Faith...

You should thank me for not including the extra quote Castle, because it still pointlessly refers to his childhood. Please could you answer my question this time: aside from child abuse victims, who else's opinion do you wish to discount summarily based on their unfortunate circumstances?

I did not discount his opinion summarily, you are simply being dishonest.

To consider any opinion objectively, is it right to ignore the reasons why they may have come to those conclusions, or ignore bias and the reasons for it?

That says more about you than me.
 
To consider any opinion objectively, is it right to ignore the reasons why they may have come to those conclusions, or ignore bias and the reasons for it?

Not if you actually address the point raised, rather than discount it summarily based on some extraneous factor in the person's life. You didn't ignore his background, but you certainly ignored his points because of his background.

I mean you referred to his failure as a comic for pete's sake. When I start reading people bringing up such irrelevancies, I'm immediately suspicious that their point is just smoke and mirrors. How's that for making wild assumptions.
 
Not if you actually address the point raised, rather than discount it summarily based on some extraneous factor in the person's life. You didn't ignore his background, but you certainly ignored his points because of his background.

I mean you referred to his failure as a comic for pete's sake. When I start reading people bringing up such irrelevancies, I'm immediately suspicious that their point is just smoke and mirrors. How's that for making wild assumptions.

it isn't irrelevant. His childhood was mired in religious separatism and indoctrination, it is entirely valid to consider that when assessing his viewpoint. As for his career, he failed as a comic and found a lucrative career in militant atheism, is that not valid to his opinion either?

Like I said, not everything he says is invalid, however he attributes sweeping conjecture to entire groups and that is completely unfair. Much of what he says is designed to invoke a specific reaction, rather than address issues in religion directly,

Not everyone who has faith, is as he says, and his belief in atheism is as much based on faith as any one based on spirituality.

His main point is that people of faith deserve to he ridiculed, that is a nonsense. You do not have to respect or accept a religion, however you can respect another's right to believe something different from yourself.

Something he cannot seem to do.
 
Last edited:
So we shouldn't pay any attention to the opinions of people that were abused as a child? Any other opinions you wish to rule out as invalid?

1 angry man does not speak for the collective of child abuse victims. Just because somebody has a messed up history does not mean they will categorically apply 'God does not exist because a benevolent god would not allow so much suffering in the world.'. Indeed, those that have suffered often find strength in faith.

Apart from myself, i know of at least 1 other lady at my church who was abused by her grandfather. Must our opinions be discounted to?
 
I don't really have any Faith. It is a nice thought but I find it all unbelievable and find it retarded that the only people who do believe are the ones who were brainwashed with it at a young age.

There is nothing watching over me or deciding how my life pans out. Even if there was (which there isn't) why would it even give a **** about me.

Religion has to be one of biggest fails of the human race.
 
This sums up faith pretty well I think, don't really like the guy though...

{youtube video}
Slight understatement there :eek: :eek: :eek:

He's the most unpleasant, bombastic man I've ever had the misfortune to encounter on youtube.

It's nothing but a string of self important, ignorant insults,
how awesome of him :rolleyes:
 
I'm what might be described as an apathetic agnostic - I don't know if there is a god. In fact I don't even know what people mean when they say god - everyone seems to have different definitions of the word...

The apathetic bit means that I wouldn't care much if there is a god because it doesn't seem to have any effect on us - if there is a god, then they are transcendent rather than imminent.

I can't understand faith because I've never felt or seen anything to support it. I don't think people with faith are idiots however, some of them are very intelligent.
 
Define 'Objective'.

Are you objective?

Why is Pat Condell less objective than you? :confused:

I have already explained why his objectivity is in doubt. He is influenced by his personal feelings, prejudice and background.

Am I more objective, probably, I don't have faith or the prejudices he has, yet do not feel that qualifies me to ridicule those that do or do not.

I have already said that some things he says have validity, and some do not. How objective do you wish me to be, I haven't simply dismissed him because of his vitriol or background as someone tried to say earlier by dishonestly removing the part of my post that actually accepted he had some validity.

If you want a definition of "Objective" use a dictionary, there are plenty online.
 
I'm what might be described as an apathetic agnostic - I don't know if there is a god. In fact I don't even know what people mean when they say god - everyone seems to have different definitions of the word...

The apathetic bit means that I wouldn't care much if there is a god because it doesn't seem to have any effect on us - if there is a god, then they are transcendent rather than imminent.

I can't understand faith because I've never felt or seen anything to support it. I don't think people with faith are idiots however, some of them are very intelligent.

Indeed. +1
 
In fact I don't even know what people mean when they say god - everyone seems to have different definitions of the word...

Based on this you may also be to a certain extent ignostic i.e. "I can't tell you whether I believe until we agree on a definition for what god is". At some point it becomes a bit too unwieldy to explain to people exactly what your full thoughts are so apathetic agnostic seems reasonable - it's the position I've held for about as long as I can remember, I don't know if there is a god and don't much care since it doesn't appear to impact on me in any noticeable way.
 
Based on this you may also be to a certain extent ignostic i.e. "I can't tell you whether I believe until we agree on a definition for what god is". At some point it becomes a bit too unwieldy to explain to people exactly what your full thoughts are so apathetic agnostic seems reasonable - it's the position I've held for about as long as I can remember, I don't know if there is a god and don't much care since it doesn't appear to impact on me in any noticeable way.

To all intents and purposes I am Ignostic, however most people don't know what it means so I generally stick with Agnostic when defining my position.
 
There is no practical difference between atheists and agnostics anyway, because atheists don't know that there's no god either. They cannot possibly, since 'god' has never been defined.
 
Faith makes a virtue out of not thinking, an excuse for stupid people who don't want to take responsibility for their own lives.

It goes hand-in-hand with religion, enslaver of intellect and critical thinking.

Bill Maher, whether or not he wrote the speech, sums it up perfectly for me:
The irony of religion is that because of its power to divert man to destructive courses, the world could actually come to an end. The plain fact is, religion must die for mankind to live.

The hour is getting very late to be able to indulge in having in key decisions made by religious people. By irrationalists, by those who would steer the ship of state not by a compass, but by the equivalent of reading the entrails of a chicken. George Bush prayed a lot about Iraq, but he didn't learn a lot about it.

Faith means making a virtue out of not thinking. It's nothing to brag about. And those who preach faith, and enable and elevate it are intellectual slaveholders, keeping mankind in a bondage to fantasy and nonsense that has spawned and justified so much lunacy and destruction.

Religion is dangerous because it allows human beings who don't have all the answers to think that they do.

Most people would think it's wonderful when someone says, "I'm willing, Lord! I'll do whatever you want me to do!" Except that since there are no gods actually talking to us, that void is filled in by people with their own corruptions and limitations and agendas.


And anyone who tells you they know, they just know what happens when you die, I promise you, you don't. How can I be so sure? Because I don't know, and you do not possess mental powers that I do not. The only appropriate attitude for man to have about the big questions is not the arrogant certitude that is the hallmark of religion, but doubt. Doubt is humble, and that's what man needs to be, considering that human history is just a litany of getting **** dead wrong.

This is why rational people, anti-religionists, must end their timidity and come out of the closet and assert themselves.

And those who consider themselves only moderately religious really need to look in the mirror and realize that the solace and comfort that religion brings you actually comes at a terrible price. If you belonged to a political party or a social club that was tied to as much bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, violence, and sheer ignorance as religion is, you'd resign in protest.

To do otherwise is to be an enabler, a mafia wife, for the true devils of extremism that draw their legitimacy from the billions of their fellow travelers.

If the world does come to an end here, or wherever, or if it limps into the future, decimated by the effects of religion-inspired nuclear terrorism, let's remember what the real problem was that we learned how to precipitate mass death before we got past the neurological disorder of wishing for it. That's it. Grow up or die.
 
Last edited:
There is no practical difference between atheists and agnostics anyway, because atheists don't know that there's no god either. They cannot possibly, since 'god' has never been defined.

How the militant atheists would love to co opt agnostics into their belief.

Its simply not true though. Atheists believe there is no God, agnostics simply do not know and await evidence either way.

Agnosticism is the only scientifically acceptable way to look at it objectively. Both Religion and Athiesm are based on an unprovable foundation.
 
Its simply not true though. Atheists believe there is no God, agnostics simply do not know and await evidence either way.

Agnosticism is the only scientifically acceptable way to look at it objectively. Both Religion and Athiesm are based on an unprovable foundation.
No it isn't. Science assumes false until proven otherwise, and the burden of proof is on the asserter when it comes to unfalsifiable claims like the existence of God.

Or are you suggesting that you really won't call me nuts when I say that my tea pot orbits the moon, but you can't prove it because it is too small to be detected by a telescope? By your definition, you must treat my assertions with the same "Maybe there is" as you do with a God.

Russell's teapot is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate the idea that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion.

Do you go about life accepting everything you have been told as potentially going either way? You need to think critically. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OLPL5p0fMg

I am as agnostic about God as I am about the fairy sat on your shoulder right now.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom