The pope. Popeing about.

[krooton]

This may have been covered earlier in the thread, but I do wonder how many people follow a religion that they were not indoctrinated in to...

Whilst I am sure it happens, I don't think there are many cases of people being agnostic, reading up on various religions, and then picking the one they believe the most.

I was brought up being told "there is a God", rather than "we believe there is a God", and once my brain got all teenager and analytical/critical, I decided that there wasn't enough proof for me to believe in a higher power.

 

[RDM]

So you guys agree with the Pope then? Atheism was the cause?

God no, I think he is talking absolute rubbish and frankly needs to get his own house in order before he goes around criticising others.

 

[Castiel]

God no, I think he is talking absolute rubbish and frankly needs to get his own house in order before he goes around criticising others.

Agreed. The Pope is no more right than Dawkins.

 

[steve-h]

Agreed. The Pope is no more right than Dawkins.

But Dawkins wasn't saying Christianity was the cause... he was saying the way they count Catholics(?) in this country... means Hitler would be a Christian.

He's saying (and already has said) religion had nothing to do with his crime, quite the opposite of what the pope was saying.

 

[Participant]

The answer to the question 'I believe in science, but what created science in the first place?'...I don't know. But at least I say I don't know, rather than guessing entirely.

Can someone confront this point.

Christians et al just seem to choose a line of 'well we reckon something else created everything, but we don't know what...so we'll invent an enormous fairytale to explain it'.

Whereas rational people say 'There is absolutely nothing worth considering that makes me believe that any god is the one true god, or that there even is a god as we understand it. Therefore I'll sit on the fence rather than worshipping something that's probably BS, instead of inventing a string of stories.'

 

[Glaucus]

So you guys agree with the Pope then? Atheism was the cause?

No, the cause is human nature. Sooner people realise this the better. You can't blame it on atheism and you can't blame it on religion. It is human nature people will corrupt anything that gives them power.

 

[Pudney]

Can someone confront this point.

Christians et al just seem to choose a line of 'well we reckon something else created everything, but we don't know what...so we'll invent an enormous fairytale to explain it'.

Whereas rational people say 'There is absolutely nothing worth considering that makes me believe that any god is the one true god, or that there even is a god as we understand it. Therefore I'll sit on the fence rather than worshipping something that's probably BS, instead of inventing a string of stories.'

Aren't you atheist not agnostic? Because you don't seem to sit on the fence.

Religious people sit on one side, atheists (which I believe you are) sit on the other. Agnostics in the middle. Therefore your position is much the same as those who believe in a religion.

Unless you're agnostic in which case it doesn't apply

 

[Usher]

Atheists here and elsewhere point to Moses and the parting if the water and say impossible, well Science doesn't agree.

Are you saying that it can be scientifically proven that the sea can be parted & roll back in two different directions as depicted in the bible ?

Is not the common belief now that the parting of the red sea is a translation error & that it actually says parting the 'sea of reeds' ?

tales rather than to be taken as literal truth. Whereas the Gospels are meant to be truthful observations of Jesus' life. To properly criticise it you need to be able to know the difference between the various books and when criticism is warranted.

.

Why should he or any other atheist need to know the difference between different sections of the bible ?
The biblical version of events regarding creation and anything perceived as supernatural does not need to be taken into consideration in any atheist views as to why he comes to the conclusion that there is no god and this has been pointed out many times.

Atheists don't accept that Jesus was anything other than an ordinary man so what is written in the bible is therefore totally & utterly irrelevant & the sooner you come to that conclusion the better.
Your statement is akin to someone quoting passages from the bible to atheists as if to influence their thinking somehow.

Atheists don't accept the bible as evidence or proof of anything

 

[Participant]

Aren't you atheist not agnostic? Because you don't seem to sit on the fence.

Religious people sit on one side, atheists (which I believe you are) sit on the other. Agnostics in the middle. Therefore your position is much the same as those who believe in a religion.

Unless you're agnostic in which case it doesn't apply

These stupid pigeonholes are next to useless. They're just made up to try and categorise people, as that's what human beings find easier to understand.

My position is that there's almost certainly no 'higher being' as we consider it, so it's whatever you call that.

I am not atheist if an atheist means that you are certain. Nobody can possibly be 100% certain.

I am not agnostic if that means you are 50 / 50. I am more like 0.000000001 / 99.999999999.

 

[Pudney]

Are you saying that it can be scientifically proven that the sea can be parted & roll back in two different directions as depicted in the bible ?

I think there was some scientist who put forward the theory that it could have happened due to winds/tides/something else. It's been a while since I read it, although it appears to be in the news again today. Haven't read it (may be a different theory).

These stupid pigeonholes are next to useless. They're just made up to try and categorise people, as that's what human beings find easier to understand.

My position is that there's almost certainly no 'higher being' as we consider it, so it's whatever you call that.

I am not atheist if an atheist means that you are certain. Nobody can possibly be 100% certain.

I am not agnostic if that means you are 50 / 50. I am more like 0.000000001 / 99.999999999.

Then I'm not sure what there is to confront. You've made the step that you don't know but are positive that deity(ies) aren't the answer, other people have made different steps, be it a 50:50 position or towards a deity solution.

Your opinion is a valid one, religious people's opinions are also valid as there's no concrete answer. So, other than saying people differ there really wasn't much to confront with your statement.

Hope that was unhelpful!

 

[RDM]

Why should he or any other atheist need to know the difference between different sections of the bible ?

So basically you advocate criticising something based on ignorance?

The biblical version of events regarding creation and anything perceived as supernatural does not need to be taken into consideration in any atheist views as to why he comes to the conclusion that there is no god and this has been pointed out many times.

Atheists don't accept that Jesus was anything other than an ordinary man so what is written in the bible is therefore totally & utterly irrelevant & the sooner you come to that conclusion the better.
Your statement is akin to someone quoting passages from the bible to atheists as if to influence their thinking somehow.

Atheists don't accept the bible as evidence or proof of anything

To be honest, I have read this a few times now and don't actually understand the point you are trying to make. I understand that atheists don't accept the bible as evidence or proof of anything, but how is "The Bible isn't real." any better an argument than "The Bible is real."? Surely it would be better to say "The Bible isn't real because of a, b and c"? And to do that you need to know what you are arguing against?

 

[krooton]

Indoctrination?

 

[Deadbeat]

Religious people sit on one side, atheists (which I believe you are) sit on the other. Agnostics in the middle. Therefore your position is much the same as those who believe in a religion.

I've been avoiding getting involved in this thread for days, but I've got to jump in to call you out on this point. In truth my own beliefs are probably closest to either theism without the personification or deism without the creationist aspect, but pushed into a corner I'd have to admit that at root I'm agnostic - even though I believe what I do, and without getting in to exactly what I believe, I'm not earnestly convinced in myself that I'm right and I'd never claim my belief as truth, certainly not over anybody else's personal truth. I'm probably being pedantic, but I'd say placing agnosticism in the middle of your little feud with the existentialists on the greener side is about as condescending a view as any other I've come across in this thread. You're drawing a straight line in a world of multiple dimensions, and it doesn't do justice to the variety of beliefs in modern society.

I don't mean to paint you with the bigot brush, but I only raise the issue because it's one I've encountered before - I don't believe what you [third person] believe, therefore you [third person] label me as part of "them", because I'm certainly not one of "us" - and it perfectly captures the fanatic drive for controlled ignorance that gave us 800 years of backsliding intellectual regression.

Just to clarify, I have no problems with religion in any form - for the individual, nobody could argue its potential for comfort & meaning. Organised religion, on the other hand, is nothing but bad news and thoroughly deserves the hatred and contempt so often erroneously doled out to religion itself.

 

[Pudney]

I've been avoiding getting involved in this thread for days, but I've got to jump in to call you out on this point. In truth my own beliefs are probably closest to either theism without the personification or deism without the creationist aspect, but pushed into a corner I'd have to admit that at root I'm agnostic - even though I believe what I do, and without getting in to exactly what I believe, I'm not earnestly convinced in myself that I'm right and I'd never claim my belief as truth, certainly not over anybody else's personal truth. I'm probably being pedantic, but I'd say placing agnosticism in the middle of your little feud with the existentialists on the greener side is about as condescending a view as any other I've come across in this thread. You're drawing a straight line in a world of multiple dimensions, and it doesn't do justice to the variety of beliefs in modern society.

What greener side? My point isn't towards agnostics and atheists it's to Robbie_G not an attack on all. The point being he has a firm belief that deity(ies) do not exist. Which is fine. But you can't rubbish the counter belief when they have as much evidence as you (third person).

Which of course works vice versa as well. Someone who is religious shouldn't rubbish the beliefs of an atheist.

side note for robbie - if you weren't rubbishing religious claims I apologise, I only dip in and out of this thread

As for my feud. My feud is not respecting facts and evidence no matter where they reside. I don't really care which side it comes from, however it's much harder to rubbish "faith" arguments.

I do care when people say that the bible has no merits. It does, many of it's parts are respected in historical circles as a primary source of events. I'm not that fussed by the religious implications for this debate. I care when some people can call other people's beliefs worthless whilst maintaining their own belief are gospel, pun intended.

And for reference, my current opinion on the existence or not of a deity isn't the reason for any comments in this thread, the only reason is when I disagree with the validity of an argument.

 

[Pate]

This thread is akin to bashing a head against a wall saying LEARN LEARN LEARN

 

[Deadbeat]

What greener side?

The metaphorical other side of the fence, where the grass is always greener. Probably not the best adage to employ in the circumstance.

I care when some people can call other people's beliefs worthless whilst maintaining their own belief are gospel

To your merit, I haven't seen you either announcing your beliefs as the absolute truth or decrying the beliefs, or lack thereof, of anyone else in the thread, an aspect that's thankfully becoming more and more prevalent amongst religious types - or, in my experience, a reflection of the more considerate and intelligent populous being less embarassed to declare their religion openly, a fact often hidden in the secular trends of earlier decades and, more recently, new-age revival. Still, planting agnostics in between atheists and monotheists of the major [Western] religions still smacks of disparagement and misunderstanding on what the term actually encompasses. A good many of my friends who hold somewhat similar beliefs to mine would also class themselves as agnostics, if pushed to, and my point still stands - it's no better to claim agnosticism as indecision between atheism & your own religion than it is to decry the Bible as fairy tales or revere it as the written word of God.

 

[Participant]

What greener side? My point isn't towards agnostics and atheists it's to Robbie_G not an attack on all. The point being he has a firm belief that deity(ies) do not exist. Which is fine. But you can't rubbish the counter belief when they have as much evidence as you (third person).

Which of course works vice versa as well. Someone who is religious shouldn't rubbish the beliefs of an atheist.

side note for robbie - if you weren't rubbishing religious claims I apologise, I only dip in and out of this thread

As for my feud. My feud is not respecting facts and evidence no matter where they reside. I don't really care which side it comes from, however it's much harder to rubbish "faith" arguments.

I do care when people say that the bible has no merits. It does, many of it's parts are respected in historical circles as a primary source of events. I'm not that fussed by the religious implications for this debate. I care when some people can call other people's beliefs worthless whilst maintaining their own belief are gospel, pun intended.

And for reference, my current opinion on the existence or not of a deity isn't the reason for any comments in this thread, the only reason is when I disagree with the validity of an argument.

My point was that a lack of evidence either way is not always in itself a reason not to scorn something.

If I make a stupid claim...let's say I publish a book claiming to be in charge of the entire universe due to the fact that my pet monkey likes bananas, then stick my fingers in my ears and shout 'you can't prove it's not true so you can't rubbish my ideas', then I'd except to be laughed at. Some things are just too ridiculous to even require evidence.

I would also argue that religious people don't have as much evidence as me. There is far more evidence against the existence of a 'higher being' than there is for it. In fact there is precisely zero evidence in favour of it but for the sheer volumes of nutters prepared to follow the idea, but I put that down to upbringing, like folk lore passed down generations of gypsies.

It's no different in my mind to people that claim they're telepathic or can talk to ghosts. 'Yeah, well, but, you can't prove I'm wrong so both of our views are equally as viable'.

Religion and its stories are ridiculous to me. Fine, some of the bible has historical significance, but I am pouring scorn on anyone arrogant enough to believe that, of all the gods that are currently being worshipped and ever have been invented by the human race, theirs is the one true god.

 

[TipTop]

 

[RDM]

There is far more evidence against the existence of a 'higher being' than there is for it.

Such as?

In fact there is precisely zero evidence in favour of it but for the sheer volumes of nutters prepared to follow the idea, but I put that down to upbringing, like folk lore passed down generations of gypsies.

Not entirely accurate, but the above is not the same as "evidence against the existence".

 

[Pudney]

Still, planting agnostics in between atheists and monotheists of the major [Western] religions still smacks of disparagement and misunderstanding on what the term actually encompasses. A good many of my friends who hold somewhat similar beliefs to mine would also class themselves as agnostics, if pushed to, and my point still stands - it's no better to claim agnosticism as indecision between atheism & your own religion than it is to decry the Bible as fairy tales or revere it as the written word of God.

Whilst religious views are more of a venn diagram, I grew up playing DnD so can't get away from simplifying it as an alignment table

Bear I mind, I really have no desire to debate the actual merits of any position so using a detailed viewpoint is kinda over the top for my needs.

So I don't mean agnosticism as "indecision", but in my mind a true agnostic (see the DnD? ) sits firmly in the middle of the sliding scale. An agnostic such as you would be slightly on the side towards religion if you get my drift.

So whilst in the real world you have the venn diagram, for the sake of simplicity I use my DnD alignments as opposed to any criticism or indecision