[Closed] Bloody Athiests!

gmandavison - Member

Maybe this will get lost amongst all this but anyways.

Another example of what I'm talking about here is Sam harris, he continually uses the most extreme examples of some of the rituals practiced by the Abrahamic faiths such as Abrahams willingness to kill his son to please god to today where it is still practiced to mutilate female genitalia in order that they don't have pleasure from sex and honour killings to extreme voodoo rituals. Again under the banner of "religious people".

I do understand what you mean, but to me, any belief in a god is just as irrational and illogical as a belief in creationism.
😀

Anyway, time for bed, have a good night all. 🙂

And may your god, if you have one, go with you.
[img] [/img]

Again under the banner of "religious people"

A couple of key points...

Killing [Other humans]is not really proven to be "part of human nature'. We could start the whole nature Vs. nurture debate run here for the rest of time and still not reach a universally accepted or provable conclusion.

Many people confuse lack of belief in a deity with lack of a belief system - atheists have a belief system that does not include a deity.

Atheists lack of beliefs in a deity does not make the religious beliefs of others "fairy tales", it just means they are different - that is it. Your conviction in one belief does not mean the converse of your belief is improbable or impossible, let alone a fantasy...

The argument that selection of elements from a religious belief = inconsistency or failure of conviction is frankly laughable. If someone suggested that holding an atheist belief was made ridiculous by failure to believe an in a particular aspect of rational philosophy, scientific theory, school or methodology, it would rightly be ridiculed.

Neither atheism or religious belief are supported by science. No-one has proven conclusively that god(s) exist or don't exist. The argument that evidence of evolution disproves the existence of god is basically cretinous - this comes up again and again and is bloody annoying.

Religions do not cause wars any more than atheistic beliefs cause wars! Misunderstandings, greed, lust for power and esource shortfalls cause wars at least as often if not more often than religion. Religion however is a convenient excuse and scapegoat...

Why can't we live and let live for Christ or Dawkins sake...?

For the record I have a religious belief that I do not find in conflict with science or the beliefs of others religious or not...

Many people confuse lack of belief in a deity with lack of a belief system - atheists have a belief system that does not include a deity.

Many people who see no evidence for a god may have a belief system, but that may or may not have anything to do with their atheism which is simply a rejection of the existence of god[s]. Atheism requires no faith.

Atheists lack of beliefs in a deity does not make the religious beliefs of others "fairy tales", it just means they are different - that is it

No that is not the case at all. Atheism is a lack of belief. It's a bit like the habit of not smoking, or the hobby of not collecting stamps. "Fairly tales" - another term for folk myths, most religions would cast the beliefs of other religions into that category. You can't all be right.

Neither atheism or religious belief are supported by science.

You cannot possibly prove that something does not exist with science.

In fact atheists make no claims really - atheism is the rejection of the claims of others based on the lack of evidence. The onus is on those that claim the existence of an object or phenomena to provide evidence to back it up, not on those that cast doubt on it.

Why can't we live and let live for Christ or Dawkins sake...?

Absolutely fine with me.

Just as soon as religious organizations stop interfering in the lives of people outside their faith group, encouraging barbaric practices, indoctrinating children, using the shield of cherry picked religious writings to justify their bigotry, stirring up hatred of others and generally accept that they have no moral or legal authority over [b]anyone[/b] other than a consenting adult who has been free to make their own choices to join a particular faith group. Then I'll have no problems with religions or the religious who prop them up.

I'm not attacking you personally. You have a complete right to believe what you want. If your right to practice your particular faith were threatened by legislation or society, I'd be there protesting with you.

Want to preach in the streets, go door to door handing out pamphlets? Be my guest.

Try to get your religious views taught as science, get legislation passed giving your beliefs special status, use your 'faith' to deny human rights to others? We're going to have a bad time.

Firstly,I dont think you are attacking me - not at all!

Despite your 'challenges' against specific quotes above I am not convinced you are refuting what I am saying. In fact I think we agree far more than we disagree (which has to be positive!). I do think though that you make the mistake of confusing faith in a deity with membership of a religion - they are not the same! I don't belong to a religion, and do not foist my beliefs on others or indoctrinate children (Including my own!). I also don't regard my beliefs as science and please note I am careful not to state the nature of my faith here nor anywhere else - my faith is a truly personal thing and no, I am not a Satanist or Wiccan

Firstly,I dont think you are attacking me - not at all!

Despite your 'challenges' against specific quotes above I am not convinced you are refuting what I am saying. In fact I think we agree far more than we disagree (which has to be positive!). I do think though that you make the mistake of confusing faith in a deity with membership of a religion - they are not the same! I don't belong to a religion, and do not foist my beliefs on others or indoctrinate children (Including my own!). I also don't regard my beliefs as science and please note I am careful not to state the nature of my faith here nor anywhere else - my faith is a truly personal thing and no, I am not a Satanist or Wiccan

For some reason wouldn't let me post my whole response!

The problem is that whilst true atheism may not make claims, many who claim to be atheist do just that - people are often suggesting here that because of x or y scientific 'fact' there cannot be a deity.! It is also with mentioning that the use of the phrase "fairy tales" to describe a religious belief has happened on this forum several times. Faith, belief and religion do not need to seek proof - why look for a scientific explanation to a non-scientific proposition. Therefore there is no onus to prove at all.

Sorry if I have rambled in either of my posts and introduced lots of typos and grammatical errors - I have been up all night (Waiting for the Second Coming - joke...!

and am just a little tired.

We definately agree on live and let live! Have a good day chap!

Faith, belief and religion do not need to seek proof - why look for a scientific explanation to a non-scientific proposition.

It is also with mentioning that the use of the phrase "fairy tales" to describe a religious belief has happened on this forum several times.

The problem is that whilst true atheism may not make claims, many who claim to be atheist do just that - people are often suggesting here that because of x or y scientific 'fact' there cannot be a deity.! It is also with mentioning that the use of the phrase "fairy tales" to describe a religious belief has happened on this forum several times. Faith, belief and religion do not need to seek proof - why look for a scientific explanation to a non-scientific proposition. Therefore there is no onus to prove at all.

The problem I have with this statement is that often, religious folk use their faith to dismiss scientific proposition (e.g. evolution) so it seems that that their faith then allows them to deny observation so that their belief can be maintained.

I think the flip side of this argument should be, if there is a deity, why not go out and prove their existence to settle the arguments?

Junkyard - Member
...I am not saying a suicide bomber is indicative of the Islamic faith , it teachings or its beliefs but it is impossible to argue they are not religious people and doing what they do due to religion.

'Morning JY.
Sorry, but these are two separate arguments. Whilst I agree that at the present time the majority are religious people (and the statistics now show this), that does not prove the second argument about motive.
There is a fair bit of decent research continuing into the subject of suicide bombing, so I'll quote one of the leading experts, Robert Pape, professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago and founder of the Chicago Project on Security and Terrorism (CPOST).
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Pape )

The conventional wisdom is that suicide terrorism is motivated by religious fanaticism - religious hatred combined with the promise of a martyr's paradise in the hereafter. What does your own research suggest? The conventional wisdom is mostly wrong. Suicide terrorism is not mainly the product of Islamic fundamentalism or any other evil ideology independent of circumstance. I have studied 462 suicide terrorists; over half are secular. The world leader in suicide terrorism is the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka - they're a Marxist group, a secular group, a Hindu group. The Tamil Tigers have committed more suicide terrorist attacks than Hamas or Islamic Jihad. Instead, what more than 95 percent of all suicide terrorist attacks since 1980 have in common is not religion, but a specific secular goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory the terrorists view as their homeland. From Lebanon to Chechnya to Kashmir to Sri Lanka to the West Bank, every suicide terrorist campaign since 1980 has had as its main objective to compel a democratic state to withdraw combat forces from territory that the terrorists prize.

The quote's from the publication of his 2005 book on the subject so the figures are out of date. The numbers have increased massively in the last 7 years ( I think there's 2100+ cases studied in his 2010 book). However, the motive described remains as foreign military occupancy.

However, the motive described remains as foreign military occupancy.

loum, interesting. Does he mention kamikaze pilots in WW2? Divine wind? Any other religious links? Was that tactic used from the start or only used when they were defending their homeland?

JamJ some good points but again you seem to be suggesting that atheists need to prove a negative (none-existence of god)

Re ridicule of the religious, while I dislike woppit's personal attacks on a persons faith, religious have got to expect some come back, after all, while they might not take the piss they do promise us an eternity of hell and damnation for not joining their gang.

I struggle with long sentences, and it mostly is S, but

Their beliefs are not protected form ridicule

By law - no. By respect for the a person's right to hold beliefs, and common decency and compassion - somewhat.

I don't believe in the Hindu pantheon, but I don't go around jeering at all the people I know who do. It's just not nice. And let's face it, niceness is important.

25% of Britons believe in creationism.
50% of Americans too.

Really.
Have a think about that.

Yeah.. have a long proper think about it.

Why is it so important to you that a print machine operator in the Mid West knows exactly how scientists believe the universe came into being?

but it is impossible to argue they are not religious people and doing what they do due to religion.

Suicide bombers are usually freedom fighters, aren't they? Trying to get the Americans/British/Israelis out of their country..? That's not a religious motive. The only religious bit is that they presumably find it more palatable to use themselves as weapons, rather than parked up trucks.

athgray - Member

I see where you are coming from Rustyspanner, however I think ridiculing a Creationist would be futile and a complete waste of time.
I remember a thread recently about good sayings in life where someone said
"Never get into an argument with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you on experience."

Very close to the truth. It's like trying to explain how meteorology works, to someone who thinks that the wind is caused by trees waving their branches about because they've got an old book that says so...

Scuzz. Pretty sure "homeland" is treated as where they live. Not sure about "Prized territory" which is a little more complicated but I think he does look at trans-national suicide bombing in his 2010 book.

DONK, Yes, he does discuss kamikazes and other religious suicide bombers from history, although the focus is on the modern suicide bombings since Beirut in 1983.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying_to_Win:_The_Strategic_Logic_of_Suicide_Terrorism

Three historical episodes are introduced for purposes of comparison: the ancient Jewish Zealots (11-12; see also 33-34), the 11th-12th-century Ismaili Assassins (12-13; see also 34-35), and the Japanese kamikazes (13; see also 35-37).

If someone suggested that holding an atheist belief was made ridiculous by failure to believe an in a particular aspect of rational philosophy, scientific theory, school or methodology, it would rightly be ridiculed.

There are no "atheist beliefs." It's an absence of belief.

Nonetheless, assuming your statement to be true, the atheists wouldn't be demanding special privileges protecting them for that ridicule.

Many would welcome it in fact; this is how science works, by others constantly challenging previously established theories. When something new is discovered, those theories are revised; sometimes a theory is reinforced, sometimes it's rejected.

The argument that evidence of evolution disproves the existence of god is basically cretinous - this comes up again and again and is bloody annoying.

Agreed. It's a logical fallacy to believe that you can disprove such an ephemeral concept as 'god'. I don't know where this crops up 'time and again' but I'm reasonably sure it's not on STW. Anyone making such a daft claim would be pulled apart fairly swiftly.

Religions do not cause wars any more than atheistic beliefs cause wars! Misunderstandings, greed, lust for power and esource shortfalls cause wars at least as often if not more often than religion. Religion however is a convenient excuse and scapegoat...

Think about this for a minute. You're arguing positively for religion because despite causing a load of wars and bloodshed, other things have too, so that makes it ok?

We should add this to our logical fallacy bingo card. It's called "tu quoque."

people are often suggesting here that because of x or y scientific 'fact' there cannot be a deity.!

Citation needed. I don't think anyone's suggested that on STW ever. (I don't think anyone here is actually that stupid.)

No, the arguments on STW against the existence of God seem to go along the lines of "It's obvious, innit. Look how ridiculous it is! Dinosaurs big bang evolution Dawkins Southern Baptists blahblah"

molgrips,

Not too sure about your freedom fighters observation.

Religion energises human hostility like nothing else! Some of these conflicts may not be incipiently religious but they cohere the participants to carry out all sorts of human atrocities.

Palestine - Jews vs. Muslims
Balkans - Orthodox Serbians vs. Catholic Croatians, add in Bosnian / Albanian Muslims into the mix.
Northern Ireland - Protestants vs. Catholics
Kashmir - Muslims vs. Hindus
Sudan - Muslims vs. Christians
Nigeria - Muslims vs. Christians
Ethiopia & Eritrea - Muslims vs. Christians
Iran vs. Iraq - Shiite vs. Sunni Muslims

to name just a few in recent history.

Personally I take the view that the existence of god is non falsifiable that it is not worth debating, especially as those who do believe are generally closed minded on the issue.

The Hitchens quote

"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence"

sums it up pretty well for me.

D0NK - Member
loum, interesting. Does he mention kamikaze pilots in WW2? Divine wind? Any other religious links? Was that tactic used from the start or only used when they were defending their homeland?

Yes, kamikaze is commonly translated as "divine wind", or literally as "God Wind". Kamikaze originated as the name of major typhoons in 1274 and 1281, which dispersed Mongolian invasion fleets headed for Japan under Kublai Khan.
It's interesting that at the time of their formation ('44), they were known as "tokubetsu k?geki tai" which translates as "special attack units".
The squads started to be formed from October 1944, after the Japanese Navy had been defeated at the Battle of the Philippine Sea, Saipan had been captured-allowing B29s to carry out long range bombing over mainland Japan, and the US Navy Pacific fleets were closing in on the Japanese homeland. It could be argued that Japan had lost the war already, all that was left was to sort out how it ended. They certainly weren't in a position to win.
The special attack units included submarines, speedboats, divers, and human torpedoes too. The ones that targeted the US invasion fleets from the air were the ones that picked up the divine wind tag - shinp? tokubetsu k?geki tai or kamikaze tokubetsu k?geki tai.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Great_Marianas_Turkey_Shoot&redirect=no

jamj1974 - Member

people are often suggesting here that because of x or y scientific 'fact' there cannot be a deity.!

When? Who? I can't remember ever seeing this on here.

What does happen (not neccesarily on STW but in the wider world) is that religion gives an explanation for something. (ie, literal creationism) which science then disproves. This doesn't disprove the existence of a deity, but it does prove that the religion in question has a poor grasp of the facts.

It's not unlike historical fact-checking. Just because we know Blind Harry made up a lot of his accounts, doesn't mean we know they're all false- but it does mean we doubt them.

In my mind no-one needs to justify their position regarding deity! We should all choose our position freely!! I don't have any issues with atheism I have a problem with lazy argument (Not necessarily here

Lazy argument like "people are often suggesting here that because of x or y scientific 'fact' there cannot be a deity.!", then not being able to back up the allegation when challenged?

In my mind no-one needs to justify their position regarding deity! We should all choose our position freely!! I don't have any issues with atheism I have a problem with lazy argument (Not necessarily here

Religion energises human hostility like nothing else!

Disagree. Territory, ethnicity and resources are the most common drivers imo.

Palestine - Jews vs. Muslims

- No, it's quite clearly a territorial issue

Balkans - Orthodox Serbians vs. Catholic Croatians, add in Bosnian / Albanian Muslims into the mix.

- Ethnicity

Northern Ireland - Protestants vs. Catholics

- Ethnicity and territory

Kashmir - Muslims vs. Hindus

- Territory

Sudan - Muslims vs. Christians

- Ethnic

The rest I dunno. Don't get confused by the fact that different ethnicities are often different religions. Religion is just another excuse to hate foreigners/different people.

In my mind no-one needs to justify their position regarding deity! We should all choose our position freely!! I don't have any issues with atheism I have a problem with lazy argument (Not necessarily here

Sorry my posting has gone a bit up the creek for some unknown reason...

In my mind no-one needs to justify their position regarding deity! We should all choose our position freely!! I don't have any issues with atheism I have a problem with lazy argument (Not necessarily here

Ethnically, Jews and Palestinians are almost identical. And how do ethnic differences arise anyway? Often when groups don't mix because they're of different religions.

Atheists and people of faith should have the right to hold their position without ridicule - which is not the same as without discussion, debate, or exploration. People though should feel free not to debate their position if they choose not to - which in my mind would automatically bar them from imposing a world view or stricture on others. What is more interesting and worthwhile than discussing atheism or belief is discussing moral values

having to post in 'bite sized chunks' sorry.

discussing moral values and judgements particularly in the societal context. I must mention here that dogma based on religiion is to me is a personal anathema.

Belief in a deity is not a scientific hypothesis - you only test scientific hypothesis with scientific reearch and inquiry, that is what science is for. I wouldn't use a holy book, belief or artefact to justify or challenge an assertion from a scientific perspective. It would be pointless. Use the right tool for the right job!

And how do ethnic differences arise anyway? Often when groups don't mix because they're of different religions

I would suggest that people end up with different religions BECAUSE they're of different ethnicities.

Saying 'it's religion's fault' is an oversimplification.

I am certain that atheism is not the rejection of belief - it is the absence of belief in deities. Several times people have said on this very thread that atheism is an absence of belief full stop. Pretty sure Dawkins et al are fairly vocal regarding their position that their scientific 'beliefs' are more factually correct than a religious belief. This is where I am with Molgrips! I must also say that I was not as clear as I should have been, 'atheist beliefs' is a bit of a lazy shorthand - I should really say beliefs held by atheists that do not relate to a deity - so my apologies for that. I did not say at any point that here on STW people were articulating arguments against belief with scientific fact x or y - it was a general comment coming from discussions in the pub, workplace and some portions of the media...

No views should be above ridicule. People (people, NOT views) should be protected from seriously offensive attacks like racist language, incitements to violence and the like. But view should have no special protection, no matter what those views are.

On the subject of war/conflict and religion I am saying not that war/conflict on any non-religious or religious pretext is fine - far from it. What I am stating is that people have sometimes used religion as an excuse to forment conflict when actually the cause is related to power, greed, resource poverty etc...

For me my faith related belief does not conflict with my committment to scientific knowledge and inquiry. The teaching of creationism from anything more than a metaphorical position is to me slightly crazy... I don't take any religious tome, creed or moral position as literal or for granted. My moral position may be distantly related to my family background in terms of Hinduism and Christianity but I have not accepted any moral teaching without review. My beliefs are more about doing a few negative things as you can, trying to give more than you take and realising on a daily perspective how unimportant I am compared with the mass which is the rest of humanity. In fact my beliefs are more 'humane' than anything else and I have challenged them frequently...

I feel that if you don't want to be held to ridicule, don't be ridiculous. That's not just regarding religion, but generally. If you told me you believed the moon was made of cheese, you'd get the piss taken, and rightly so.

I reject absolutely that religion (or a lack thereof) can demand some sort of special exception to this. And besides, if your 'faith' is threatened by a little bit of gentle teasing, you might want to reconsider how strong that faith actually is.

Pretty sure Dawkins et al are fairly vocal regarding their position that their scientific 'beliefs' are more factually correct than a religious belief.

That's semantics - a religious belief is a belief in something without evidence (or in spite of the evidence), a scientific belief is backed up by evidence which can be tested and challenged.

I also would not[b] argue that organised religion in practise is a force for good in this world either - hence why my beliefs are personal and informal.

Please don't think I am oversensitive about faith, it doesn't need my defence. Common decency in terms of respect for others and their positions is what I care deeply about. Where our positions differ we should not be disrespectful or try and minimise the humanity of others. By the same token religious beliefs and standards should not be forced on anyone.

Yes it is semantics - but incorrectly applied - I think not...

For me my faith related belief does not conflict with my committment to scientific knowledge and inquiry.

With respect, the only person who seems to be labouring under the belief that it does, is your good self. You seem to be attributing standpoints to others which are largely fictional, then arguing against them.

We're not silly. We all know that not all theists are young Earth creationist loonies. That doesn't mean we can't debate said loonies though, and you shouldn't really feel the need to be getting offended on their behalf.

molgrips,

You've not understood what I've written.

True there will be prior reasons for dispute - that's why I used 'may not be incipiently'. What binds people in acting violently to resolve these differences, more than anything else is religion. Religious sectarianism acts as a fuel and underpins attitudes and behaviours.

Yes it is semantics - but incorrectly applied - I think not...

Trust a religion thread to stir up anti-semantic views.

🙂

Speaking of semantics, there's also a difference in what people mean by "respect". I respect the church's view that they don't want to hold gay marriages. But what they mean is that we should respect their views by not letting [i]anyone[/i] marry gay people.

"I feel that if you don't want to be held to ridicule, don't be ridiculous. That's not just regarding religion, but generally. If you told me you believed the moon was made of cheese, you'd get the piss taken, and rightly so."

Couger hey .... Errrm ... Honest question, as I may have misinterpreted your post... are you implying religious people are ridiculous ?

But view should have no special protection, no matter what those views are.

So therefore normal social constraints apply to discussions about religion. As in, be nice and considerate to each other! This is what I've been trying to say all along.

What binds people in acting violently to resolve these differences, more than anything else is religion

Is that another way of saying this:

What I am stating is that people have sometimes used religion as an excuse to forment conflict

Cos it's hardly religion's fault if nutters use it to further their own causes, is it?

I feel that if you don't want to be held to ridicule, don't be ridiculous

That's a tautology. You may think someone's being ridiculous, that person probably doesn't. It's entirely subjective and cannot be used as a basis for attack. Many theists probably think atheism is ridiculous. Your position is not special in the context of theism because it's unprovable, and especially not in the context of organised religions because they are about so much more than simple explanations of world origin etc.

Common decency in terms of respect for others and their positions is what I care deeply about.

Amen! Er, I mean.. yes, absolutely!

So therefore normal social constraints apply to discussions about religion. As in, be nice and considerate to each other! This is what I've been trying to say all along.

Social constraints are fine - it's when those social constraints become legal constraints that there's a problem. I don't insult religious people because it's rude, but it should not be against the law to do so.

I respect the church's view that they don't want to hold gay marriages.

I don't. That's bigotry. Where any church's views conflict with what secular society generally believes, then secular society needs to impose its collective will. I don't respect working mens' clubs which don't want women in, and rejection of homosexuality by a church is on a par with that.

And this is where we get back to social vs. legal. The church can be bigoted in its beliefs if it likes - but it cannot be bigoted in its actions.

Ben with you on all your points on this page! I think I should have just said at the start: accept others have different beliefs and that people don't always agree! Personally I am all for gay marriage - the idea that a loving and committed relationships are only for heterosexuals is bloody lunatic!

Trust a religion thread to stir up anti-semantic views.

*claps*

Cougar - those types annoy me too!

I don't insult religious people because it's rude, but it should not be against the law to do so.

Is anyone arguing otherwise?

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/religion/2012/08/atheism-plus-new-new-atheists

Cos it's hardly religion's fault if nutters use it to further their own causes, is it?

nutters? Do you mean nations of people's over millennia? You can't reduce it to nutters!

Say it how you want molgrips - there are irreconcilable differences between various man made religions that attach to and animate existing disputes.

Couger hey .... Errrm ... Honest question, as I may have misinterpreted your post... are you implying religious people are ridiculous ?

I think [i]some religious beliefs[/i] are ridiculous, but that's not the same thing as thinking all religious people are. If you'll excuse the "some of my best friends are black" argument, a guy at work is one of the most intelligent, science-driven people I've ever met, and he also happens to be a Christian. He's many things, but he's not ridiculous.

You may think someone's being ridiculous, that person probably doesn't. It's entirely subjective and cannot be used as a basis for attack. Many theists probably think atheism is ridiculous.

Sure. And I'd expect them to ridicule me accordingly. Challenging viewpoints is healthy, it's a learning experience.

Your position is not special

Exactly my point.

Is anyone arguing otherwise?

People who argue that religion should be above criticism, for example, or who argue that blasphemy should be a criminal offence, or indeed that offending anyone should be a criminal offence. Dunno if that's you or not 🙂

Bloody nogod botherers. Can't stand fundimentalists.

Fundi? Nah. There are thousands of gods and religions past and present. We just reject one additional one compared to most theists.

People who argue that religion should be above criticism, for example, or who argue that blasphemy should be a criminal offence, or indeed that offending anyone should be a criminal offence

Is anyone arguing so on this thread?

In other news, the sky is blue.

Challenging viewpoints is healthy

Challenging viewpoints is one thing. Tearing into someone's deeply held beliefs for no apparent reason other than sport is not.

If a Christian came on here and tried to convince me that God existed, I'd have a nice discussion and justify MY OWN position. However that's never happend on here that I've seen, and it's also never happened in real life.

However it seems a weekly occurrence that people on here queue up to complain about how stupid religious people are.

On this thread? No idea, I've not been paying attention. However it's one reason why atheists can be a bit touchy at times.

Can't stand fungimentalists.

Challenging viewpoints is one thing. Tearing into someone's deeply held beliefs for no apparent reason other than sport is not.

Agreed.

If a Christian came on here and tried to convince me that God existed, I'd have a nice discussion... it's also never happened in real life.

I can put you in touch with one if you like?

He comes round our house at least once a month, knows my wife and daughter's name, drops off various leaflets, books and videos and asks us if we looked at the last ones yet.

Any attempt at "nice discussion" is met with more leaflets.

He'll keep coming if you keep encouraging him like that.

My missus made the mistake of engaging with him in conversation early on.

As a doctor she wanted to understand his religious concerns about blood transfusions.
That was all the encouragement he ever needed. 😕

Is there some kind of powder I can get to spread across the path? Or do I need to find the nest?

Any attempt at "nice discussion" is met with more leaflets.

😆

Richard Dawkins was once asked: "What if you found you had died and met god?"

He replied (good humourdley, something which some suggest he can't actually manage): "Well, I'm sure we could have a nice, scientifically-based discussion to sort out where he fits into our understanding of the quantum universe and then move on to the next interesting thing..."

So for all the pillaring that Dawkins has given God... Dawkins thinks that on meeting God they'd have a nice discussion

Cool

Isn't god supposed to be forgiving these days?

Isn't god supposed to be forgiving these days?

He is. But I'm not sure about Dawkins.

Is there some kind of powder I can get to spread across the path? Or do I need to find the nest?

Yes, tell them you've just converted to Islam.... or that you're Catholic. One or the other normally does the trick 😉

Ro5ey - Member

So for all the pillaring that Dawkins has given God... Dawkins thinks that on meeting God they'd have a nice discussion

No. He's an atheist.

Isn't god supposed to be forgiving these days?

Depends on your faith Cougar, God can also be downright judgemental for those that like it that way. 🙂

No. He's an atheist.

No, he's agnostic.

Depends on your faith Cougar, God can also be downright judgemental for those that like it that way.

If I'd known there was going to be spankings I'd have signed up years ago.

Hello Mr Woppit

No hard feelings I trust? I still think a ride would help.

Yeah of course

Nice to see aethesist [b]believe[/b] that too

But I guess that's one of the great pro's for some aethesist.

Don't believe... make a great big song and dance (nice living too) about it... but then you get to change your mind, once having the proof you require... and no harm done

Sweet

Yes, tell them you've just converted to Islam.... or that you're Catholic.

Yeah I've considered it. I think we are fair game because he sees us as the religious equivalent of swing-voters.

(in fact our votes are firmly in the Abstain camp)

No. He's an atheist.

Fair point, Dawkins won't meet God, he'll go straight to the big fire.

And how do you know this, exactly?

Fair point, Dawkins won't meet God, he'll go straight to the big fire.

I see. And where is that, exactly?