[Closed] "I asked God to help me"

yes that right anyone who disagrees with god is almost certainly an ego manic

Not what I said, as you seem to be confusing Ego with Ego maniac. Read up on Ego psychology, unless those scientists are wrong as well....

As for the book, if you are that anti god its well worth giving it a read as I am 99.99% sure its not what you expect it to be..... and whilst I am pretty sure it won't change your belief, its an interesting read from the human development and history angle.

Cougar - Member
Cougar - how many of the world's population would you estimate follow a religion? Of those, how many would you consider extreme/intolerant?
You're missing my point. I'm not talking about people's actions,

Blimey Cougar, they were more rhetorical questions but chapeau for answering them!! But in the interest of debate, I am not sure that I am missing your point, since you add...

Many religions are intolerant in nature; arguably, by design

To re-quote you, I am not sure that is [b]"entirely accurate"[/b] but you are stressing it as an important point and that is where I think we disagree. My questions were merely suggesting that religion and tolerance are not exclusive in fact on the basis of those questions I would argue that they are more ([b]but far from 100%[/b]) inclusive.

If a teenage Muslim girl decided that actually, she was going to denounce Islam and become a Roman Catholic, what do you reckon would be the reaction of her family and community?

Again how much of that is due to religious teaching rather than cultural norms. Its not that black and white, surely?

Equally come back when you and Mr Khan are actually fighting (ok, bad example given your views on religion, but you get the point I hope!). For every religious conflict I am sure one can point to examples of religious harmony. Go through villages on the West Bank and then villages in Mauritius where there will be a mosque, temple and church next to each other and what do you conclude? Still black and white?

[JY - going back a page or so, does that 'falsify' Popper completely!!!! :wink:]

Anyway, basically the religious guy drowns.

When he meets God in heaven (he goes to heaven because he's been a good religious person) he asks God:

"Dude! We had a deal. You said you'd save me. What happened?"

God replies:

"Sheesh! I sent a lifeboat and a helicopter for you. What more do you want?"

Some "Religious Conflict" from today's Times:

"Moscow. [i]Thousands[/i] joined a day of prayer called by the Russian Orthodox Church yesterday to fend off what it said was an attack on it's authority. Leaders have been accused of over-reacting to a protest by [i]three[/i] women from the punk rock band "Pussy Power"...

😆 😆 😆

My questions were merely suggesting that religion and tolerance are not exclusive in fact on the basis of those questions I would argue that they are more (but far from 100%) inclusive.

I think the problem here is that it depends on the religion. Some genuinely do promote peace and tolerance even towards non-believers - Buddhism springs to mind - but conversely you've got things like Sharia where apostasy (trying to leave Islam) carries the death penalty.

Again how much of that is due to religious teaching rather than cultural norms.

In a heavily religious society, how do you differentiate?

Its not that black and white, surely?

I see what you did there. (-:

For every religious conflict I am sure one can point to examples of religious harmony.

Oh, sure, I don't disagree. Different belief systems (and absences thereof) can coexist, my point was simply that the idea that 'all religions promote love and tolerance' doesn't always appear to hold true in practice. People can be bigoted idiots with or without divine instruction.

I think you will find that Cougar posted it a few pages ago

You think I've actually read this thread?! I have work to do! 🙄

You think I've actually read this thread?! I have work to do!

Conversation is a two-way process.

And my version was funnier.

Absence of belief, is not belief

There is no absence of belief unless the thought has not been conceived to be believed. Everyone has belief. Even if you believe it to be false.

It would be churlish to mention that the ease with which you change the meanings of words to suit your own arguments, and then imply that everyone who merely disagrees with your definition is some sort of fundamentalist grammatarian, is a perfect metaphor for what passes for reason in the rest of your befuddled brain.

I'm using a meaning which removes any religious pretext and treats everyone evenly, under one umbrella. As human beings.

This entire thread is made up of choice words. We have a group of atheists 'debating' with another group of athiests. It's not atheism that is the subject. It's the choice words and the use of them to belittle those that disagree.

There is no absence of belief unless the thought has not been conceived to be believed. Everyone has belief. Even if you believe it to be false.

Earlier I conceived the idea of pink unicorns in your skirting board. Do you now have a belief that there aren't pink unicorns? Do you now consider yourself aunicornist?

This is the sort of weaselly logic that theists like so much, because it means that we have to substantiate and add weight to their beliefs before disagreeing with them.

This is the sort of weaselly logic that theists like so much, because it means that we have to substantiate and add weight to their beliefs before disagreeing with them.

It becomes an intellectual debate which adds legitimacy, next thing you know univeristies will be offering Phd's. Oh hang on...

Well from this thread he seems to be gathering his sheep a little more closely to him! http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/another-cyclist-dead-another-ruling-of-accidental-death
Probably too busy watching the match.

Do you now have a belief that there aren't pink unicorns?

I believe that your notion of pink unicorns is false, yes 🙂

because it means that we have to substantiate and add weight to their beliefs before disagreeing with them

Not sure that we do, to be honest. It's not possible to argue with them, or they with us.

The reason being, it's fairly easy to punch holes in the idea of a controlling benevolent God, it's also fairly easy to punch holes in the absolutist atheist position.

So what's the point?

It's fun?

also fairly easy to punch holes in the absolutist atheist position

Go on, then. Haven't seen it yet, like...

See what I mean?

They are absolutely sure that your arguments don't hold water, you are absolutely sure that theirs don't. We're back to proving each others' position is false.

Stalemate.

Not really, no.

They are absolutely sure that your arguments don't hold water, you are absolutely sure that theirs don't. We're back to proving each others' position is false.

In this instance all you have to do is substantiate your claim.

fairly easy to punch holes in the absolutist atheist position

Mr Woppit - Member

also fairly easy to punch holes in the absolutist atheist position

Go on, then. Haven't seen it yet, like...

Go on, then. Haven't seen it yet, like...

I suspect we're back to disproving a negative. It's arguably not possible to be an atheist as you can't disprove god.

It's disingenuous though. I can't disprove my skirting board unicorns, but that's no reason to start giving credence to the belief that they might be there.

I know beyond reasonable doubt that there is neither miniature pink unicorns in my skirting boards nor a god in the sky. Neither require a belief system, and both will be happily revised on the discovery of any sort of evidence to the contrary.

on the discovery of any sort of evidence to the contrary.

Presumably, that's what molgrips means by

also fairly easy to punch holes in the absolutist atheist position

If it's so easy, how come nobody's managed it?

You say God doens't exist. I ask for proof. I have not yet seen any.

Saying 'I shouldn't have to' is not any kind of proof.

I can't disprove my skirting board unicorns, but that's no reason to start giving credence to the belief that they might be there

Why though? Based on your experience and observations, and your extrapolations with regards probability. Neither of which are categorical, are they?

Why not use a better analogy like, say.. UFOs?

If it's so easy, how come nobody's managed it?

A lot of theists feel they have. You just don't agree with them...

A lot of theists feel they have

No the believe they have, they haven't presented any proof though.

Saying 'I shouldn't have to' is not any kind of proof.

molgrips if you assert something then you have to show it proof the thing exist it is not an unreasonable question or starting point - see Higgs Boson for example.
FFS You cannot prove a negative that is why you need to prove the assertion or else you can just assert anything and assume it is true because no one can disprove it

I have a Unified theory of everything on my desktop ...what you want me to show it to you ...prove i have not got it on my desk

You are a physicist are you just bored today as I cannot believe you think like this?

And my version was funnier.

Ah! That's because I didn't actually [i]tell[/i] mine. 😉

You proposed a god. I ask for evidence. You can't give any, and try to pass responsibility to me to assume the burden of proof about your own proposition.

Sad. Useless. Defeated. Pathetic.

Hope that's not too "strident"...

You proposed a god. I ask for evidence. You can't give any, and try to pass responsibility to me to assume the burden of proof about your own proposition.

Sad. Useless. Defeated. Pathetic.

Hope that's not too "strident"...

If you can explain Creation without the notion of a God I would love to hear about it. As in, how does something come from nothing?

butcher ..

As i was saying, absence of belief is not belief.
It is disbelief.

The fact that I don't accept something that you do (based on what I consider to be a lack of evidence) does not imply that I therefore "believe" the opposite or indeed that I "beleive" anything at all.

Your choice of the word belief because it "treats everyone evenly, under one umbrella. As human beings." Is exactly what I'm arguing against.

Your aim in defining belief as you do, seems to be to imply that:
I have a belief and someone else has a belief, therefore we have the same thing.

That is not the case. I do not "believe" in facts proved by science. (nor do I have "faith" in them). I am convinced by the evidence.

I can use those words loosely in that context (and many people do .. like you), but I object to it because "belief" and "faith" are bad words to use for something for which you have evidence.

how does something come from nothing?

We don't know. That isn't the same as: "We don't know, so it must have been a god."

Too easy. You're quite new to this stuff, aren't you?

molgrips if you assert something then you have to show it proof the thing exist it is not an unreasonable question or starting point

In science yes, but this isn't science is it?

I'm a scientist, but I understand that that is only one possible way of looking at the world, from a human point of view.

Scientific theories are great for explaining the mechanics of the world, but there's a lot they don't explain.

I am trying to show that for many human beings there is much more to existence than simply proof and evidence. This is not new agey spiritual waffle, it's simply something I have learned over the years.

To re-iterate, I don't believe in God nor do I believe in any kind of higher power or meaning. But such things are part of the wide spectrum of humanity.

... yet.

If you can explain Creation without the notion of a God I would love to hear about it. As in, how does something come from nothing?

Molgrips I agree that Science may not be great [ currently anyway] for aesthetics , humour or love. However this debate is about what entities exist in the universe and how it/we got here. I think that easily falls within the remit of science and evidence.

Saying 'I shouldn't have to' is not any kind of proof.

No, it's not. But if you expect me to take an outlandish supernatural theory seriously, then I need a reason to do that. "Someone made it up years ago and I really believe it a lot" isn't good enough.

At best, we're in the realms of the agnostic here. The agnostic is arguably the most logical standpoint, in that they're entertaining the idea that there might be a god but not believing it as fact without some sort of evidence.

Why not use a better analogy like, say.. UFOs?

Ok, sure. I have no reason to believe in UFOs, other than a healthy interest in science fiction. It's possible that an alien spaceship crashed in Area 51, but it's highly unlikely. I do actually believe that there could well life on other planets, simply because there's so damn many of them, but we're unlikely ever to make contact because of the immense distances involved.

It's actually a lot easier to believe in UFOs if you believe in gods, I'd say. Assuming there is another planet out there with intelligent life capable of crossing great distances, the chance of them setting out in the right direction to find us is astronomically small. If a god made both worlds, however, it'd make sense to have some sort of innate connection.

how does something come from nothing?
We don't know. That isn't the same as: "We don't know, so it must have been a god."

Too easy. You're quite new to this stuff, aren't you?

Still, the question stands, and I don't see evoking the idea of an eternal, self-creating God as the easy answer. There is the question of divine judgement which I would particularly like to avoid after all - in this respect the prosaic, fashionable atheism you evoke would be much preferable. Atheism is by far the easier option.
I suggest you look at some of John Lennox's videos on YouTube, specifically Genesis. And no, I'm not new to this.

However this debate is about what entities exist in the universe and how it/we got here.

Is it? Sure about that? That's a pretty prosaic interpretation of the debate, and I feel that is where we might be diverging.

I am trying to show that for many human beings there is much more to existence than simply proof and evidence.

Saying that we dont know it yet is not the same as saying that it doesnt exist.

well i accept we are discussing what entities exist in people's heads but i accept they think it is real...I was being respectful...how did I do ? 😉

If you can explain Creation without the notion of a God I would love to hear about it. As in, how does something come from nothing?

Where did God come from?

I love this argument. Something can't always just have existed, it must have come from something. That something must be god! Where did god come from? Ah, god has always existed.

It amuses me no end that you can't accept or understand an explanation for something, so you invent an imaginary construct to attempt to explain it in preschool-friendly terms; then when that construct fails in exactly the same way as the original premise, you're suddenly happy to accept the original explanation which you previously rejected in order to create god in the first place.

Also, just because you don't understand something, doesn't render it any less valid. I don't understand quantum physics, but that doesn't mean it doesn't work, nor that I can establish "well, it's magic, isn't it" as an alternative theory.

The 'big bang theory' is just that, a theory. It's not a fact, it's just the best we have, the most likely explanation based on the evidence we have so far. It's actually quite complicated, and doesn't really suggest that the universe "came from nothing" at all.

Where did God come from?

Not so fast! its Turtles all the way down young man!

I'm not arguing for the existence of God.

I am defending those who choose to believe in it.

Not so fast! its Turtles all the way down young man!

Arf. (-:

Damn, I was about to do that.

I love the way that goddists start to twist themselves into knots trying to deal with the nonsense they've proposed.

"The problem of divine judgement...". It's not a problem. There isn't any.

It has been proposed by a stupid woman in a nun's outfit that atheists can't argue about "god" because they "don't have any theology...".

Well, I don't have any unicornology, leprechaunology or fairies-at-the-bottom-of-the-gardenology either.

By the way, "god" is not [i]profound[/i], any more than hyperspace teapots or astrological penguins or the tooth fairy.

You want profound, try quantum mechanics. Or the idea that something can come from nothing...

Talk about narrow minded...

I don't see evoking the idea of an eternal, self-creating God as the easy answer.

Of course it's the easy answer.

Difficult questions generally have very complicated, difficult to understand explanations, often beyond the comprehension of the layperson like you and I, assuming we have answers at all. Compare and contrast, "god did it."

It might not be the easiest answer to accept in the face of advancements in science, space exploration etc., nor the easiest to follow with all that hell fire and damnation business. But it's the certainly the easiest answer.

When a child asks you where babies come from, do you go into a protracted explanation about a sperm from daddy's penis fertilising an egg inside mummy during sexual intercourse, or do you say "when two people love each other, they cuddle in a special way, and nine months later a stork flies over..." Now tell me, how are you going to explain what stars are to shepherds two thousand years ago?

hyperspace teapots

[img] [/img]

The framework of this discussion splits into the usual binary: science vs religion.

I would point out there are some very well qualified scientists who believe in God. Look up John Lennox - Professor of Maths at Oxford, and Alister McGrath.

Atheism is the easy answer as it doesn't involve the question of being judged for your actions here on earth in an afterlife.

The question of creation still stands, irrespective of the unknowable mystery of the universe. All atheists are materialists and thereby they should have an answer to the question, how did something come from nothing, in order to justify their faith.

Otherwise they should admit they simply don't know whether God exists or not.

And in terms of "where did God from", in the Christian tradition He is self-creating and eternal, so stands outside the time-space continuum.

That is as rational an explanation for Creation as I have so far encountered.

And in terms of "where did God from", in the Christian tradition He is self-creating and eternal, so stands outside the time-space continuum.

That is as rational an explanation for Creation as I have so far encountered.

If that's a rational explanation, why then can't we apply that to the universe and cut out the middle man?

Gosh, another 4 pages in just one day ........ obviously a lot of stuff has been sorted out concerning this pressing and important issue.

So, who's changed their minds then ? It seems like a lot of stuff to get through so I would be grateful if someone could save me the time and bother and give me a brief summary of who's changed their minds as a result of powerful and irrefutable counterarguments. And is there now a general consensus as to what is the correct attitude concerning religion ?

"You want profound, try quantum mechanics. Or the idea that something can come from nothing... "

Good point, maybe my Vicar with his Phd in Theoretical Physics might be able to help.

But then you would want any help from him, would you? In fact you'd probably spout foul abuse at him just like you've done to others with different views to your own.

Atheism is the easy answer as it doesn't involve the question of being judged for your actions here on earth in an afterlife.

"Well done son, you killed several thousand non-believers with swords/guns/bombs/planes* welcome to paradise," says God!

Well it is another form of belief in judgment to the one you may be suggesting but equally applicable to many!! Or is it the wrong type of judgmental God? If it is which one should I choose?

*(delete as appropriate to millennium)

All atheists are materialists and thereby they should have an answer to the question, how did something come from nothing,

The point you're missing (other than completely misunderstanding the question) is, one does not require answers to questions in order to be atheist. I've just said this. A lack of understanding of something does not mean we can make up any old nonsense and trot it out as fact. Sometimes, we human beings [i]just don't understand something.[/i]

And in terms of "where did God from", in the Christian tradition He is self-creating and eternal, so stands outside the time-space continuum.

That is as rational an explanation for Creation as I have so far encountered.

would point out there are some very well qualified scientists who believe in God. Look up John Lennox - Professor of Maths at Oxford, and Alister McGrath.

Atheism is the easy answer as it doesn't involve the question of being judged for your actions here on earth in an afterlife.

The question of creation still stands, irrespective of the unknowable mystery of the universe. All atheists are materialists and thereby they should have an answer to the question, how did something come from nothing, in order to justify their faith.

Otherwise they should admit they simply don't know whether God exists or not.

Gosh, another 4 pages in just one day ........ obviously a lot of stuff has been sorted out concerning this pressing and important issue.

Thank you for that valuable and insightful contribution to the discussion. I'm terribly sorry that someone forced you at gunpoint to take part.

All atheists are materialists and thereby they should have an answer to the question, how did something come from nothing, in order to justify their faith

I can't begin to tell you how stupid that is, on so MANY levels, so I'll just leave you with this, which just about encapsulates the whole thread. A rational human discusses the irrational with a wiffler:

The framework of this discussion splits into the usual binary: science vs religion.

Not this time. Usually, yes. But this one appears different.

Molgrips seems to be arguing, as an atheist/ humanist, to defend other people's right to their faith and reason.
Some other people appear to think that he must be wrong, and therefore a godist in disguise.

FWIW, molgrips is winning 😆

Thank you for that valuable and insightful contribution to the discussion. I'm terribly sorry that someone forced you at gunpoint to take part.

No "insightful contribution" from me I'm afraid.......I just wanted to know the result.

Or has no decision been made yet ?

Maybe if it's come to a stalemate another attempt to sort out this pressing and important issue next week ? 💡

I'm looking forward to it already 8)

It is possible to have an interesting discussion without it having to be an argument or life-changing for someone, you know.

I'll just leave you with this, which just about encapsulates the whole thread.

INWATS, it's over an hour long. Summary?

It is possible to have an interesting discussion without it having to be an argument.....

Even on STW ? Even on a thread about religion ? 😕

Still, I glad to hear there's been no arguing........how terribly polite.

Although I would be interested in knowing whether a consensus has been reached.....I'm not too sure how I should be thinking.

Summary?

McGrath: "Wiffle, mystery," (turns head sideways in an attempt to look meaningful) theological, unknowable, twiffle..."

Dawkins: "Sounds very poetic. What does it actually mean?"

McGrath: "[i](See above)[/i]..."

Dawkins: "How do you know this?"

McGrath: "[i](See above)[/i]..."

Fade to end.

I reckon the recent bans have been working E-L!!! 😉

There is an underlying sense of politeness that is lurking in threads these days. Even among so-called big-hitters (does that just mean people who are normally rude?). All v civilised and most un-like STW 😉

But while this air of politeness has descended among familiar names, a new breed of young bucks seem to have taken over the arguments and the abuse on recent threads. Names that I don't recall from the past.

So move on old timers- the new breed of antagonists have arrived....how long until they are banned?

Sometimes, we human beings just don't understand something.

A lot of that happening on this thread 🙂

McGrath: "Wiffle, mystery," (turns head sideways in an attempt to look meaningful) theological, unknowable, twiffle..." [b]that I don't understand ergo it must be twiffle[/b]

FTFY.

Loum - thanks 🙂

I think that for many people the question of absolute fact is not important. And why should it be? Surely the real issue is happiness?

If people can make themselves truly happy and content by choosing to believe in God, why does that make them stupid? Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

If people can make themselves truly happy and content by choosing to believe in God, why does that make them stupid? Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Should we continue to give them tax breaks ?

If people can make themselves truly happy and content by choosing to believe in God, why does that make them stupid? Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

It becomes unreasonable when it impinges upon others who do not believe.

I'm not endorsing 'converting' others, obviously. Proselytising, waging wars, condescending - all bad.

Specifically, what I am objecting to is people considering believers to be stupid.

If people can make themselves truly happy and content by choosing to [s]believe in God,[/s] [b]believe in pink unicorns under the skirting board[/b] why does that make them stupid? Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Specifically, what I am objecting to is people considering believers to be stupid.

I am not sorry that I consider those with faith to be stupid, it is stupid to believe in something that has no evidence that it exists. It is a signal that they cannot reason or think logically. It it strong evidence of stupidity.

There I've said it, thats what I think. I can't apologise for it.

Specifically, what I am objecting to is people considering believers to be stupid.

Are scientologists stupid?

Are scientologists stupid?

I've never met one, I've certainly never met all of them, so I don't know.

I am not sorry that I consider those with faith to be stupid, it is stupid to believe in something that has no evidence that it exists

I take issue with that. It is not necessarily stupid to believe in something without evidence.

What's stupid is believing billions of people the world over to be stupid because of something you apparently don't understand very well. Thinking you automatically know better without having spoken to any of these people.. that's massively arrogant, embarassingly ignorant and pretty friggin stupid.

It is a signal that they cannot reason or think logically.

Your post is a signal that you can't think in terms other than black and white. Which again marks you out as being stupid.

I have known Christians who are not Creationists. Care to comment on that?

I am not sorry that I consider those with faith to be stupid, it is stupid to believe in something that has no evidence that it exists. It is a signal that they cannot reason or think logically. It it strong evidence of stupidity.

There I've said it, thats what I think. I can't apologise for it.

Oooooh! You're going straight to hell for that one!!

I've never met one, I've certainly never met all of them, so I don't know.

If they believed in Scientology would it be necessary to meet them face to face?

If they believed in Scientology would it be necessary to meet them face to face?

It is ALWAYS necessary to listen to someone before judging their intelligence.

something you apparently don't understand very well. Thinking you automatically know better without having spoken to any of these people.. that's massively arrogant, embarassingly ignorant and pretty friggin stupid

I understand religion very well, having been brought up inside the catholic church and made my choice to quit. I don't need to speak to anyone who claims believes in god (other than to ask if they do or do not believe) to know that they are stupid, unless of course any one of these billions of people cares to present me with soem evidence?
Given that billions of people do say they believe and yet not one of them can show a shred of evidence that a god exists. That fact is a good demonstration of how stupid it is.

It is ALWAYS necessary to listen to someone before judging their intelligence.

Oh I dont know, in some cases I would be prepared to take a flyer!

Yes but it is implied that you have listened to them if you know wether they believe in god or not, otherwise how do you know if they believe in god to judge them as stupid?

I don't need to speak to anyone who claims believes in god (other than to ask if they do or do not believe) to know that they are stupid

Wow.

Yes but it is implied that you have listened to them if you know wether they believe in god or not

Well no, you are aiming the insult at all religious people without having listened to them.

This is called prejudice btw, and is usually frowned upon.

ernie_lynch - Member

.... I would be grateful if someone could save me the time and bother and give me a brief summary of who's changed their minds as a result of powerful and irrefutable counterarguments.

well TJ admitted that not everything connected with organised religion is bad and that at some less fortunate stage in his life he accepted charity from "The Church"
Other than that it's "as you were" 😕

Clapton is a Sod.