Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Atheism bus advertising campaign launched

1235»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You do realise God and Allah are one and the same, do you?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    Religion doesn't by itself completely contradict science and logic. I think there is a difference between atheist and antitheist really. Do Christian parents get upset when their kids are taught about the big bang? On the whole, absolutely not. I'm sure there are some people who do, and some who feel they must be the thought police of their kids, but how many of us here had Christian parents who went to church and confession and did their hail marys or whatever, but let us grow our own ideas?

    The xian parents who don't get upset about their kids being taught big bang probably believe that the big bang coincides with their religious beliefs, which is why they don't object. If you read the bible, qu'aran etc there are things in there that contradict logic and science; the fact that these things are now interpreted to shit does not mean that what the texts are saying aren't in conflict with what science has demonstrated.

    I can't say I've ever encountered any parents who *actually* follow a faith (again, distinction between people who call themselves catholic/xian/muslim or whatever but don't adhere to anything their religion dictates, and people who are actually religious) who have given their children a 100% rounded, fair and unbiased education about the options regarding religion that are open to them. The indoctrination usually starts from day one with christening/adhaan/whatever, and goes on from there with the moral values the child is taught, the play groups they go to where they are taught about their respective religious figures, etc. They might say they allow their children to grow their own ideas, but I doubt they themselves have had much exposure to any faith other than their own or seriously considered any other faith than they themsleves follow, so how would it ever be possible for them to teach their children the ins and outs of any other belief system?

    The problem with anti-theists is the same problem as with religious fundamentalists, in that they are not happy for people to grow their own ideas - they just want people to believe their idea.

    FWIW, there is no proof there is NO God, so I don't know what factual proof atheism rests on ;). It's just occham's razor, but that is not a proof. Therefore, as far as I can see, it's an open verdict, and everyone is entitled to their opinion.


    The reason I take broadly this line is I have seen very well the ugly side of anti-theism. It is largely about feeling superior and being able to put others down. Something I don't like in any shape whether it be from religionists, antitheists, university students or whatever.

    As an "anti theist" who is soon to become an RE teacher, has studied ethics and the philosophy of religion to MA level, I think it is very much a mistake to say that we don't want anyone to explore other ideas/faiths/cultures/points of view. If you've read Harris, Dawkins, Hume, etc. then you do begin to understand the arguments of the atheist, the evidence, logical arguments, and observations about the world they are based on. There are many logical flaws in the main arguments for the existence of God (the argument from design, for example), that are accepted by even the sharpest, intelligent theologians, but that argument is still widely thrown around as proof of God's existence by people who have done little to actually explore the philosophy of religion.

    Everyone is entitled to their opinion, absolutely, but some opinions are just better/based on better evidence than others. If you believe there are objective truths about the world, then not all beliefs can be correct, ergo not all beliefs are as worthy as respect. Doesn't mean one doesn't have the right to believe what they want, but they don't have the right to have those beliefs respected. And with something like religion it isn't just a matter of opinion, it isn't a "I like chocolate cake" "well I like strawberry cake" "well chocolate cake is better". It is something that has such a massive impact on society, so much is at stake, that it isn't something people like myself feel they can sit back and let happen. That doesn't mean to say I don't respect people who are religious (I had a fantastic Catholic lecturer for my MA for example, who I respect immensely and who I am sure has many complex intellectual reasons for her faith indepdent of the fact she was raised by a Catholic family in a Catholic country). However I do feel that religious and non-religious worldviews alike are things that people should be VERY educated about if they are going to make such strong claims about the nature of reality, when these claims are going to have such strong impact on the future development of humanity (stem cell research as an example).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I understand what you're saying, but you're still approaching from your particular angle. I don't want to get into a big theological debate (I feel I may be outclassed ;)) but for me it's about keeping an open mind and being without prejudice. There is a lot of prejudice against people who practice / believe in a religion by a lot of people who are atheists. That's not to say that it doesn't go the other way, but this thread was about what the organised atheists were doing after all.

    An atheist if they were nothing else would be someone whose personal belief was that there was no god, no divinity of any kind. There's nothing wrong with that. An 'antitheist' as I see it is someone much like a christian missionary or muslim imam who sees it as their calling to seek out people who don't share their world view, and explain to them and convince them why theirs is right.

    There are holes in plenty of the religion's arguments and it's entirely likely that there is no god. But there is no proof either way. And if there was proof, it wouldn't likely make any difference to the world we see and experience. Birds would still fly, fish would still swim, etc.

    Also, there's a difference between religious freedoms / freedom of expression and elements of organised religion with it's own agendas that you start to touch on with the stem cell research issue. There are plenty of issues where religion plays a negative role but tackling that is different from the generalisations of religious people by some atheists.

    Which atheist group went around their university recently saying that studies had shown people with a lower IQ were less able to see the world how it was (as they saw it), and used a simpler template of religion because it's easier to explain everything away if some magical being is the reason. If that is NOT intellectual snobbery to the worst degree I don't know what is.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    FireFly85 wrote: »
    Everyone is entitled to their opinion, absolutely, but some opinions are just better/based on better evidence than others.

    The only reason I know that the world is round is because people have told me. I have not travelled in one direction long enough to come back to where I started, I have not gone into space to see it, I haven't even been on a plane high enough to see the curvature of the Earth. If I had not been told of this, I would fully be able to believe that the world was flat. This would be my logical conclusion based on all the evidence I could find within my power.
    Logic based on evidence is flawed unless absolutly everything is known about the subject, and to know everything is arrogance since nobody can know that much. This is why I think that Atheists (or the newly coined Antitheists) are being put down for their strengths of beliefs. They don't only believe. They know. They know because they have proof.
    Now here's something to think about: if most people in the world had seen proof of a god, but you hadn't and they told you about this, about what they saw and anything which would constitute proof, would you believe them?

    P.S. I recently wathced a 'Friends' episode titled 'The One Where Heckles Dies'. Now, while this show would not usually be your first stop for a philosophical debate, Pheobe puts up a really good argument against scientific 'knowledge'.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    An 'antitheist' as I see it is someone much like a christian missionary or muslim imam who sees it as their calling to seek out people who don't share their world view, and explain to them and convince them why theirs is right.

    That is not the job of an imam, and they are not comparable to Christian missionaries.

    I do agree that it's been a largely inane campaign - until this point. An air-punching moment for lots of people, to be sure, because it was an amusing turning of the tables, but really it's only when it comes under fire from Mr and Ms Offended that its reason for existing becomes clear. The campaign must continue now in a practical demonstration of the point that if there is 'religious freedom' to distribute shall we say partial ideas in public, then there must also be non-religious freedom to do the same. The campaign needs to emphasise that there is no right not to be offended; that "belief x has offended me" or "personality x and personality y have offended me by leaving a message on the answerphone of old man z" is not an adequate reason for their censorship, and never has been.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That is not the job of an imam, and they are not comparable to Christian missionaries.

    My fault, I play computer games too much :blush:. But there are probably some equivilent of the missionaries in most religions / ideologies.
    I do agree that it's been a largely inane campaign - until this point. An air-punching moment for lots of people, to be sure, because it was an amusing turning of the tables, but really it's only when it comes under fire from Mr and Ms Offended that its reason for existing becomes clear. The campaign must continue now in a practical demonstration of the point that if there is 'religious freedom' to distribute shall we say partial ideas in public, then there must also be non-religious freedom to do the same. The campaign needs to emphasise that there is no right not to be offended; that "belief x has offended me" or "personality x and personality y have offended me by leaving a message on the answerphone of old man z" is not an adequate reason for their censorship, and never has been.

    Yea, I never advocated the censorship of the campaign. Tho on the offensive thing, I think there should be 'good taste'. I don't think this campaign was in bad taste actually, it was just dumb :p. I think the religionist campaigns proclaiming people will go to hell are bad taste. I think people with posters of animals ripped open in full public are bad taste. People have their opinions, and their reasons for it, but there should be a cut off of what you can and can't expose to the public out of.. well taste.

    I should make clear that I was never offended by the bus campaign. I have no problem with it carrying on, but if it's point is to prove a point that they have the freedom to put their ideas on buses, isn't that the definition of doing something for the sake of it? And completely agreed on the russel brand thing (even more so, people tune in and so have a reasonable expectation what to expect - when someone takes their 4 year old child shopping they don't have a reasonable expectation they will see a larger-than-life poster of a monkey cut in half with its organs hanging out).

    My overriding 'objection' (if you can call it that, it's more "lol, they need to find something better to do") to this whole atheism on buses thing is a) I think it's a joke and b) secretly, I think a large part of it (based on my experience) is just because some atheists love nothing more than putting religious people down. Oh, you can imagine if they got the CHANCE to hang a poster giving 10 reasons why jesus can't have existed outside that big church place in London (Westminster abbey?), they would cream themselves. That's why I see the whole thing not as an exercise in freedom of expression, but as a chance to get one-up against the religionists.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The only reason I know that the world is round is because people have told me. I have not travelled in one direction long enough to come back to where I started, I have not gone into space to see it, I haven't even been on a plane high enough to see the curvature of the Earth. If I had not been told of this, I would fully be able to believe that the world was flat. This would be my logical conclusion based on all the evidence I could find within my power.
    Logic based on evidence is flawed unless absolutly everything is known about the subject, and to know everything is arrogance since nobody can know that much. This is why I think that Atheists (or the newly coined Antitheists) are being put down for their strengths of beliefs. They don't only believe. They know. They know because they have proof.
    Now here's something to think about: if most people in the world had seen proof of a god, but you hadn't and they told you about this, about what they saw and anything which would constitute proof, would you believe them?

    P.S. I recently wathced a 'Friends' episode titled 'The One Where Heckles Dies'. Now, while this show would not usually be your first stop for a philosophical debate, Pheobe puts up a really good argument against scientific 'knowledge'.

    I kind of know what you're saying. I try to be open minded (which inevitably influences me to dislike close mindedness). So if a theist came to me and gave reasoned arguments why evolution didn't exist, I would listen, and think. If you eliminate all preconceived ideas and open your mind to every possibility I think you end up enriching your perception of the world.

    I'm sure there was a quote I heard once that I can't attribute to anyone, but it was basically "ultimate wisdom is understanding we know nothing".
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    Hmm... let's say that the British Humanist Association, led by the gut-wrenchingly horrid Polly Toynbee from The Grauniad, went to the Advertising Standards Authority with an advert saying "There's probably no Allah", would the authorities have allowed it to be shown? Why do I suspect we already know the answer to this question?

    Not that I'd complain if some bearded nutter issued a fatwa against Pollyanna, of course.
    I've never heard a Christian refer to God as Allah, since I don't know any Asian Christians or ones who otherwise speak Urdu. I do know plenty of Muslims who use the word God to refer to Allah when speaking in English. Maybe if they were campaigning in Pakistan this would be relevant.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    P.S. I recently wathced a 'Friends' episode titled 'The One Where Heckles Dies'. Now, while this show would not usually be your first stop for a philosophical debate, Pheobe puts up a really good argument against scientific 'knowledge'.
    She really doesn't. The commits the usual logical fallacy that because science doesn't know everything, science knows nothing, or science can't be trusted. Of course many people will then use that argument to further propose the idea that "therefore, idea X (with no evidence) is just as valid an idea." Nobody has every pretended that science deals with anything other than probabilities.

    Bertrand Russell:
    When one admits that nothing is certain one must, I think, also admit that some things are much more nearly certain than others. It is much more nearly certain that we are assembled here tonight than it is that this or that political party is in the right. Certainly there are degrees of certainty, and one should be very careful to emphasize that fact, because otherwise one is landed in an utter skepticism, and complete skepticism would, of course, be totally barren and completely useless.

    The argument that science can be wrong is almost always put forward by people who will not commit their own ideas to the same level of skepticism. That's not intellectual honestly, or reasoned skepticism.

    On this anti-theist point, if I believe that on balance, religious belief and faith have a negative impact on society, is it not my right to put forward arguments as to why I believe that? If I think that conservatism is bad for society, nobody would accuse me of arrogance for arguing my case and trying to "convert" people. If I further think that this thing, which I believe has such a negative impact on society, is based on myths, is it then arrogant to point that out, particularly to people who would attempt to impose their belief system on everyone else?

    The people who get "offended" by such criticism are always the people who would impose their religion on the rest of us (Stephen Green, for example). People who have a live and let live attitude will have no problem with such debates about religious belief, because they recognise that people have different POVs, and they have made their choice. And there's a very good reason for this: religion as a social influence doesn't work if it allows people to question it. Religion fundamentally relies on everyone, including non-believers, believing it to be beneficial to their lives and to society. You won't find a single religious person on the planet who doesn't believe that their faith is beneficial in some way. There are religious people who genuinely believe, and there are religious people who vaguely believe, or don't believe, but still practice religion in whatever sense. All of them have one thing in common: they believe in belief. There are plenty of people who don't really accept the logical argument for God's existance, but think that it's useful in teaching morals to their kids, for example. How many people, we'll never really know, because they obviously act as if they do believe (but obviously, there are enough ex-religious people out there to know that people do it).

    And this is the real issue with this advert for the likes of Stephen Green. It's not an issue of denying God's existance, it's the insinuation that we can be perfectly moral and happy (perhaps moreso) without believing in God. And if enough people believe that, then the likes of Stephen Green will never get their way. In the absence of the power to silence doubters with force nowadays, offence is the only weapon left.

    If you've got an issue with what anti-theists say, then debate them. But what I can't stand is accusations of offence, and arguments that only ever focus on the character or manner of the person, rather than the points they make. The aims of the humanist association aren't to "deconvert" people as such (though that may be a side-affect of what they do), it's to campaign for a secular society, where religious beliefs aren't favoured or given any special treatment. Pointing out that religious beliefs lack evidence is obviously one way of doing that. And unfortunately, there's no way of doing that without including people who don't want to impose their religion on the rest of us. You could argue that it's a mistake in PR terms, and will alienate people who largely support what they do. But to call it arrogant is simply not true. If it's true that Stephen Green's beliefs are based on something without any evidence, then the same applies to the volunteer at the missionary. There's no getting round that, and I don't see why anyone should be obliged to tiptoe around that.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The only reason I know that the world is round is because people have told me. I have not travelled in one direction long enough to come back to where I started, I have not gone into space to see it, I haven't even been on a plane high enough to see the curvature of the Earth. If I had not been told of this, I would fully be able to believe that the world was flat. This would be my logical conclusion based on all the evidence I could find within my power.
    Logic based on evidence is flawed unless absolutly everything is known about the subject, and to know everything is arrogance since nobody can know that much. This is why I think that Atheists (or the newly coined Antitheists) are being put down for their strengths of beliefs. They don't only believe. They know. They know because they have proof.
    The difference is, you *could* go into space to see the earth is round, you could go on a plane high enough to see the curvature of the earth, you could look at the photographic evidence from satellites, you could sail around the world back to the same point you started, you could look at all the scientific theories that coincide with the earth being round (e.g. how it changes from day to night) and conclude that the earth is round. The fact that you haven't done any of those things doesn't mean that there isn't good evidence for them or that your belief in them is unfounded. Personally I don't just believe things because "someone told me" unless that person is an expert within a highly respected field (e.g. medicine) and would have no reason to deceive me.
    Logic based on evidence is flawed unless absolutly everything is known about the subject, and to know everything is arrogance since nobody can know that much.

    Isn't that statement self-refuting? By your own admission, it is impossible and arrogant to know everything about anything, including "logic based on evidence", so how can you make any claim about it?
    Now here's something to think about: if most people in the world had seen proof of a god, but you hadn't and they told you about this, about what they saw and anything which would constitute proof, would you believe them?

    No. I would want satisfactory proof that they weren't hallucinating, experiencing some sort of dellusion based on mass hysteria, or lying. I would want an explanation of why their experiences of God were all so different and had led them all to different conclusions. I would also want an explanation of why "most" people had "seen" proof of God (and if you can explain what exactly you mean by SEEING proof of God that would be very helpful), whereas others hadn't even if they had tried themselves. If they could produce evidence like science does, such as logical deduction that isn't flawed, or images that can't be explained by anything else, or some other way of finding out that anyone would be capable of doing, then that would be great. Unlike everything in science, which you can understand/see evidence for if you work hard enough, not anyone can just "see" proof of God, and that is the difference between the two. As it stands, I wouldn't believe "most" people if they turned around and said they'd "seen" the tooth fairy simply of the basis that they'd told me so.

    As for the bit about Friends, I think that has already been dealt with!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Though you have to acknowledge that there are limitations even of science.

    One way to think of it is like this. As humans, we evolved with a certain limited set of perceptions (and from these, a limited scope of understanding). We can only see radiated energy on certain wavelengths for example. Can only hear within certain frequencies. Therefore we can only understand (initially), the world within these limitations. *If* there were another dimension, with trans-dimensional beings, we can't perceive this other dimension, and so can never understand it.

    We have developed plenty of tools to extend the human races perception but there are still gaps. Ultimately, you have to acknowledge that there are some things we will never see, and never truly understand. Accept that there is a limit on how absolute our truth could be. This doesn't just refer to God either, some of the most fundamental physics we can work out how they work, but we still throw around theories without anymore evidence as to why they work (example: gravity).

    Kind of gone down a whole other angle on the debate now tho, heh. For what it's worth, many conservative religionists believe all the science in the world, but just believe it's God's work. I can't even remember what we were debating about in the first place, actually.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Also, there's a difference between religious freedoms / freedom of expression and elements of organised religion with it's own agendas that you start to touch on with the stem cell research issue. There are plenty of issues where religion plays a negative role but tackling that is different from the generalisations of religious people by some atheists.

    Which atheist group went around their university recently saying that studies had shown people with a lower IQ were less able to see the world how it was (as they saw it), and used a simpler template of religion because it's easier to explain everything away if some magical being is the reason. If that is NOT intellectual snobbery to the worst degree I don't know what is.

    I agree with you that going round saying "all religious people are stupid" is not very productive, especially since there are some amazingly intelligent religious people out there. However I think why we "antitheists" come across as so zealous is because there is this very strong sense in society that religion is something that should just be accepted, respected and tolerated, and that it is somehow something that no one has the right to talk about/question, when this shouldn't be the case; a belief doesn't become intrinsically valuable and moral just because it is a religious one.

    A belief based on any of the many religious texts, based on the idea of a "being" or many beings that one cannot see, that there (by the admission of many theologians) can be no evidence for, and that is sooooo dependent on upbringing and social/historical context may be something people wish to hold in the privacy of their own home, and fair enough. But when that particular religious text leads them to conclude that abortion clinics should be bombed, cartoonists should be beheaded, that their children should not be given blood transfusions, even when it leads them to vote for a particular person based *purely* on their religious beliefs/standpoints, then something has gone seriously wrong. I (and I'm sure many others) feel that since gods aren't entities that one can have any evidence for (that is basically what faith is about), that religion should not be part of the public/political sphere of life, because all it really has to contribute are the personal beliefs and interpretations of individual or groups believers, rather than anything based on evidence or respect for humanity that ANYONE can, or has the potential, to see and understand.

    People laugh/get offended/roll their eyes when someone compares religious belief to believing in fairies/santa/unicorns, but I don't really see why. If there were a particular group of religious believers who worshipped fairies that only they could see/have personal conversations with in their head, who took their faith very seriously, then why shouldn't this group be consulted on moral/political issues, based on the fairy chronicles? Since a belief doesn't become more true in relation to the number of people who believe it, or for the length of time/intensity with which they believe, why don't cult beliefs get more respect/tolerance? It just seems that if you're going to promote faith (i.e. belief in something without evidence, known to be strongly influenced by social factors), then why not "tolerate" racism, sexism, homophobia? There is no evidence to justify racist beliefs, but we don't just sit back and say "well as long as that person isn't going out and harming anyone it is okay for them to believe what they believe, despite the fact that it isn't really based on anything factual except some text they have read and their upbringing". We want to tackle the beliefs, find the root cause of them, use "evidence" to show why they are unfounded. In my view, it should be just as acceptable to do that with religion, because religion does have such a strong influence on what one does believe about social issues, like divorce, abortion, euthanasia, education, relationships, sex etc. and what one can consequently do in that society.

    Even completely leaving the theological/philosophical debates about the existence of gods aside, why not just work from basic values of the promotion of human happiness, well being and development, science and reason, simply because these are universal things that everyone can contribute to, as opposed to trying to take into account the billions of individual religious beliefs that all differ from one another, even on the fundamentals like their conception of god?

    Anyway! With regards to what you're saying that about limitations in scientific knowledge Shyboy, of course there are. However just because we can't know something now, it doesn't mean that there won't be developments in the future that allow us to have more of an understanding of things (e.g. the multiverse theory). I'm sure there were things 50 years ago that scientists never thought would be possible that we are doing today. I think there is an important distinction between limits to knowledge (i.e. what we don't currently have knowledge of) and boundies to knowledge (i.e. what it will never be possible for us to have knowledge of). But as you say that is a different issue, and I've posted waaay too much so I'll be quite now!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I (and I'm sure many others) feel that since gods aren't entities that one can have any evidence for (that is basically what faith is about), that religion should not be part of the public/political sphere of life, because all it really has to contribute are the personal beliefs and interpretations of individual or groups believers, rather than anything based on evidence or respect for humanity that ANYONE can, or has the potential, to see and understand.

    J'agree. I'm a strong supporter of a secular society. Like I said, I just don't like people who bash religious people like they're better than them :). Watching American History X last night, there was a really good quote about ideology (in kind of a not-completely-related-way-but-still-relevent):
    Bob Sweeney: There was a moment... when I used to blame everything and everyone... for all the pain and suffering and vile things that happened to me, that I saw happen to my people. Used to blame everybody. Blamed white people, blamed society, blamed God. I didn't get no answers 'cause I was asking the wrong questions. You have to ask the right questions.
    Derek Vinyard: Like what?
    Bob Sweeney: Has anything you've done made your life better?

    Cuts straight through really. We should pursue objectives that enrich our lives and the lives of others, rather than pursuing vendettas. And with that I think we've both waffled on enough for one thread :p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    Though you have to acknowledge that there are limitations even of science.

    One way to think of it is like this. As humans, we evolved with a certain limited set of perceptions (and from these, a limited scope of understanding). We can only see radiated energy on certain wavelengths for example. Can only hear within certain frequencies. Therefore we can only understand (initially), the world within these limitations. *If* there were another dimension, with trans-dimensional beings, we can't perceive this other dimension, and so can never understand it.

    We have developed plenty of tools to extend the human races perception but there are still gaps. Ultimately, you have to acknowledge that there are some things we will never see, and never truly understand. Accept that there is a limit on how absolute our truth could be. This doesn't just refer to God either, some of the most fundamental physics we can work out how they work, but we still throw around theories without anymore evidence as to why they work (example: gravity).

    Kind of gone down a whole other angle on the debate now tho, heh. For what it's worth, many conservative religionists believe all the science in the world, but just believe it's God's work. I can't even remember what we were debating about in the first place, actually.

    Apologies in advance for being curt, and probably a dick as well.

    You've presented a rather verbose God of the Gaps arguement: we don't know everything so God could be hiding in bits we don't know. It's in the category of 'plain bleedin' obvious' that we don't know everything. It's also not a wild bet to assert that we may never know everything. That's as far as you can take it though. As soon as you start trying to podge the supernatural into the bits we don't know then you're just making shit up. e.g.: A rabid monkey-donkey could have cluster-fucked the universe into existance. We don't KNOW it didn't. Science doesn't know everything and hence it can't be proved absolutely that it didn't. So i have a prefectly valid belief which must have at least a 50/50 chance of being right, surely? Have I fuck. God holds precisely as much weight as my hypothesis. Russel's Teapot deals with this.

    The limited senses arguement drives me barmy as well. Maybe God is something only dogs can hear; maybe if we evolved the sixth sense dietysmellovision then God would be selfevident. And maybe we should deal with the observable universe and try to understand that, rather than indulging in 6th form philosophy.

    Also, are you seriously telling me you believe gravity is just a wild theory scientists band about with no evidence and with little-to-no idea how it works?

    Sorry.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No cptcoathanger, as for the gravity we have plenty of evidence, we can model how it works, but as of yet there is still no definitive answer as to WHY it works. It's just an example of the limitations of human understanding. I'm not trying to put forward a case for God, I'm just putting a case AGAINST how some atheists believe because someone does believe in god, they're wrong. When there is 'a possibility'. Just like there is a possiblity that a rabid monkey-donkey could have cluster-fucked the university into existence.

    Just so you don't think I'm a bible basher, I don't believe in god per se, I am just open minded about it all. I think the best way to describe my spirituality is that everything is divine, not that divinity is some intelligent being. I just find the fact that anything exists at all including all the stars and everything, matter, energy, a wonder. If it didn't exist, what would there be? Hard to get my head round. Even theoretical / metaphysicists can't answer this question as to why anything exists, except to say, that it exists because it exists.

    So in a way my perspective is an awe of everything almost, whereas a typical theist is a reverence of a sentient god, and a typical atheist is an acceptance that the physical world in front of us is the only world. I am not inclined to get into a theological debate because I will lose lol, I only have my own ideas.

    Though I don't agee with the idea that because an atheist bases his idea on physical science he is automatically right and a theist is automatically wrong. I just believe there is that little bit of uncertainty. Maybe that's the definition of agnostic hehe. I accept the POSSIBILITY that there is more to everything than we will ever understand. I accept that it is POSSIBLE we are like bacteria compared to elephants, that there *may* be something much greater than some people can call God if they like, that we will never, ever understand.

    I just had to wikipedia the god of the gaps argument tho, sorry I didn't realise it existed heh :p.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    No cptcoathanger, as for the gravity we have plenty of evidence, we can model how it works, but as of yet there is still no definitive answer as to WHY it works.
    What do you even mean, "why does it work?"

    I'm always dubious about a question starting in "why." It usually means "what purpose," which automatically infers some intelligent, conscious intentions behind something. And since "purpose" is a concept invented by intelligent beings capable of creating things with a purpose in mind, it is nonsensical to ask that question about something that has no evidence to having the intentions of a creative intelligence behind it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    tldr; scroll down to my next post

    No no, what I mean, is the physical mechanism behind it. There are a few (very complicated) theories but nobody really understands it. We know that gravity acts on two objects, a good description of a way to think of it is as if you put balls on a trampoline, if one ball is large it will make the trampoline sink and other balls will gravitate towards it (of course that is simplistic lol).

    But what I am really curious about (bear in mind, as I was growing up Newton was my childhood hero :p I was a physics geek lol) is why this happens. My point is, it's an example of how there are gaps in our understanding. http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/070810_gm_gravity.html

    Anyway, cptcoathanger may be right I was using a logical fallacy in god of the gaps, but honestly I was just trying to put into words the way I feel about it that it is impossible to be certain about things. That's not to say we should be sceptical about science, I believe in science far more than I'd ever believe in the bible.

    But I am not arrogant enough to state I know the absolute truth of everything, because there is an absolute limit on what we can understand. Like I've said, it's very doubtful that some sentient being created the earth, even more so in seven days as written 1500 years ago by some monks somewhere. And I'm happy to question someone's belief with the logical arguments and the scientific arguments. But I have to hold my hands up and say honestly I can't tell them 100% god does not exist, and they're welcome to hold their religious views - I am not intimidated by them.

    *Some* atheists (this is based on my experience) are not happy to do this. They are unable to accept that their idea of the world is fallible (even if much, much less so than others). I've seen effectively ideological bullying. When they see religion, they see a collective force of oppression and so on, and announce that because they have no need of religion, nor shall anyone else.

    When I see religion, I see an ideology based on faith, that has done many things good and bad. I struggle not to be awestruck by the power of such an ideology that can lead people to build great cathedrals that now I can't imagine being built. Whether we like it or not, religion has formed part of our culture. We don't have to believe in any of it, but it is a part of us.

    In some ways I guess you could compare my idea about antitheists to the communists in Russia (this is a far stretch though) in 1918. They sought to throw out the old ideology and instill a new, better one. Everything positive about the previous ideology; the great palaces etc. was ignored and the dogma of the new ideology was followed rigorously.

    I believe not in this 'destroy this idea in favour of this one' but an open forum of all ideas. I don't see why to some that seems intimidating like I am colluding with these nasty religionists. I just don't believe in shouting down their largely harmless ideas (I will happily rage at all the harmful ones, but I don't believe most of religion is about that at all from all the religious people I know).

    Damn, this thread is becoming a timesink.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Right, here we go again :) just found this:

    http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistsrespectreligion/a/Differences.htm

    I think we can agree it's not pro religion lol, I think it really sums things up in a way I seem to be failing to do by waffling on about all sorts of different things.
    It's true that there are stupid and evil people out there, that many of these people are religious believers, and that many of them justify the stupid or evil things they do on the basis of their religions. It's a mistake, however, to simply assume that because a person accepts baseless religious doctrines, then they must be one of those stupid or evil people. We should respect religious differences because we should try to respect other human beings.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy: Like IWS, I immediately balk - especially in the scientific realm - when a question starts with 'why?'. 'Why does gravity work?' sounds like 'To what end does gravity work?' and what that infers makes me uncomfortable. If you're simply asking 'Why does gravity not exactly conform to the models we have to explain it?' then I'm all for the exploration of what other effects are in play. I think if we swapped 'why' for 'how' in your first couple of paragraphs I'd be much happier.

    I'm in awe of the universe as well, but I never let that awe slip into anything that could be defined as religiosity.

    I don't think absolutes are particularly useful and I've never met another atheist who's said 'I know there is no God'. I also think the agnostic position is a bit of a moot one. One doesn't declare anything useful when professing an agnostic position; no one knows whether there is or isn't a God and I suspect most people are either agnostic atheist or agnostic theist.

    In the end I believe in the value of evidence, reason, critical thinking and the effectiveness of the scientific method. I think it's far more reasonable to expect a cure for cancer to come from scientific research rather than prayer, but if you asked me to state with a 100% certainty that praying wouldn't cure cancer, I couldn't - I'd just be a damn fool to think it would.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think it's far more reasonable to expect a cure for cancer to come from scientific research rather than prayer, but if you asked me to state with a 100% certainty that praying wouldn't cure cancer, I couldn't - I'd just be a damn fool to think it would.

    I think it would also be foolish to expect a cure to come from scientific research. It is far too big an industry to provide a cure and kill the cash cow. I think it would be a safe bet to expect many more treatments to be discovered. That is where the profit is.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think it would also be foolish to expect a cure to come from scientific research. It is far too big an industry to provide a cure and kill the cash cow. I think it would be a safe bet to expect many more treatments to be discovered. That is where the profit is.
    What a ridiculous idea. Cancer isn't a single illness, it's a plethora of completely different diseases with different molecular causes, symptoms and treatments. Scores of drugs and treatments have already been developed that can cure several types in many patients. The idea of a single cure for all cancer is nonsense - the treatment will always be a combination of approaches, often including expensive drugs. If you honestly think all cancer research is avoiding useful treatments to make more profit, you must be seriously deluded.

    Anyway, that's off topic. I never saw any of the buses, I'm very disappointed. I definitely think they should go with a national campaign next.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think I've finally figured out why this disagreement is occurring. It has nothing to do with people having a different opinion on whether or not God exists. It's to do with the pointlessness of the adverts.
    If there is a God, and He is exactly as the christians, Muslims, Hidus, Jews, Vikings...whatever portray him then they are doing the right thing in telling people about it. If Atheists are right and there is no God, it has no usful function whatsoever except to stir up controversy for this very reason.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think I've finally figured out why this disagreement is occurring. It has nothing to do with people having a different opinion on whether or not God exists. It's to do with the pointlessness of the adverts.
    If there is a God, and He is exactly as the christians, Muslims, Hidus, Jews, Vikings...whatever portray him then they are doing the right thing in telling people about it. If Atheists are right and there is no God, it has no usful function whatsoever except to stir up controversy for this very reason.

    Erm, I am assuming you have not read the thread and the massive posts about the impact religion has on our lives, the social and political sphere, laws, and ultimately what we are and aren't allowed to do in our society? How about you go around telling people there is no god because you don't want the religious right to have any influence on (for example) abortion laws based on their belief? How about you don't feel religious beliefs should have any more respect than any other superstitious belief? I'm sure it is much simpler to think atheists just want to stir up controversy as opposed to realising they are concerned with actually improving our society and encouraging people to value and respect each other as human beings, to take responsiblity for the consequences of their actions here, in this life, rather than putting it all on some eternal reward/judgement. But of course, improving society in this way would not by any means be a "useful action", whereas telling people they are going to hell (whatever their religious belief) if they don't believe in Jesus is :chin:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think I've finally figured out why this disagreement is occurring. It has nothing to do with people having a different opinion on whether or not God exists. It's to do with the pointlessness of the adverts.
    If there is a God, and He is exactly as the christians, Muslims, Hidus, Jews, Vikings...whatever portray him then they are doing the right thing in telling people about it. If Atheists are right and there is no God, it has no usful function whatsoever except to stir up controversy for this very reason.

    Nonsense. See the post by Firefly for arguments against this rubbish.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think I've finally figured out why this disagreement is occurring. It has nothing to do with people having a different opinion on whether or not God exists. It's to do with the pointlessness of the adverts.
    If there is a God, and He is exactly as the christians, Muslims, Hidus, Jews, Vikings...whatever portray him then they are doing the right thing in telling people about it. If Atheists are right and there is no God, it has no usful function whatsoever except to stir up controversy for this very reason.
    If there is a God and he is exactly as the main religious portray him, then he is a vicious, twisted, nasty, evil, narcissistic piece of shit not worth talking about, let alone worshipping.

    If there is a God but instead of the vicious bastard described by the Abrahamites, he's a benign all-knowing wise being, then be assured he couldn't care less who you sleep with or whether you worship him or not.

    And if there isn't a God after all (as logic dictates, to be honest) then people should concentrate on being good to each other and above all tolerant, rather than following stupid rules and being prejudiced against those who choose not to believe in deities and silly rules.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    If there is a God and he is exactly as the main religious portray him, then he is a vicious, twisted, nasty, evil, narcissistic piece of shit not worth talking about, let alone worshipping.

    If there is a God but instead of the vicious bastard described by the Abrahamites, he's a benign all-knowing wise being, then be assured he couldn't care less who you sleep with or whether you worship him or not.

    And if there isn't a God after all (as logic dictates, to be honest) then people should concentrate on being good to each other and above all tolerant, rather than following stupid rules and being prejudiced against those who choose not to believe in deities and silly rules.

    Well said :thumb:
Sign In or Register to comment.