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.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
They don't obey a book because its a book - they believe that they have had spiritual encounter with their creator and the book is just the 'manual' on how to develop that relationship ...
sometime back you were defending the use of placebos ...so if a few million people get comfort and hope and strength from a god you believe doesn't exist but they do ...what problem is it for you?
and why ridicule them to the extent of telling them they are full of shit mental caes?
Yep, they are insane.
Did they have an encounter with their creator?
Or was it wind?
No proof = delusion.
Because belief in placebo's is beneficial, belief in god and all that other stuff is detrimental. Also, the end point of letting beliefs in rubbish foster is totalitarianism.
I'm going OTT to make a point, more to myself than anything else. I am of the view that it might not be the view that's held that is a problem, but the way it's held. To this end, i thought I would see if you can have a fundamentalist atheist.
And you can, which is a bit scary.
Theres very little to be gained by telling the mad they are mad, after all.
I embrace my ignorance Mr. Roll.
Other people seem to want to cover it with false certainty.
I more or less am.
And I am very, very good at it.
we know absolutely nothing about the universe we inhabit and even less about the human brain/mind/heart connection.
and understanding self, helping one deal, learn, know and master self.
Dictionary Information: Definition Arrogance
Thesaurus: Arrogance
Description and Meaning: Arrogance
Arrogance (Ar"ro*gance) (#), n.
[F., fr. L. arrogantia, fr. arrogans. See Arrogant.]
The act or habit of arrogating, or making undue claims in an overbearing manner; that species of pride which consists in exorbitant claims of rank, dignity, estimation, or power, or which exalts the worth or importance of the person to an undue degree; proud contempt of others; lordliness; haughtiness; self-assumption; presumption. "I hate not you for her proud arrogance." Shak.
just thought i'd remind myself of the meaning.
I happen to agree with Klint that believing in a god is a mental illness, but I don't actually say that out loud to people- each to their own and I guess we're all a little mad.
A mate was telling me that there's an area in the brain that only becomes active, makes neurological connections, when the person engages in religious beliefs and activitys. Maybe there is a point to being a believer?
Part of me's a little jealous of those who believe- as though they must have some extra positive dimension to their lives but, I've tried (and been pushed) to believe and cannae. It also must be fun to be Ally McSkinny and see dancing babies everywhere...
Yeah, it does. It's pretty simple. I have never encountered anything that canot be revealed through thought and the use of the senses. Neither has anyone else. If someone tells me something and objective reality disagrees they are wrong.
If they insist upon saying they are right in the face f no evidence, then they are insane, unless they say "I have no proof and know it's kinda dumb but believe anyway." Which religious people don't so.
Openminded, sure? I am open to the idea that there is a god, but upon checking we find there is no evidence. That being the case, my mind closes up again.
Well, exactly. We know very little about a hell of a lot of stuff. To abandon serious investigation and say "ahh down to god, that lot" is just lazy and a bit dim.
I'd also love to know how near uncertainty about the real world translates into certain belief in God. Makes NO sense.
Isn't undue, it's perfectly reasonable.
Seeing things is easy, telling them apart from reality is the trick, from the looks of it.
All the time. If we are in a room with oh let's say, an apple on the table, our perception od that apple is limited by our eyesight, the light in the room and a whole host of other things. Guess what though, the apple, upon checking using the senses, is actually there there. God isn't.
Belief in god has nothing to do with perception of the world. If god could be perceived then I have no point to make. He can't, so I do.
Oh i know. That's why the title of the thread is "religious people KNOW they are full of shit". They all perceive the real world properly but decide to chuck out reality in favour of comforting myths. Good luck to them, but they are loonies. They really do think like I do they just haven't got the balls to admit it.
Well exactly. This is what religion is based on - "everyone else thinks so, I guess I have to play along" and it's plop! Silly pronouncements that would be openly laughed at if there weren't so damn many people making them.
Well, religious people want me yto change my behaviour or dead, it's kind of fair I mock them.
let's go back to that apple. If one person syas there is an apple in the room, we check and if we cannot also perceive that apple we conclude they are mad. I understand that if 20 people say they see an apple and you don't you are more inclined to think there is something wrong with your senses and that is of course how religion works.
ok, fair enough. If that is true, they will be able to tell me the evidence procedure they have for knowing it's god and not just randomness. Problem here is that they have no evidence procedure, they are just making stuff up and acting like it's true.
There......are.......no........facts........
Yes, there is. Man I hate this "theres just subjective reality" stuff. The speed of light is the same for all of us. Gravity operates the same on all of us, we all burn if put into fire and we all die if we run out of oxygen. There is an objective reality.
religeon should always be questioned and those that dont should be ridiculed, religeon is a very powerful thing
As for Klintock's little diatribe, until he has full and conclusive proof that God is a fabrication, he would be well served to shut his mouth. You can't ridicule someone for not having proof unless you're going to provide some proof of your own.
Nah, bollocks. If you are seeing things that aren't there, your a nutter. Simple as.
NBobbins. The level of proof for saying "we don't know so it might be" is so weak it's nonsense. This argument is proof that fairies exist, santa delivers presents, the easter bunny lives in the viallge and the moomins are real.
SOME of those are laughable to everyone but for some people others of them aren't. Even the vaguest consistency boots them all as being utterly stupid.
It's down to the believers to prove he exists and if they can't prove it to shut their pie hole.
So you're basically saying that things only exist if someone perceives them? So, if you were the last person on the earth, and you'd never perceived a butterfly, or any evidence for a butterfly, a butterfly therefore doesn't exist? Rubbish. It is true that we only have our senses to rely on, but that doesn't mean that things exist beyond sensual perception. There are thousands of examples within the scientific field where we may have reason to believe that a certain process occurs, but we cannot perceive this process and cannot prove it. And yet you would still put your faith in that, so why is faith in God any more unreasonable?
Personally, I think you *do* have to prove that God doesn't exist in order to be able to make that statement. There is no possible way to falsify or to verify God's existence, so to say that he definitely does or does not exist are both equally ignorant viewpoints. You can say that you personally have never had any reason to believe God exists, or that you don't think that there is enough evidence to support existence of a God, but nothing in science or otherwise has proven or disproven the existence of God.
Humans are not the centre of the universe, our perceptions are not ultimate.
This I agree with. But that includes atheism as much as it does religious fundamentalism.
That's a bit silly though. I could say that my god, let's call it 'dancing baby' just for fun, is real- how would you disprove almighty Dancing Baby's existence when my arguement is that I percieve it therefore it is...
No, I am saying that things are only known to have existed or exist IF someone has perceived them. Yes, butterflies would still exist, but, get this...you not only don't know that they do, you know that you know you don't know and will happily admit it.
This is quite a bit different from saying "I have no idea if something exists or not, but fuck it I will believe in it anyway".
And every single one of them is held open to new evidence, thinking and criticism, and is also held as a "we think this might be happening but aren't sure and have no proof but seems likely given the EVIDENCE AVAILABLE".
Totally different.
Fair enough, but you are also invalidating completely any belief in god with this statement. Id the most you can sat is "I don't know" then weak atheism is what is left for everyone.
Science is a methodology. Using that methodology there is no god.
:yes:
Exactly.