such hierachies were ordained by God or Hindus believe in the Caste System. Buddhism is no different really - it has its monks, disciples, and more funny hats and hoo-hah that you could shake a prayer wheel at. I may dig Tibetan Buddhist music, art & culture (a very fine display in the Liverpool Museum - we'll be popping in tomorrow!) but again on human terms. Amazing how all this Zen & Taoist stuff becomes New Age vacuity when adopted by the west - reduced to so much Cosmic Debris, though the basic writings of the Koans, the I Ching, Tao Te Ching et al would imply something very different, rather like the way the teachings of Christ bear no relationship to Roman Catholic theology I suppose. Anyway, introspection is all very well, but it's no substitute for a night in with the TV, or a game of footy with your mates, or a wander around The Trafford Centre, or a few pints and good old blow down your local singaround.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 12:26 PM

Whole article from Dan's link posted here for convenience

LAW OF THE LAND
Court rules atheism a religion
Decides 1st Amendment protects prison inmate's right to start study group
Posted: August 20, 2005
1:00 am Eastern

© 2010 WorldNetDaily.com


A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate's rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion.
"Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being," the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said.


The court decided the inmate's First Amendment rights were violated because the prison refused to allow him to create a study group for atheists.

Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, called the court's ruling "a sort of Alice in Wonderland jurisprudence."

"Up is down, and atheism, the antithesis of religion, is religion," said Fahling.

The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described "secular humanism" as a religion.

Fahling said today's ruling was "further evidence of the incoherence of Establishment Clause jurisprudence."

"It is difficult not to be somewhat jaundiced about our courts when they take clauses especially designed to protect religion from the state and turn them on their head by giving protective cover to a belief system, that, by every known definition other than the courts' is not a religion, while simultaneously declaring public expressions of true religious faith to be prohibited," Fahling said.

What I get from this is that it was a ludicrous thing for the court to do and it in no way legitimises the argument that atheism is a religion. Sorry Dan. I loves ya man, but I can't agree with you on this.