You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
This post is not meant in any way to shut down, or limit, discussion around religion (not that I expect I could ever wield such power!). It is only meant to serve as a reminder of the difficulties inherent in maintaining accurate perspective when tackling a complex subject no matter what angle we are approaching it from.
First of all, though, I have to say that I think we have come a long way from some of the nastiness that we used to see on here a number of years back, and I am glad that we can now get stuck in such a discussion without it becoming a thread of insults and smears against people and their deeply-held beliefs. Of course there continue to be misunderstandings and mild insults, but nothing a good ride couldn't clear up.
That said, while I entirely and unequivocally accept and support the fact that some people believe and some people don't, and I don't think for one moment that religion should be imposed on anyone, the one thing I find hard to overlook is when a person's position (either way, and in whole or in part) is based on inaccuracies. Yet dealing with some of those inaccuracies is difficult in this cyber-environment due to its inherent limitations (such as multiple lines of discussion opening up at once), and the fact that we all have our personal difficulties (such as not being very fast at typing, or not being able to respond right away to an objection).
Unfortunately, however, I think that some of the points made both for and against the idea of God and the practice of religion are either derived from, or modelled on the basis of, the way we were forced to study it at GCSE in the UK. In Canada, where there is no religion in schools, people tend to discuss it (if, indeed, they discuss it at all!) in a very different way. Mind you, I haven't been to Canada for almost 15 years, so things might have evolved in the wake of Dawkins' work, but I would have characterised the conversation around God and religion in Canada as more inquisitive as opposed to probative. Here, by contrast. it very often seems a matter of having to [i]prove[/i] things, with things needing proving being pretty elementary.
By way of illustration, an ideal discussion might look something like this:
-So, I hear you like to ride bikes.
-Yes.
-How come? What do you like about it?
-Well, [explanation follows].
-Interesting. I'm not sure I'll ever try it, as I tend to prefer things like chess, but thanks for sharing.
-Cool. Tell me something about chess.
Whereas, the sort of probative discussion I find frustrating tends to be more like this:
-So I hear you like to ride bikes. Why?
-Well, I guess ever since I was young I just liked...
-Since you were young? So your parents made you ride them?
-No, not really. I guess my parents did buy me my first bike...
-So you're one of those people then, who just did what their parents made them do?
-What? I...
-So anyway, back to bikes. I suppose you're going to try to tell me that they're more environmentally-friendly than cars?
-Well, no, it wasn't the first thing on my mind. I was just going to tell you about how my friends and I used to...
-Because everyone knows that between the tyre rubber, and frame material, and chain oil, and bearing grease, and the fact that all cyclists either have more than one bike or would like to, all environmental benefits are mitigated.
-What? I just wanted to tell you...
-Get your head out of your ass, man. Bikes suck.
😀
I jest, but I am sure you can see what I mean.
In any case, I am happy to continue participating in most of the discussions that take place on here, including the religion ones; I just thought it could be helpful to pause and point out how and why, at least in my opinion, religion threads in general can be quite difficult.
But this, on the whole, being a decent place, do carry on. 8)
Thanks for this and your considered input on the other thread.
But this, on the whole, being a decent place, do carry on.
On the whole yes, in political and religious threads generally not at all. Also many posters make a point of agressively attacking others based on views expressed in other non-connected threads.
Lesson learned.
Related a personal experience as I perceived it with the caveat that I in no way wished to encourage anyone to either believe or participate and was swamped with "Your argument isn't sound as it lacks evidence"
No argument offered. No evidence required.
Will not be doing it again. 🙁
You are putting the blame for the discussion, usually melting down, on the non-religion-istas?
The problem comes from the fact that one side can't explain their beliefs, or show evidence and the other demands evidence.
Thus it's a never ending circle.
Where the perception of blame is lies is based on the individual level. ie, Where you personally are on the spectrum of belief and non-belief.
personally, i tend to avoid them these days. Tedium, doesn't even begin to describe it.
I can't see any difficulty in discussing religion on this forum. In fact there's a really long discussion on the front page.
You could remove the "on the forum" bit from the title.
Most forums have a complete ban on religion and politics for good reason.
The fact that there's even a hint of a constructive thread on here speaks volumes about the management and the STW forum users.
Now - Mega Drive vs SNES?
If religious threads were [i]easy[/i] then STW would've solved one of mankind's most enduring and divisive problems. Ain't gonna happen.
You are putting the blame for the discussion, usually melting down, on the non-religion-istas?
I'm not putting blame on anyone, because I don't think there is any 'blame' to be imputed. I am trying to say - in as mild a way as possible - that complex subjects such as religion can be difficult to discuss, especially because of a certain discursive style.
End of. No problem, and no one to blame. Just, from my point of view, a fact that affects certain types of discussion more than other types.
Is there a problem?
I get the impression that those people who chose to join the thread and discuss their beliefs are just annoyed that everyone else didn't go 'great, that sounds nice' and are quite shocked to find that non believers think they're a bit odd.
The simple solution is that if you're a believer and can't accept that some people might not think your belief is rational, don't post on internet religion threads. Same goes for the converse.
OP.
You touched on the way RE or religion is taught in schools, at least when I was at school, it was taught in the same manner that maths, science, etc. We're taught. 2+2=4. F=ma. It is because it is. And can be proven.
God, etc. Was taught in the same manner. It just is. Don't question it. One particular teacher dismissed all other religions as non true religions and the true faith was CofE.
And STW loves a good argument. It's not about the subject, it's about who can quote the most and WIN!
😉
I get the impression that those people who chose to join the thread and discuss their beliefs are just annoyed that everyone else didn't go 'great, that sounds nice' and are quite shocked to find that non believers think they're a bit odd.
Nope.
Just disappointed that, what started out as an open, grown up discussion of belief or lack thereof descended into a melee of swivel-eyed loons on both sides of a non-existent argument quoting scripture / Dawkins at each other and demanding reference sources.
Disappointed. Not even slightly surprised.
TBH, I don't think the anti-religionists really care what you get up to in your own (or your Gods) house if it wasn't for the impact on them.
Mostly, I posted this because I thought my comparative 'discussion' was funny.
@footflaps: I am not suggesting there is a problem with the fact of the threads; just quite often with the facts [i]within[/i] the threads. And that can apply to all sides. In the meantime, my original post says nothing about rationality vs irrationality because [i]it has nothing to do with what I was getting at[/i].
You touched on the way RE or religion is taught in schools, at least when I was at school, it was taught in the same manner that maths, science, etc.
You sure, with science we were taught from age 13 that every experiment starts with a hypothesis which you then set our to prove or disprove via the experiment. You state the hypothesis first, the conduct the test, record the results and then analyse the results against the hypothesis...
RE was just 'some people believe this and some believe that....'
Look on the bright side - it keeps trolling and bad manners on one thread and provides relief to others.
Religion-bashing is part of the DNA - just accept it
Annoyed I got dragged into the latest one - better to walk away - damn failed again!
Unfortunately, however, I think that some of the points made both for and against the idea of God and the practice of religion are either derived from, or modelled on the basis of, the way we were forced to study it at GCSE in the UK.
I was pre-GCSE, but our RS course was a study of the Synoptic Gospels and typically questions would be compare and contrast Luke's approach to this compared Matthew's etc. In the same way that one would compare two author's approach to a subject to English. It was therefore a study of texts more than religious thought.
Footflaps.
Yes it was. Very much so. The RE bit anyway. I think the interview for the post of RE teacher went something like: "Are you a religious zealot?" "YES!" "Oh good, you can start on Monday"
SNES.
SNES.
Weak Argument.
Evidence?
Sources?
RE was just 'some people believe this and some believe that....'
The difficulty being that if we then go away and say, 'right, I've got a handle on what these sorts of people believe', then we are likely to ascribe incorrect things to them, as belief systems tend to be far, far more nuanced than a GCSE course can possible communicate.
And I would say the same thing no matter what religious point of view was being discussed, including atheism.
I would observe that the entire problem with teaching religion in schools and then drawing anything but the most superficial conclusions, is similar to studying anthropology at an elementary level and using phrases like, 'Africans are all...' or 'Europeans are all...' or whatever. There may be a grain of truth in such a statement like that, but you know how grossly wrong any further conclusions you could draw might be.
Agree with mefty - my O level Divinity (!) was v Synoptic Gospel/text focus. The contrast between this and the RE that my kids received is stark. Almost different subjects and far nor analytically critical esp of the specific texts - I learned a lot from my two sons.
Best place to discuss airplanes - an airplane forum.
Best place to discuss bikes - a bike forum.
Best place to discuss religion. . . . . .
🙂
We're taught. 2+2=4.[b] F=ma. It is because it is.[/b] And can be proven.
Ohh! Go on then!!
Best place to discuss religion. . . . . .
I would say 'anywhere' to all of these. After all, a bike forum just about bikes would descend into tyre discussions ad infinitum. I would just remind participants of the hazards. 🙂
In my opinion the problem with most religions is that they are right and every other religion is wrong. This is despite the fact that three of the major ones; Judiaism, Christianity and Islam, all worship the same god. Alongside viewing other religions as "inferior" these three also view women as inferior. In short, they are bastions of discrimination.
Personally I don't have an issue with faith. I believe that there is [i]something[/i] I just don't know what. I do believe however that if there was a great creator then s/he would be looking down on and weeping at how religions kill each other in his / her name. Adherence to doctrine and the need to spread "The Good Word" is tearing the world apart. Maybe if the religious could get together and agree a way forward and treat everyone as equal then maybe the topic wouldn't be so divisive.
I would observe that the entire problem with teaching religion in schools and then drawing anything but the most superficial conclusions, is similar to studying anthropology at an elementary level and using phrases like, 'Africans are all...' or 'Europeans are all...' or whatever. There may be a grain of truth in such a statement like that, but you know how grossly wrong any further conclusions you could draw might be.
Nothing special about teaching RE.
At all levels in all subjects there are crass assumptions taught and the lower down the academic scale (i.e. younger students) the bigger the assumptions are. If you choose to study a subject in details you then spend most of the time refining all the assumptions you learnt at the previous level.
TBH, I don't think the anti-religionists really care what you get up to in your own (or your Gods) house if it wasn't for the impact on them.
What impact is that?
Genuine question, especially in Scotland where, for example, you can get married to anybody by anybody (with a licence), anywhere you choose.
TBH I can't think of anything connected to religion (barring the usual WoS OO pish) that has ever had an impact upon my life or that of my family.
You're an economist too FF?
Actually that turns full circle in the real world and goes back to basics!!
I find your position on religion and faith genuinely quite interesting, Coyote. I think that there are a few things I could say to mitigate the first concern you raise (though not necessarily convince you), but I think your point is an important one.
Charlie Mungus.
It was an example of how subjects were taught at my school. If you want to discuss theorem, knock yourself out.
SaxonRider - Member
You are putting the blame for the discussion, usually melting down, on the non-religion-istas?
I'm not putting blame on anyone, because I don't think there is any 'blame' to be imputed. I am trying to say - in as mild a way as possible - that complex subjects such as religion can be difficult to discuss, especially because of a certain discursive style.
your examples are a bit biased then, you needed a 3rd for balance.
btw i never did any exams in religions and I went to a catholic school, I don't think we are forced in to learning it really. in fact RE classes in 1st and 2nd year were the most riotous of my classes! 😆
At all levels in all subjects there are crass assumptions taught and the lower down the academic scale (i.e. younger students) the bigger the assumptions are. If you choose to study a subject in details you then spend most of the time refining all the assumptions you learnt at the previous level.
Absolutely! Thanks for pointing this out. My op was perhaps far too wordy a reminder that this is the case, and that when we get into discussions about religion (for example), it is wise to remember our own personal limitations based on the lack of depth of our knowledge.
I can't think of anything connected to religion (barring the usual WoS OO pish) that has ever had an impact upon my life or that of my family.
Didn't you know squirrelking? Every Sunday, I go to the Kirk, sing a few songs with hundreds of pensioners and oppress the shit out of you.
As regards the WoS OO pish - Hee Haw to do with actual religion. Everything to do with bigoted tribalism.
Our church has hundreds of members, none of whom are in the OO. Other local churches report the same phenomenon. Funny eh?
I could argue that, quite clearly, the best place to discuss religion isn't "anywhere" . . . . 😯
You're an economist too FF?
Economics is a bit of an outlier as they deliberately chose to teach (at undergraduate level) completely false models (based on the rational consumer), will full knowledge that the models are next to useless. There has been quite a fuss about this in Economics circles, as the whole thing is just stupid. Bit like Geography degrees deciding to teach the world is flat as it makes maps easier to use...
What is WoS OO? It seems to be contentious.
The [b]O[/b]range [b]O[/b]rder in the [b]W[/b]est [b]o[/b]f [b]S[/b]cotland.
Don't ask. You don't want to know.
sure, with science we were taught from age 13 that every experiment starts with a hypothesis which you then set our to prove or disprove via the experiment. You state the hypothesis first, the conduct the test, record the results and then analyse the results against the hypothesis...RE was just 'some people believe this and some believe that....'
However there are a great many scientific hypotheses that we have been unable to 'prove' but instead become "accepted wisdom" on the basis of non-conclusive evidence that we believe overwhelmingly reinforces the hypothesis. On a number of occasions these accepted scientific hypotheses that have been repeated as 'fact' have later been proved incorrect. (Eg. Gravitation) The 'scientific method' is far from as pure as we would generally believe.
Yikes. I'll keep my head down.
Charlie Mungus.It was an example of how subjects were taught at my school. If you want to discuss theorem, knock yourself out.
That was my point, actually, both are points of belief and cannot be proven, regardless of what your teacher said
The issue isn't with those who simply "don't believe" but the very agressive posting of those who are anti-religious or agressive athiests. This isn't a perception its an STW reality.
[b]saxonrider[/b] sorry, but this all sounds a bit like special pleading that the wide variety of thoughts/beliefs/origin stories that people have isn't part of the problem, and that people should accept your... ex cathedra... view of things as being correct... and that anything which diverges from that is an inaccuracy...
[b]ninfan[/b] thing is, outside Maths, where proofs can be absolute, axiomatic and eternal, Science starts with the assumption that theories may be wrong and actively looks for that possibility. Religion starts with the idea that a theory is absolutely eternally infallibly true and ignores or fights attempts to critises or prove it wrong.
I know which I prefer!
I would argue that there is a significant history of established scientific schools of thought seeking to suppress criticism and attempts to prove them wrong, admittedly much of this is tied to human nature and conventionality, leading to the misuse of science - but we cannot pretend that it doesn't happen (and indeed still is)
OMG, don't mention religion in a forum. 😉
but the very agressive posting of those who are anti-religious or agressive athiests.
That is rather subjective, you could just say over sensitive believers. After all I started posting that I could fly and offered no proof for it and expected everyone to just accept it as fact, I would probably get shot down in flames on STW.
and the avoidance of doubt, I can't fly. Although I haven't tried recently, so technically it's just a hypothesis at this stage...
I think it comes down to the issue of "faith". Those who have it don't question that it's enough. Those who don't feel it's an inadequate basis for a belief.
agressive athiests
This group are just as bad at the religious in that both groups firmly believe their view to be the only valid point.
Part of the problem with discussing religion is that we are bundling a lot of things into one pot and mixing them up eg. Faith, god, religion, organised religion, church. To a lot of folks they are the one thing but they really aren't as eg. It isnt really necessary to believe in God to go to church and get benefit frrom it.
It can make the discussion difficult
TBH, I don't think the anti-religionists really care what you get up to in your own (or your Gods) house if it wasn't for the impact on them.
Surely not all those against religion are so unconcerned about the well-being of others?
I'm not sure I'd fit the term 'anti-religionist' so well or so broadly. Could be described as agnostic/atheist. Though I am actively opposed to such cultic behaviour that impacts vulnerable/out-groups/religious minorities that naturally arise because of dominant religions/cults. This includes what brainwashing from birth. I also realise that similar if not identical issues arise within politics or peer-bullying. Religiosity does seem (proportionally) to inspire enormous denial on a grand scale. I don't feel smug but incredibly fortunate that my parents made a conscious pre-natal decision to let 'decide for himself'. Why I was 'Christened' is a bit of an odd one. We are merely 'funerals and weddings' churchgoers as a family.
Anyhow, I do really care what 'they' get up to in their 'back yards', whether that is murdering homosexuals, 'apostates', burning people alive, etc. Or maiming and ostracizing tiny children for the belief that they are 'witches'. The level of (encouraged) ignorance that allows people to perform such horrific, murderous, barbaric acts in the belief that they are doing 'good' leaves me literally speechless.
(Extreme examples)
Who's having the difficulty?
I do really care what they get up to in their 'back yards', whether that is murdering homosexuals, 'apostates' etc. Or maiming and ostracizing tiny children for the belief that they are 'witches'.
Or running the largest organised Paedophile ring in the world (aka The Catholic Church)....
I've often wondered why it's such a conscientious topic for some? They seem to get so worked up so quickly for some reason.
Could be described as agnostic/atheist
Two entirely different things.
To a lot of folks they are the one thing but they really aren't as eg. It isnt really necessary to believe in God to go to church and get benefit frrom it.
indeed. And the conversation quickly turns adversarial - you are either for 'science' or 'religion' and have to pick one side or the other.
When obviously the reality is that for most religious Brits, you don't need to reject science, and obviously there are plenty of top scientists who also believe in (a) God.
It's kind of ironic, because if someone lumps cyclists all together in the manner that people here do to 'religious people' or 'atheists' or even 'vegans', the outrage bus is along in pretty short order 🙂
eg. It isnt really necessary to believe in God to go to church and get benefit frrom it.
https://www.sundayassembly.com/story
Never been, but it looks like church without the "worship" bit.
@stoatsbrother: If I was a medical doctor of some sort, and there was a discussion around medicine taking place in which many ideas and opinions were being bandied about by people who were not of a medical background, I would hope that I might be able to shed some accurate and helpful light on proceedings.
I would not expect to be listened to in every instance, nor would I think that everyone should capitulate to me and what I was saying. But you can imagine, I hope, how frustrating it would be to encounter a statement or a series of statements that could stand with some correction but with limited possibilities to do much about it. This would be especially so if people could potentially go away with some idea about health which they were basing upon the uncorrected statement.
Changing the type of discussion could potentially mitigate such misconstruals/misunderstandings, as could being aware of the hazards of the discussions as they stood.
That's all I was hoping for in the original post.
Sorry if I sound 'pleading'.
or running the largest organised Paedophile ring in the world (aka The Catholic Church)....
funny how those criticising faith and beliefs often cite their own faith or beliefs as criticisms
OP I thought it was appropriate & funny 🙂 given that cycling, to some, is almost a religion or cyclists can be fanatical about it.
In the same way that some people 'believe' in science despite the fact that reasonable scientists realise that as far as the universe (& heck deep oceans & the more complex interactions of our own biology)is concerned like we know nothing.
The real issue, to my mind, in the modern world is not so much religion as fanatacism which IMO is the resort of people who are (or feel) threatened by rapid change (e.g. the digital revolution, climate change).
Unfortunately this stops everyone else looking at & fixing the issues caused by rapid change.
two entirely different things
Conflicting? I get this occasionally. I have no current belief in any deity. In fact all 'deities' so far claimed are (to the best of my knowledge) evidently fictitious/derivative with lineage traceable to earlier mythos. Hence 'atheist'. I am also fiercely against specific theologies yet the term 'anti-theist' sounds very personal, as if I am against all religious individuals rather than against inherently bigoted mumbo-jumbo. I am open to evidence. I also think certain claims are 'unprovable.' I do find it weird that one even requires a category for *not* being a theist. Similar to being identified as 'afairyist'. 'adragonist. 'aleprechaunist'. Etc.
Lazy Wikipedia quote:
Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact.
I can't think of anything connected to religion (barring the usual WoS OO pish) that has ever had an impact upon my life or that of my family.
I can - but this is in Spain. The Catholic Church is quite active in politics, fighting to limit access to abortion (or even banning it altogether) and funding pro-Church candidates, while enjoying state subsidies, freedom from property taxes (and not just on their churches), and having their teachers in every school. This has a direct impact on me, and could possibly have an impact on my daughters in the future.
I don't think SaxonRider is special pleading. What Saxon Rider is often trying to do is correct people's misunderstandings. It is not uncommon for people to say something like I hate religion because of this premise. Saxon Rider will respond by explaining how the premise is wrong because it doesn't feature in teachings and therefore it is unsafe foundation upon which to base one's view. He is not arguing or, indeed trying to ram religion down your throat, he is just correcting factual errors.
OP,
Relax, chill coz people come in all sorts so just take them as they are as part of amusement.
Whatever they believe, they still believe in something even when they believe in "nothing".
I like it when people say "I believe in nothing". 😛
Chill and let the heated discussion continues ... I like that.
What impact is that?Genuine question, especially in Scotland where, for example, you can get married to anybody by anybody (with a licence), anywhere you choose.
TBH I can't think of anything connected to religion (barring the usual WoS OO pish) that has ever had an impact upon my life or that of my family.
My two daughters are primary 4 and primary 2. In each of their classes there are a number of muslim children. So far as I know neither they nor any of the other non-muslim kids in their classes haver every been invited to a birthday party or play day with any of the muslim kids (the converse is not the case).
Last week my eldest daughter had a class trip to the Glasgow Central Mosque. She had to cover her head, arms and legs to go on the trip, as did all other girls in her class.
I consider both of these examples demonstrate a negative affect on those involved and society in general. So far as I can tell, both are a direct impact of religion.
In Canada, where there is no religion in schools, people tend to discuss it (if, indeed, they discuss it at all!) in a very different way.
I am not sure it's specifically because of school teaching. There is an old saying never to discuss politics or religion - because there will always be an argument. It's not too much of a stretch to imagine that a fairly long history of religious dissent in a country with an established church could lead to resentment and arguments.
I agree with mefty's comments. A lot of people brought up atheist seem to have a pretty sparse knowledge of the history of religion, the contents of the bible, and the views of any particular church either historically or today. Consequently they are arguing from false assumptions. Anyone who has studied these things extensively would be quite rightly annoyed.
It'd be like going on say, pistonheads, and listening to them talking about how all cyclists are self-important militant greenies who think themselves superior to all car owners, and not being listened to when you try to disagree.
you could just say over sensitive believers. After all I started posting that I could fly and offered no proof for it and expected everyone to just accept it as fact, I would probably get shot down in flames on STW.
Surely if that happened, you would have proved you could fly?
Its all about this....
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/23/no-religion-outnumber-christians-england-wales-study
The proportion of the population who identify as having no religion – referred to as “nones” – reached 48.5% in 2014, almost double the figure of 25% in the 2011 census.
you can bet your best bible that its the younger generation that are moving away from religion, this trend will only continue to grow
fanatical distortions of religion via ISIS, probably helping to move people away from it too
its also evidenced in the move toward equality for homosexuals etc,
this kind of discussion will only become 'harder' for the believers as we move further into our Post- Religious western civilisation
talking about how all cyclists are self-important militant greenies who think themselves superior to all car owners
well actually...... 😉
A lot of people brought up atheist seem to have a pretty sparse knowledge of the history of religion, the contents of the bible, and the views of any particular church either historically or today.
It is exacerbated by a media with a predilection for reporting controversy so only focus on proceedings of the General Synod and Archbishop's Council when they are dealing with equality issues.
agree with mefty's comments. A lot of people brought up atheist seem to have a pretty sparse knowledge of the history of religion, the contents of the bible, and the views of any particular church either historically or today. Consequently they are arguing from false assumptions.
This is a very fair point, and I think we [i]all[/i] should understand more about world history, world religions, world politics and world philosophies.
But it does cut two ways. I am still struggling to understand how someone on the other thread, avowedly Christian, seemed to have no knowledge that hell actually had been depicted, preached and painted as a rather hot place with fires, outside the conversations of Atheists...
A lot of people brought up atheist seem to have a pretty sparse knowledge of the history of religion, the contents of the bible, and the views of any particular church either historically or today. Consequently they are arguing from false assumptions. Anyone who has studied these things extensively would be quite rightly annoyed.
Without evidence, it's just talk.
it's just talk
Of course.
But some of it is actual factual history, and things that people have actually said.
But there is evidence of belief.
... belief that the world is flat for instance...
Belief is not evidence
A genuine question for Woppit in particular and all the other Faithless Militant in general....
Religion aside for a moment, has there never been a time in your life when you've believed something to be true, in the pit of your stomach without empirical, demonstrable truth that it actually is?
Something that, [b]you[/b] know to be right , which others around you may find irrational or even a little odd.
A strongly held conviction based on feelings or instinct rather than provable facts?
About anything?*
Not a trick question, or an attempt to lure you into any kind of verbal trap.
Just wonder if you live your whole lives demanding substantiating data for everything in your life. It must be exhausting.
*For me it's Football. Despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, I can't see any merit or entertainment in the game of Football. It does absolutely nothing for me. I've tried to like it, I really have. I coach a boys team twice a week and hold a coaching qualification and my boys love it. Still don't get it.
Use of words like "pleading" are passive agressive, designed to undermine the poster. This leads onto use of words like "fantasy" "fairy tales" or "lies". Its all intimidation. What annoys me the most is how controlling the agressively athiest posters are, they display no tolerance or belief in liberty as they wish to force their views and lifestyles on others. We are forunate to live in a liberal and free country where religion or no religion plays a central role, lets keep it that way.
Belief is not evidence
It is evidence for the existence of belief.
Use of words like "pleading" are passive agressive, designed to undermine the poster. This leads onto use of words like "fantasy" "fairy tales" or "lies". Its all intimidation.
Agree, and better put than I could manage all this time.
has there never been a time in your life when you've believed something to be true, in the pit of your stomach without empirical, demonstrable truth that it actually is?
I know it wasn't addressed to me but to answer anyway - no. I'm just not wired up that way. Is it exhausting? No, not really.
What's far more difficult to deal with is the concept of death 🙁
I would suggest that the biggest reason why these discussions fly off into meaninglessness and confusion is that no-one actually defines what we mean by god in the first place.
For example,
a)a personal god who speaks to you, is different from
b) a "deist" god who is removed from everyday life, and is different again from
c) a general respect or reverence for nature.
Any argument against any of these (or any number of subdivisions) is met with "thats not what I think god is" and a quick maneouver of the goalposts to new ground.
Its like arguing over whether an animal exists, with somone who won't be specific about whether it lives on land or sea, whether it has 2 or 4 or no legs and finally whether they are real physical animals with fur and hooves, or just tricks of the light seen from the corner of your eye, or just thoughts in your head.
Stop moving the goalposts or discussion is pointless.
If you think your "god is ineffable and unknowable" then take him away and keep him with your unicorn.
If you think he has an opinion about how I or others should live our lives or be legally sanctioned for doing things privately with other consenting adults, then bring some evidence or shut up.
As an example, based on my own personal experience, some christians will, in one breath, claim that god constantly and willingly interferes in the physical world (e.g. by saving you a parking space in a big city, as a result of prayer), but then, in the next, claim he is "ineffable" and "moves in mysterious ways" when he fails to act on his foreknowledge of child rape or starvation.
I find that weird.
Make your choice.
Edit: PerchyP .. I have beleived as you describe, and I do understand the strength of it. But I started noticing the cracks and eventually developed the strength to say "its all rubbish" (which is actually really hard when you think GOD HIMSELF is watching your thoughts, and might take it personally). I managed to get around the self correcting mechanism (A.K.A. "I believe, help my unbelief") an suddenly everything made sense.
Not in the "I'll find out someday" sense, but in the "wow, if god doesn't exist its a helluva lot easier to explain pretty much everything about the world"
some christians will, in one breath, claim that god constantly and willingly interferes in the physical world (e.g. by saving you a parking space in a big city, as a result of prayer), but then, in the next, claim he is "ineffable" and "moves in mysterious ways" when he fails to act on his foreknowledge of child rape or starvation.
That, to me, is poor thinking. Poor thinkers exist on both sides of the debate, definitely not a symptom of religion.