BS: The God Delusion 2010

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 04:33 PM

"I am sorry, but we do not have consensus on this point. I believe the benefit I derive from believing to be a very rational reason for belief"

You say this and in the same post accuse someone else of circular argument. Very droll. Presumably you started to have your belief before the benefits set in (otherwise you couldn't exactly claim that the benefits derive from the beliefs). So, presumably, your beliefs, pre-benefits, were irrational in the first instance, only becoming rational once the benefits kicked in. I mean, how lucky was that. Did you predict the potential benefits before adopting your belief, and is that why you adopted them? I do love a gambling man. Your knickers appear to be somewhat in a twist on this one, Jack old bean.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 04:37 PM

You see? I told you he was insane.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 04:39 PM

"I told you he wasn't reading other people's posts."

Not only do I read them but I frequently take the time to quote them and answer them point by point. I don't always feel the need to do that with yours, Jack, old fruit, 'tis true, but then why would I. But the rest of what I say is self-evident. Scroll up and see for yourself if you can be arsed.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 04:43 PM

Answer the accusation of circular argument, Jack, instead of just name-calling, something I don't have to resort to. You're not looking good.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 04:44 PM

Now, Jack, chill out. Steve is not insane by any measure of the word. It does raise an interesting question but, ya know, Steve, a belief can have benefits not realized until the belief is taken on; you have to do some things on the odds and trust they will turn out all right. Trusting bankers is an example...

A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 04:48 PM

I am sorry, but we do not have consensus on this point. I believe the benefit I derive from believing to be a very rational reason for belief.

We do too have consensus. Benefits derived after the fact of belief are *in no way* evidence in favor of that belief.

There are no rational reasons for faith or (a)you wouldn't need faith to believe, nor (b)would there be any atheists.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 05:04 PM

Mrrz, dear, you are not quite making sense.

Someone tells you that you will feel better if you believe X. You agree to try that. You feel better as a result. You credit that belief with those benefits.

Makes perfect sense, no?

It does not mean "X" is true. mind you. I have no doubt that belief in the Great Father Sky brings about a comfortable sense of relative certainty in the world in place of great gnawing uncertainty. Or at leastr feels as though it does. Doesn't mean GFS is real or true. Same for Jahweh or Baal.


A



A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 05:16 PM

>>You say this and in the same post accuse someone else of circular argument. Very droll. Presumably you started to have your belief before the benefits set in (otherwise you couldn't exactly claim that the benefits derive from the beliefs). So, presumably, your beliefs, pre-benefits, were irrational in the first instance, only becoming rational once the benefits kicked in. I mean, how lucky was that. Did you predict the potential benefits before adopting your belief, and is that why you adopted them? I do love a gambling man. Your knickers appear to be somewhat in a twist on this one, Jack old bean.<<

Amos how is this sane? I make a perfectly valid point that you understood and he generates all of this presumed facts not in evidence bull shit, not to refute it, but to try to stir me up. His behavior is classic insane definition #3 3.irresponsible; very foolish; stupid.

Really, I ask you. Who's knickers are twisted? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 05:18 PM

For the record, Steve seems perfectly sane and affable to me. As I've said before, I think I agree with what he says about atheism, etc., and I like his sense of humour - it's much needed around here.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 05:20 PM

Mrrzy are we using the same definition of rational?

proceeding or derived from reason or based on reasoning


Believing does me good. Therefor I believe. What could be more rational?

I know a guy who didn't believe, wasn't happy, saw no point in living on this Earth if it would only lead to death in the end. He killed himself. This is a true story. Who is more rational? Me? Or him?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 05:23 PM

>>>From: Smokey. - PM
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 05:18 PM

For the record, Steve seems perfectly sane and affable to me. As I've said before, I think I agree with what he says about atheism, etc., and I like his sense of humour - it's much needed around here. <<<

Maybe rather than mocking people you and he should go and start a joke thread?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 05:41 PM

I'm not specifically here to mock, I'm here because I'm interested in the subject. However, I maintain that mockery is far preferable to bitter slanging and unfounded personal insults.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 06:03 PM

Cheers, Smokey. I'll put a pint of Doom Bar in your fist any time. I daren't speak to "scary Jack" any more. Could you please tell him for me that I'm like that Jeremy Kyle bloke - I don't wear knickers. But going Commando don't mean I'm brave like a Commando...

Tee h....(no, stoppit, Stevie boy...)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 06:05 PM

No, Please, go have fun!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 06:10 PM

back again briefly and scanned through mostly bickering.
john had asked what evidences there are for God and the reply i offered was ignored by him and rubbished by others.having evidence to believe may not be accepted ,but to just dismiss it and deny it only confirms that there is an unwillingness to discuss anything as far as some posters are concerned ,rather they just sound off.
BTW i hear that some christians were actually glad of the opportunities presented by the atheist bus ads.here in the UK we tend to be less forward than seems to be the case in the USA.The adverts provided a talking point for christians to share their faith/convictions-but most of us will accept a refusal[preferably polite!]and not buldoze our faith on people.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 06:16 PM

It's truly heartwarming to see all this Christian tolerance and understanding at work.

It looks like remarkably hard work, this 'faith' lark.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 06:21 PM

No, really, Pete, let's have the evidence, chapter and verse. I promise to give it all the consideration it deserves (you may care to look up "evidence" in a good dictionary first, however).

"but most of us will accept a refusal[preferably polite!]and not buldoze our faith on people."

The big religions make a big thing of bulldozing the faith on children. If they didn't actually do this there would *be* no big religions at all. Yeah, I took an opportunist quantum leap there, but I couldn't resist pointing out that religion is not always very nice, keep-it-to-myself stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 07:49 PM

Don't worry Pete, Shaw does not use the dictionary himself ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 08:03 PM

See other thread, chaps. Jacko is skating on very thin ice considering all the spelling and grammatical blunders he's made throughout these threads.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 08:43 PM

See the other thread your self.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 08:56 PM

"insane"--that's a bit harsh.

It's certainly possible, as I hinted, that counseling might be in order, of course.

Gee, Steve, you were going to tell us exactly why you are such a control freak--threatened by anybody else's view's on religion that differ from yours. Interestingly enough, not just a Christian's views but also those of an agnostic. It would indeed be interesting to know how your family and friends deal with this.

Live and let live, as I noted earlier, seems to be a totally foreign concept to you.    Thus, as I also observed, your attitude bears an uncanny resemblance to that of a religious fundamentalist. And just as charming.   A particularly intriguing element in your case is that you don't seem in the least to realize this.

Of course, I note your own word to describe yourself --and I have admit I was surprised to see this--was "pervert".   Of course since you have waxed lyrical on philosophical questions, I'm sure you have taken to heart the philosopher's injunction to "Know thyself".

And you were also going to tell us exactly the origin of your persecution complex. Perhaps you could tell us which has traumatized you more deeply--the existence of religious broadcasts or the "iconography" of religion.   Inquiring minds want to know. You do seem deeply scarred and it's a real shame.

Or maybe you'd just like to lie down on the couch. Or possibly listen to the Brahms Requiem. It certainly does seem you need some peace in your life.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 08:59 PM

"...anybody else's views..."

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 10:03 PM

Mrrzy are we using the same definition of rational? Proceeding or derived from reason or based on reasoning? Yes.

Believing does me good. Therefor I believe. What could be more rational?
What would be more rational would be having a rational reason to believe in the first place. What you have is a justification, after the fact, for your *comfort* - not for your belief.

Faith is the belief in the absence of rational reasons to believe.

Having no rational reason to believe, many don't.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 10:12 PM

No Mrrzy,

>>What would be more rational would be having a rational reason to believe in the first place. What you have is a justification, after the fact, for your *comfort* - not for your belief.<<

That is not the case. I was an Atheist before I chose to believe and the reason was self preservation. The choice was certainly before the fact.

Please don't assume anything about what my *comfort* is. You obviously have no idea.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 10:14 PM

"...I have to admit..."

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 11:08 PM

Jack's assertion is that there are benefits to having belief that make belief rational. That's a good point. My only problem with it is that it isn't the point we've been talking about for days. The fact that it is rational for Jack to have belief because non-belief is worse in his life does not mean that the tenets of the belief itself are rational on their own merits. In other words, the fact that belief in God improved Jack's life doesn't prove that God exists.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 11:16 PM

the fact that belief in God improved Jack's life doesn't prove that God exists.

It could be seen as the placebo effect - which, as any doctor will confirm, is very real and not to be underestimated.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 11:25 PM

john had asked what evidences there are for God and the reply i offered was ignored by him and rubbished by others

Pete, I didn't answer because so many other already had. They weren't rubbishing you -- they were responding to what you said. They were disagreeing with you, a very different thing than rubbishing. I'm afraid the truth is that your arguments can't hold any water. They are self-referential, circular, and depend on faulty data. Rather than moan about being ignored or trashed, perhaps you could reply to the rebuttals with more convincing facts and logic.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 11:33 AM

Sorry, by your "comfort" I meant only the benefit you had already described, which I understood to mean that belief in your deity comforted you. I use asterisks instead of html out of laziness. Didn't mean to upset you or assume anything about you, I was just going on what you said.

You say yourself that you "chose" to believe, out of self-preservation.
Again, if you had had a rational reason for the *belief* you wouldn't have had to choose; you could have come to a logical conclusion.

What you are describing is a rational reason for *making the choice* and *not* for the belief.

You rationally decided to believe in something for which there is no rational basis for belief. That makes your choice rational, I agree.

It does not make your belief rational, however.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 12:46 PM

For the life of me, I can't see how it's possible to just choose to believe in something without the introduction of some kind of evidence. People appear to, I know, but I can't fathom the mind which can do that and be anything like 100% convinced of their new 'belief'. It must take quite a degree of mental strength to overcome such a fundamental hurdle. I couldn't do it, however great the potential resulting 'comfort' may seem to be. Each to his own, I suppose.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 02:11 PM

the fact is -despite denials on this thread there are highly qualified people that believe in creation and they are not leaving their brains at the church door.occationally dawkins etc have debated them-so saying there are no creation scientists is just burying your head in the sand.you may disagree with them but denial of them is not an option if you want me to take you seriously.
not time enough to say more till next week,and maybe try offering some more specific items-just in case anyones interested!.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 02:21 PM

Smokey, I'm with you, but that is what it means to have faith. I don't have it, and some people do. I don't get it either.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 03:54 PM

Pete, I think we're all aware that there are scientists who are creationists, but how credible are they, and how seriously are they taken by mainstream scientists? There are even, as we have seen, scientists who believe in reincarnation and the beneficial effects of yogic flying, but that doesn't mean they are credible or that their theories are widely enough accepted to be considered remotely sensible. Not by me, anyway..

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 04:40 PM

that is what it means to have faith

I call it hope. They call it faith. To have 100% unquestioning faith would be, at best, delusional, and at worst, madness.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 04:59 PM

Right, smokey, bang on!

But what is the distinction, since you put the nit out there to pick, between delusion and madness? Merely one of degree? Or a qualitative one?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 05:09 PM

Probably politeness :-)

Seriously though, I suppose madness would be the dangerous version, particularly when combined with intelligence - Hitler being the obvious example. Perhaps we need someone with a dictionary..

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 05:14 PM

The creationist scientists are probably good in a particular area of their expertise.
But combining creationism with science is a fool's project. Creationism is based on the bible and has no scientific validity whatever. There may be some scientists who are qualified in a particular field but not overall in terms of what real science is about.
It has nothing to do with any god or bible. Any "scientist" that tells you that it does is a fraud.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 05:25 PM

Religion as a comfort is the same as drug taking to relieve discomfort. It is a kind of mental drug that alleviates disturbances in a life. I'm not unsympathetic to this, however, if a person is really distraught and needs religion then it becomes a kind of medication for them. When people reach a certain age and death is imminent then they turn to religion for solace. I can understand this as death is something that is fearful and mysterious for many.

However, that's what religion is and that's what it does.

It has to be said, however, that life's discomforts do not need religion to salve them.

Seeing death as a part of life is an important aspect. The concept of life after death doesn't need to be there for comfort.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 05:58 PM

Apparently, according to a gaggle of hospice nurses I used to drink with, dying is generally far more comfortable if you don't believe all the religious stuff. I won't tell exactly what I was told, but that was the gist of it.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 06:18 PM

"highly qualified people that believe in creation"

Fine. Now all you have to do is name names and list their qualifications. Ha bloody ha.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 07:35 PM

I have no problem with anyone wanting to believe in creationism. I will not, however, tolerate it being taught in the classroom "alongside evolution" unless the school that does this is privately funded. In a public school where my tax dollars go, whether I want them to or not, I am not funding creationism. You may not want to fund evolution but evolution is science and it has evidence behind it so it should be taught in a science class. Creationism is religion and does not belong in a science class. In short, evolution is fact, creationism is belief. So all of society should fund science in the classroom and that must include evolution. If parents wish to further fund creationsism, then they should found a school specifically for that purpose and fund it themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 07:53 PM

"It's certainly possible, as I hinted, that counseling might be in order, of course.

Gee, Steve, you were going to tell us exactly why you are such a control freak--threatened by anybody else's view's on religion that differ from yours. Interestingly enough, not just a Christian's views but also those of an agnostic. It would indeed be interesting to know how your family and friends deal with this.

Live and let live, as I noted earlier, seems to be a totally foreign concept to you.    Thus, as I also observed, your attitude bears an uncanny resemblance to that of a religious fundamentalist. And just as charming.   A particularly intriguing element in your case is that you don't seem in the least to realize this.

Of course, I note your own word to describe yourself --and I have admit I was surprised to see this--was "pervert".   Of course since you have waxed lyrical on philosophical questions, I'm sure you have taken to heart the philosopher's injunction to "Know thyself".

And you were also going to tell us exactly the origin of your persecution complex. Perhaps you could tell us which has traumatized you more deeply--the existence of religious broadcasts or the "iconography" of religion.   Inquiring minds want to know. You do seem deeply scarred and it's a real shame.

Or maybe you'd just like to lie down on the couch. Or possibly listen to the Brahms Requiem. It certainly does seem you need some peace in your life."

I tend to quote whole posts only when I want to break 'em down point by point for response, but in this case I think I want to leave Ron's horrid and intemperate attack to stand in its entirety as testament to his bile. His characterisation of me would be completely unrecognisable to everyone who knows me in person, though y'all will have to take my word for that. Suffice to say that this disgusting and splenetic tirade says absolutely nothing about me but it does speak volumes about poor Ron. I hope it will be allowed to remain in place in the thread as an outstanding example to everyone of how not to behave in debate if you care anything at all for the outcome you desire.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 08:05 PM

////His characterisation of me would be completely unrecognisable to everyone who knows me in person, though y'all will have to take my word for that.////

You're finally right about something.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 08:28 PM

You have yet to convince me that you can ever be right about anything, joeyboy, but I suppose I always have to keep at the back of my mind that you profess to be an atheist, so that's progress of a kind I suppose.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: John P
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 09:58 AM

Suffice to say that this disgusting and splenetic tirade says absolutely nothing about me but it does speak volumes about poor Ron.

Worse still, it doesn't have anything to do with the discussion we're having.

Ron: I'm tired of asking people to stop talking about each other and keep to the discussion at hand. You're being a jerk. If you think ad hominem attacks are showing anyone that you are intelligent, witty, or are making your case, you are deeply wrong. At this point, jerk is too mild a term. Asshole fits it better. Get on board or get the fuck out of our discussion.

Steve et al: How about if we just totally ignore personal attacks? If no one feeds the trolls they might go away eventually. I know it's almost impossible to avoid defending yourself when someone attacks or misrepresents you. I fail to avoid that on a regular basis myself, but it only encourages them.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 12:36 PM

I'm so damn weak though, John. Point taken though. You'd have thought by now that the likes of Ed, jojo, Jacko and Ron would have exhausted the store of trollish contumely. Wishful thinking on my part again, I s'pose.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 07:42 PM

Steve et al: How about if we just totally ignore personal attacks? If no one feeds the trolls they might go away eventually. I know it's almost impossible to avoid defending yourself when someone attacks or misrepresents you. I fail to avoid that on a regular basis myself, but it only encourages them.

Agreed, John. Trouble is, I have little willpower and some of these people are master-baiters.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 08:08 PM

I'm butting out of this and that true atheists thread. Let the eejits fester on their own. I hope that bona fide Christians will look at the bile being spewed out on these two threads and take it up with their gobshite compatriots. What a bloody disgrace.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 11:25 AM

"...horrid and intemperate attack..."

Temper, temper, little man.

Gee, Steve, I'm hurt.   After all, I defended you, pointing out that "insane" is putting it a bit too strongly.

So sorry you don't like your own words quoted to you.   Just imagine, all you would have to do is think before hitting "send" and you would have far fewer problems to deal with.   "Pervert" was, after all, your own name for yourself. I don't have to make up my material; I just read what others have written.    And am rarely disappointed.

Interesting, you were telling us how much you enjoyed this sort of thread.   Now, all of a sudden, the bloom is off the rose. Wonder how that happened.

Earlier, I pointed out that some Mudcat atheists don't seem to believe in live and let live.   While Mudcat Christians don't try to convert unbelievers, some Mudcat atheists think it great sport to ridicule religion and the religious.

In response, Mr. Shaw gave us the following litany:   "peppering the world with churches, synagogues, mosques, and what have you, along with all the profligate iconongraphy that goes with with 'em. We don't force-feed our captive children with very dodgy one-sided doctrine in "faith schools" (not much live and let live about that!).   We don't clutter the airways with our equivalent of Songs of Praise or stuff the House of Lords with the atheistic equivalents of archbishops"    I'd call all that lot pretty aggressive behavior in the promotion of something that's entirely without evidence. Wouldn't you?"

I'm so sorry I neglected to give a direct answer.

Here it is, belatedly:   no.



We are somehow to understand that the above outrages, which well-adjusted people have managed to live with for quite a while, give atheists carte-blanche to ridicule and attack religion and the religious on Mudcat.   Since we know this list couldn't possibly be just a generic whine (and a fine whine it is).

So let's examine the list.

Peppering the world:   as far as I know you have not been forced to enter any of the above buildings. As I recall you have already contradicted yourself by claiming some cathedrals as part of your cultural heritage.   So you seem to be a bit confused on this point.

Iconography and religious broadcasts:   still waiting for an answer on which of these two has traumatized you more.

Force-feed our captive children:   those captive children have in the main turned out rather well.   Can it be that they are stronger than your patronizing attitude would indicate?

And the House of Lords: :your rambling about that toothless institution is, I'd have to say, a bit baffling.   Perhaps you can enlighten us as to the dire threat posed by the Lords.   Since I'm sure it's not just your imagination. Heaven forbid.





To be continued--but that's a start.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 11:40 AM

Now, earlier, I noted that atheism has been the worst thing ever for humanity, since more people have been killed under atheist regimes than any other kind in the history of the world.

I asked quite civilly, and more than once, for the name of an atheist regime which can be seen as successful and which treated its own people well.

A deafening silence was heard.



The argument was put forward that somehow Hitler, Stalin and Mao did not head atheist regimes.   Stalin and Mao committed their atrocities in the name of a Communist ideology which was explicitly atheistic. This ideology posited a religion-free utopia.

As for Hitler:   "by their fruits ye shall know them".   Anybody who does not realize that Hitler exploited everything and everybody to his own ends needs to read a bit more.    So Hitler was raised Catholic? Stalin was raised Orthodox Christian and Mao as a Buddhist.

Na und?

Anybody who still believes that Hitler's regime was Christian is invited particularly to research the term "Gleichschaltung".   Then come back and the class will discuss.