[Closed] "I asked God to help me"

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

I have listened to them, otherwise how do I know if they are relgious or not?

usually frowned upon

with molgips on this 7

the belief is stupid the believer is not necessarily stupid.

Scientology though

Scientology teaches that people are immortal beings [from aliens who have lived elsewhere and have reincarnated here]who have forgotten their true nature.[7] Its method of spiritual rehabilitation is a type of counselling known as auditing, in which practitioners aim to consciously re-experience painful or traumatic events in their past in order to free themselves of their limiting effects.[8] Study materials and auditing courses are made available to members in return for specified donations

toys19 - Member
.....makes them people of faith, believers without evidence, and hence stupid.

So people of faith who are well respected in their professional fields (such as science, education, philosophy, art, literature etc) are stupid, really !

So if you need to ever use the services of a professional, would you first ask them their religious beliefs and base their competency on the answer ?

the belief is stupid the believer is not necessarily stupid.

Guy at work is a Christian (an actual, real, chuch-going Christian rather than a census-form box ticker). He's one of the most intelligent people I've ever met. He's probably reasonably far down the Aspie scale, but I wouldn't for a second ever refer to him as stupid.

I really must have a theological discussion with him at some point; I can't imagine he'd be the sort of person to buy into circular reasoning, I'd love to know how he rationalises it all.

you seriously need to switch off some critical faculties to swallow that account by a scoence fiction writer tbh.

Even if the theory behind it made perfect sense, you'd surely question a religion created by a scifi author. Surely?

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"

Fantastic !.....confession is excellent for the soul. Although to fully repent you must change your previous wicked ways. I look forward to witnessing TJ's new enlighten attitude on future stw religious threads.

the belief is stupid the believer is not necessarily stupid.

I'll happily acccept that, they can be stupid in one way and clever in another.
TBH though anyone I've ever come across who is religious I automatically distrust as either disingenuous, of limited emotional development (so far) or just thick. A good example is Tony "God will judge me" Blair. Not thick or emotionally retarded..

Of those believers I know well my feelings have either been proven or as yet not seen enough to be sure.

Edit I'll happily modify my definition to include mentally ill as an option.
Double edit I'll also include brainwashed/ignorant too.

Ok, here are some general points following on from the recent points:
a) there is no doubt that being an atheist is incredibly fashionable, hence why as a faith it attracts so many people
b) the video posted on McGrath vs Dawkins - you might want to watch the entirety of that video, rather than select clips. You might also want to google Lennox vs Dawkins for a situation when the great Darwinian comes up short
c) The opportunity for us to debate these issues is a result of our Christian heritage, specifically the clause about forgiveness. If you think secularism will usher in a new world of tolerance then frankly you are delusional. Look at Soviet Russia and Uncle Joe Stalin.

a) there is no doubt that being an atheist is incredibly fashionable, hence why as a faith it attracts so many people

Are you deliberately trolling, or just trying to prove Toys19 correct?

[i]badnewz - Member

Ok, here are some general points following on from the recent points:
a) there is no doubt that being an atheist is incredibly fashionable, hence why as a faith it attracts so many people
b) the video posted on McGrath vs Dawkins - you might want to watch the entirety of that video, rather than select clips. You might also want to google Lennox vs Dawkins for a situation when the great Darwinian comes up short
c) The opportunity for us to debate these issues is a result of our Christian heritage, specifically the clause about forgiveness. If you think secularism will usher in a new world of tolerance then frankly you are delusional. Look at Soviet Russia and Uncle Joe Stalin.[/i]

You be a trollin' for Jesus!

The opportunity for us to debate these issues is a result of our Christian heritage, specifically the clause about forgiveness. If you think secularism will usher in a new world of tolerance then frankly you are delusional. Look at Soviet Russia and Uncle Joe Stalin.

these are battles that have been won in the face of resistance from christian heritage.

If you think secularism will usher in a new world of tolerance then frankly you are delusional. Look at Soviet Russia and Uncle Joe Stalin.

I prefer other examples of secularism if its all the same.

there is no doubt that being an atheist is incredibly fashionable, hence why as a faith it attracts so many people

Um it isn't a faith, by definition.

The opportunity for us to debate these issues is a result of our Christian heritage

If we didn't have a Christian heritage, what issues would there be to discuss?

Not trolling. Just making some points. The fact you think I'm trolling is revealing however - that anybody who would stand up for religion, and especially Christianity, must be trolling.

Britain in 2012 is an overwhelmingly secular society. A young person would do well to describing themselves as Christian.

But a liberal secularist, well then the world is your oyster.

The people who think that being an atheist is somehow radical on this forum are completely deluded. Try being Christian, that's as radical as it gets.

The opportunity for us to debate these issues is despite our Christian heritage.

Assuming we mean
Secularism is the principle of separation between government institutions and the persons mandated to represent the State from religious institutions and religious dignitaries.

the soviet states were atheist and tried to stamp out religion

Its not a great example

The opportunity for us to debate these issues is a result of our Christian heritage
If we didn't have a Christian heritage, what issues would there be to discuss?

I've absolutely no idea what you are talking about. What do you mean?

that anybody who would stand up for religion, and especially Christianity, must be trolling.

No. Just anyone who would spout such ill informed drivel.

But a liberal secularist, well then the world is your oyster.

How many leaders of western nations, in the past 20 years have proclaimed to hold religious views, and how many have proclaimed to be liberal secularists?

The people who think that being an atheist is somehow radical on this forum are completely deluded. Try being Christian, that's as radical as it gets.

I don't think any of the atheists here wish to be radical, or see it as some kind of cool statement, its just avoidance of being a moron.

Toys19

Um it isn't a faith, by definition.

Quote Christopher Hitchens, "Our Faith is not a Faith."

Of course atheism is a Faith - it is based around a belief that God does not exist.

[i]Not trolling. Just making some points. The fact you think I'm trolling is revealing however - that anybody who would stand up for religion, and especially Christianity, must be trolling[/i]

Give over!

Deliberately obtuse statements in the hope of eliciting a reaction is trolling. Your subject matter is immaterial, the way you go about it makes you a troll, not a christian martyr.

surfer - Member
"If you think secularism will usher in a new world of tolerance then frankly you are delusional. Look at Soviet Russia and Uncle Joe Stalin."
I prefer other examples of secularism if its all the same.

That's not an example of secularism it's an example of a totalitarian regime interested in eradicating all other methods of control over the population.

So, the Christians are still dodging the question re whether scientology should be treated with respect.

Yet again, I contend that most of them think it's silly nonsense at best, but don't have the balls to admit that this makes them hypocrites.

I don't think any of the atheists here wish to be radical, or see it as some kind of cool statement, its just avoidance of being a moron.

I would disagree. This forum is saturated with disappointed middle-aged men that are full of angst and want attention. Atheism is the perfect fit.

MSP - Member
"But a liberal secularist, well then the world is your oyster."
How many leaders of western nations, in the past 20 years have proclaimed to hold religious views, and how many have proclaimed to be liberal secularists?

THIS

it is based around a belief that God does not exist.

is not collecting stamps a hobby then?

Quote Christopher Hitchens, "Our Faith is not a Faith."

Exactly

Of course atheism is a Faith - it is based around a belief that God does not exist.

Defintion of faith, is belief without evidence. We do not beleive without evidence, therefore not faith. You appear to be missing a few defintions and just making sentences without actually understanding the words that you put in them.

[i]I would disagree. This forum is saturated with disappointed middle-aged men that are full of angst and want attention. Atheism is the perfect fit.[/i]

Trrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrololololololololoolllllin' fer the Lord, Hallelujah!

Give over!

Deliberately obtuse statements in the hope of eliciting a reaction is trolling. Your subject matter is immaterial, the way you go about it makes you a troll, not a christian martyr.

The person who started this thread initiated a conversation. Why can't somebody who disagrees with their statement say so? You sound like a Stalinist, any view which is opposed to your's must be delusional or insincere, and therefore stamped out.

Any examples of these liberal secularists who control our daily lives yet?

I would disagree. This forum is saturated with disappointed middle-aged men that are full of angst and want attention. Atheism is the perfect fit.

This is a logical fallacy known as Post hoc ergo propter hoc [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc ]here.[/url]

It's a classic symtom of relgious suceptability found amongst cargo cultists.

Defintion of faith, is belief without evidence. We do not beleive without evidence, therefore not faith. You appear to be missing a few defintions and just making sentences without actually understanding the words that you put in them.

You BELIEVE their is no God. It is a Belief. It is a Faith. Wake up poindexter.

badnewz - Member

You BELIEVE their is no God. It is a Belief. It is a Faith. Wake up poindexter.

Oh teh ironing

[i]You sound like a Stalinist, any view which is opposed to your's must be delusional or insincere, and therefore stamped out. [/i]

You're still at it, trollboy.

badnewz you have proved my conclusions correct.

Any examples of these liberal secularists who control our daily lives yet?

In Britain we live in a world created by the liberal secularists of the 1960s. I would highlight Roy Jenkins as having a hugely secular influence.

I went to a secular secondary comp, with no mention of religion whatsoever, and that was the consequence of the 60s counter cultural revolutionaries.

yes der brain, no mention of religion is not secular, secular is separation of church and state, not mentioning religion at all is atheism, or just plain sensible.

" I smashed a 2000 year old religion, then I ate my tea..."

[img]//www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/images/episode/b00jmv1n_640_360.jpg[/img]

60s counter cultural revolutionaries

Those bastard oppressors and destroyers of freedom!

yes der brain, no mention of religion is not secular, secular is separation of church and state, not mentioning religion at all is atheism, or just plain sensible.

The USA separates Church and State in its constitution. Yet would you describe it as a secular country? I wouldn't.

What's your point caller?

Why can't somebody who disagrees with their statement say so?

That's not the issue. The issue is deliberately (or I suppose, ignorantly) misusing language in order to provoke a reaction.

Atheism isn't a faith, no matter how hard you want to believe it is. As someone (Junkyard?) said earlier; faith is belief without supporting evidence. Atheism is [i]a lack of belief[/i] without supporting evidence.

You aren't required to form unsubstantiated beliefs in order to not believe in something; if proof came along that the Christians were right all along, we'd happily revise our opinions. You can't say the same of faith, faith eschews alternative theories as 'false gods' and suchlike.

Those bastard oppressors and destroyers of freedom!

Precisely. Thanks for your support!

Atheism is a lack of belief without supporting evidence.

I would call that agnosticism. Atheism is the belief that there is no God. Look it up in the OED.

No, I would describe it as having a secular constitution, TBH I don't know about the country, havent been there.

And you have comitted your umpteenth [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi ]logical fallacy[/url] with that leap.

From the 'Dealing with religious people' Manual, page 44;

Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair colour...

From the 'Dealing with religious people' Manual, page 44;

Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair colour...

Isn't Metaphor the reason you guys hate the Bible?

[i]Isn't Metaphor the reason you guys hate the Bible[/i]

a) You don't know I'm a guy.
b) I don't hate the Bible.
c) Why capitalise the word metaphor?

It might have been reported differently if he'd asked this guy for help instead..
😀

[img] [/img]

The USA separates Church and State in its constitution. Yet would you describe it as a secular country? I wouldn't.

The US [i]government [/i]separates church and state. First Amendment. It basically prevents Congress from passing a law either making a religion mandatory or making it illegal; ie, it provides religious freedom to its populace.

The US as a country is, as I'm sure you've heard many many times, "one nation under god".

I would call that agnosticism. Atheism is the belief that there is no God. Look it up in the OED.

What you'd call it is irrelevant. You can call it a tuna sandwich if you like.

Agnostics neither believe nor disbelieve in a god or gods. Atheists reject a belief in god.

Isn't Metaphor the reason you guys hate the Bible

a) You don't know I'm a guy.
b) I don't hate the Bible.
c) Why capitalise the word metaphor?

a) I don't care, in modern parlance "Guys" can refer simply to a bunch of people irrespective of gender (and to try and get points for that is pretty desperate)
b) Good
c) It was the main subject of the sentence.

Agnostics neither believe nor disbelieve in a god or gods. Atheists reject a belief in god.

I agree.

Look it up in the OED.

Ok.

[b]atheism[/b] Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.

[b]disbelieve[/b] 1. trans. Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to: a. a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the truth or reality of.

Next?

is not collecting stamps a hobby then?

It is for me. I am a stamp collector who doesn't collect stamps. I haven't collected any stamps since I was a kid - but I've still got my stamp albums.

I'm not sure if that helps, amongst the multitude of challenging and thorny questions, but I felt it was important to clear that one up - specially as it was one which I could easily answer.

I agree.

Good. Now we're getting somewhere.

For completeness, here's the OED's definition of agnostic.

[b]agnostic [/b]A. sb. One who holds that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable, and especially that a First Cause and an unseen world are subjects of which we know nothing.

Interestingly perhaps, the OED definition covers the whole spectrum of atheist belief, from weak atheism (those who do not believe in or credit the existence of one or more gods) to strong atheism (those who assert the contrary position, that a god does not exist).

Look it up in the OED.
Ok.

atheism Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.
disbelieve 1. trans. Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to: a. a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the truth or reality of.

Next?

Thank you for that - you are more diligent than me. Doesn't that prove my point though - that Atheists refuse / do not believe in God. I just wonder what evidence you can produce to substantiate that claim. Please produce.

[i]It is for me. I am a stamp collector who doesn't collect stamps. I haven't collected any stamps since I was a kid - but I've still got my stamp albums[/i]

That explains a lot; I've always thought that behind that rational controlled persona there is a torrent of passion waiting to break through.

[i]Doesn't that prove my point though - that Atheists refuse / do not believe in God[/i]

Are you Sherlock Holmes?

Speaking of the secular US, here's a quote from George Bush.

I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

Interestingly perhaps, the OED definition covers the whole spectrum of atheist belief, from weak atheism (those who do not believe in or credit the existence of one or more gods) to strong atheism (those who assert the contrary position, that a god does not exist).

Does it? There are two separate entries for Atheism and Agnosticism, implying two different concepts.

Are you Sherlock Holmes?

Please explain. For all of us.

you are more diligent than me

No, I just prefer evidence to making stuff up and presenting it as fact. You should try it.

Are we back to "fundamentalist Atheists" yet

I just wonder what evidence you can produce to substantiate that claim. Please produce.

We don't need to produce evidence that soemthing doesnt exist, its evidence that it does exist that proves its existence.

Please explain. For all of us.

We think you are on drugs

Speaking of the secular US, here's a quote from George Bush.

I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

Exactly! This was my point! People were trying to define Secularism as the separation of Church and State. This is written into the constitution of the USA yet still you hear statements like this. So by implication the separation of Church and State is a limited definition of Secularism.

For what it is worth, I would say it is the idea that religion should have no influence on the political life of a nation.

So by implication the separation of Church and State is a limited definition of Secularism.

But in the case of the UK its a good start

We don't need to produce evidence that soemthing doesnt exist, its evidence that it does exist that proves its existence.

I'm a Christian, as you may have worked out by now. And I should try to live an upright life, but WTF are you on about?

[i]For what it is worth, I would say it is the [b]most excellent[/b] idea that religion should have no influence on the political life of a nation.[/i]

I've fixed that for you.

Doesn't that prove my point though - that Atheists refuse / do not believe in God. I just wonder what evidence you can produce to substantiate that claim. Please produce.

Well, that's not what you said.

But no, it doesn't work like that, sorry. You're the one making wild claims about the supernatural, you're the one that needs to provide proof. Or, y'know, in lieu of absolute proof I'd settle for a shred of evidence that would suggest that the christian idea of a god might be anything other than an old fairy story.

See earlier discussion about pink unicorns. (Summary: Do you believe that there are pink unicorns hiding in your skirting board? No? Can you prove it?)

WTF are you on about?

We've explained this many, many times, including several times on this very thread.

[i]I'm a Christian[/i]

Ooooh! You kept that quiet, you little monkey!

Do we know how many angels are on the head of that pin yet?

I'm a Christian

Ooooh! You kept that quiet, you little monkey!

Again, what is your point? Is this a debate or just (desperate, rather sad) sledging?

But of course I deserve this, because people who believe in God should not be tolerated.

but WTF are you on about?

Well, luckily, earlier I defined anyone who believes in a god/gods as either stupid, emotionally retarded, mentally ill, very poorly informed/brainwashed or just disingenuous.
So your inability to understand that proof of soemthing existing is not disproved by trying to proove it doesnt exist appears to fit one of these, take your pick.

Now I think you should naff off before someone accuses me of creating you as a dual login to proove my own point.

Live and let live tonight at 8pm

The religious can turn on BBC2 and watch Chaplains: Angels of Mercy
The anti (rather than non) religious can turn on BBC4 and watch Inside the Medieval Mind: how the church preached hatred of the felsh and condemned women as the sinful heirs of Eve

And the non-TV watchers can do the Torygraph cryptic crossword including:

15d: One girl I converted to the faith (8)

But no, it doesn't work like that, sorry. You're the one making wild claims about the supernatural, you're the one that needs to provide proof.

I admit I find Genesis the best explanation for Creation.

But I entered this debate with a question: how does something come from nothing?

That is all. I think the belief that there is a naturalistic solution to that question (God of the Gaps) is hugely limited. Again, look up John Lennox.

Badnewz - can you give us one shred of evidence for the existance of any god? In the absence of evidence the rational position is the the is no god.

And I should try to live an upright life

that's what evolution will do to a guy..