There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life

Dolph said:
I've had some very aggressive (and poorly educated) atheists get very angry with me when I've gone through how their stated belief structure is an unprovable religious faith in the assumptions of the scientific method when they've shoved it in my face as evidence for a naturalist universe, for example, even on this forum in some of the extensive religion threads in speakers corner, you can see this.
Click to expand...

Yes I totally understand your point.
I believe mainly in a lot more 'powerful' things (imo). My theories are proberbly a lot more 'out there' than the thought of a 'god'. So therefore many would maybe think my ideas are 'weird' or whatever.
When I was younger, things would happened in which I would think, if there was a 'god', that wouldn't have happened. Now I just get on with my life and if something happens, it happens, but I don't think into it.
I never say to anyone that they shouldn't/should believe. It is after all their own choice. My only problem is of the believers who have been very nasty to me for not believing.
 
You can take any number of examples (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc) where atrocities have been committed by atheists but the key point is that they are not a result of what happens when people become overly critical of unjustified beliefs.

Dogma is the dangerous aspect (in Stalin's case the dogmatic approach to communism) and unfortunately dogma is the cornerstone of religion.
 
Hellsmk2 said:
1. What do you mean by 'selection factor'? I stand by my point.
Click to expand...

If two sides are fighting for control of land, it doesn't matter whether they are seperated by religion, skin colour, or whether they are wearing a green or a purple scarf (a cookie for anyone who gets the reference), the issue they are fighting over is land, not anything else.

Carrying on with the Northern Irish example, you have the Catholics, who originated in Ireland and Northern Ireland, and the Protestants who came over from the rest of the UK. They aren't arguing over religion, they are arguing over land, religion is just a convienent seperation factor because it roughly divides the two sides. it is not, and never has been, a religious conflict.

2. Stalin's genocide was not caused by his atheism. Just because he was an atheist does not mean you can hold it up as a shining example of atheist extremism when it quite clearly was not.
Click to expand...

And neither are most of the other wars you wish to claim have religious ties. Just because someone, or indeed a group of people, have different beliefs, does not mean they are fighting because of those beliefs. It's a double standard, either Stalin was an atheist extremist (because one of the selection factors he used was religion), or the wars seperated by religion but fundamentally about other issue are not religious. There is no way you can have your cake and eat it with this one.

3. What are these assumptions of scientific method? Nothing in science can be proven 100%. In a few hundred years, todays theories will probably seem laughable and outdated; however, we still see the benefits of them every single day and will continue. There will also be a well documented paper-trail showing how and why scientists believe the things they do.
Click to expand...

How early do you want me to start with the assumptions?

Time moves forward
An effect always has a repeatable cause
An effect is always repeatable.
The simplest explaination is the most useful
Our observations are meaningful
Our observations are universe accurate, not just perception accurate
The universe behaves consistantly

Those are the obvious ones. If you wish to take science as being absolute, you then have to add a few more.

Absence of scientific evidence is equivilent to evidence of absence.
The simplest explaination is the correct one.

All of these assumptions make perfect sense in the context in which the scientific method was designed to operate, namely as a predictive and quasi-descriptive modelling approach to the universe. As a philosophy, they are all as unprovable as "in the beginning there was god", and no more valid.
 
Dolph said:
You do realise all those scientific theories are, at best and if perfect, only the simplest explaination for the observed data. Science does not and cannot state how something did occur, only the simplest way something could have occured, which is not the same thing in the slightest.

Putting faith in the scientific method to provide truth is no different than putting faith in any other belief. There's absolutely nothing wrong with doing so, we all have to believe something, but it is important to recognise the limitations of your beliefs.
Click to expand...

Don't really believe in it, just go with with the big bang as, to me, is the only one that isn't silly, it just says what happened (to the best of our knowledge), no happy cuckoo land is promised when I die, no 'Gods' which cannot be proven (imo it isnt real unles sit has evidence), no rules set by God (who isnt real) for me to live by etc etc.
I don't have anything against religious people, I just sometimes think.....come on......really?

If God or something else ever got set in stone proof I would accept I was wrong.
I don't worry about trying to live my life in a way that pleases someone or something, which in my eyes is not even there. I do not worry about it, I just get on with my life:)

Was hoping religion in the UK was dying out, as out of church goers (well of the 3 I had to go to once a month to get in the only good high school near me) have a large percentage of OAPs, but with the ever increasing immigrants the numbers are only going to increase.
 
Last edited:
Nitefly said:
As much as I admire your arguing style, I do find that it demeans the worth of scientific theory. Evolution goes sooooo far beyond speciation in terms of what we use it to understand, that I can't even contemplate it being even marginally incorrect in any way or form. To even suggest otherwise, in terms of sexual selection, would be ludicrous.

Its a bit like saying 'we can not ever say for fact how a car runs'.
Click to expand...

It's all about context, science is amazing, fantastic and great when used in a predictive/descriptive context, and when you're talking about technology and research, there is literally nothing better.

however, when you start comparing religion and science, generally you're in the realm of philosophy, not science, and as a philosophy, science has just as many flaws as most religious beliefs if you examine it fully, because in order to achieve that predictive accuracy that makes it so valuable in context, it has to make sacrifices in philosophical terms due to the number of unprovable assumptions required.
 
Hellsmk2 said:
2. I'm sorry but it is an absolute fact that nearly every war throughout history has been caused by religion. The noteworthy exceptions of the past century would be the Korean and Vietnam war, which were more a clash of ideals. Pretty much every other war before and after have extreme religious undertones.
Click to expand...

Are you honestly trying to tell me that the first and second world wars were religiously motivated?
 
God is made up, and people have thought of many different stupid phrases like "No-one can understand God" to cover every angle.

Of course it is all made up open your eyes.

Surely talking to someone who isnt there, let alone real, is a form of severe dementure?
Click to expand...
Surely your statement is as great a statement of faith as that made by any religious person. It is certainly not founded on anything factual
Click to expand...
And in some ways can be considered much worse as he is trying to pass it off as matter of fact.
 
One things for sure. It's got us lot talking, but that's about as far as it can get on a forum. As I have already noted, I'm a non-believer and think it's good for non-believers to have their opinions in plain sight. However, just think when they actually release the buses. What will happen in the public.

*awaits thread about news in paper/television about hysteria in the streets over posters about 'god', being on buses* ;)
 
As I have already noted, I'm a non-believer and think it's good for non-believers to have their opinions in plain sight.
Click to expand...
It would be even better to have non believers and believers to be more accurate about what it is they can legitimately say ;)

However, just think when they actually release the buses. What will happen in the public.
Click to expand...
I think I would be more interested in what the church would have to say about it?
 
Last edited:
Hellsmk2 said:
1. I don't agree that all religion is evil.

2. I'm sorry but it is an absolute fact that nearly every war throughout history has been caused by religion. The noteworthy exceptions of the past century would be the Korean and Vietnam war, which were more a clash of ideals. Pretty much every other war before and after have extreme religious undertones.

Going further back, the last time a war was thought for anything other than religion was probably when Ghengis Khan was dominating the world. Even then, many of his wars fought in the Middle East could be said to have been caused by the spread of Islam.

3. Some atheists are passive non-aggressive. Some religious folk are too. Some are more vocal as, as are the religious extremists too. The difference is I've yet to see a war or 'terrorist atrocity' committed in the name of atheism.

3. It really depends on the religion as to how compatible they are. The creationist and intelligent design theories (HAH! intelligent!)are definitely not compatible with science, thus the incoherent religious babble spouted by those who espouse them are equally incompatible.

4. When there is no evidence to support <insert holy book here>, why should we believe what they say? Jesus was apparently alive at the same time as some of the greatest historians in history, yet not one of them, even those in Bethlehem and Jerusalem, mention him or any major event that would be comparable to what the Bible says. This is an absolute fact.

5. When a child is told, day in day out, that God is watching them by their parents, I think their is a strong case to say it is brainwashing. Children learn right from wrong from their parents. Unfortunately, religion is part of this.

There are some folk who become religious later in life, seemingly off their own back. Hmmmm - if it's not the parents instilling a God, it's from somewhere else; you can't leave the house without seeing churches, mosques and synagogues, watch a film without the hero praying to god or finding god. Heck even the heads of the most powerful country in the world have no qualm bringing god into politics (Bush, Palin, even Obama... I'm looking at you).

Like it or not, religion is forced down the throat every single day of a persons life. If you think this isn't going to affect certain people, you're very very wrong.
Click to expand...

Wow. Pretty good post. I pretty much agree with all of it.
 
vonhelmet said:
We Christians have had posters about God on buses for years. Ads in the paper too, which I think the Muslims have done as well.
Click to expand...

Yes but to be fair, non-believers (imo) including myself aren't really bothered about it. This was my point earlier. Most of us don't really care if there are posters up about 'god'. People who I know who are non-believers never come up to me and say 'did you see that bus with that poster about a 'god' existing' - because they wouldn't be bothered.
I feel that when the non-believer buses are let loose, believers would be bothered by something like this, much more than a non-believer would when seeing a sign about there being a 'god'.
 
Tibbs said:
Yes but to be fair, non-believers (imo) including myself aren't really bothered about it. This was my point earlier. Most of us don't really care if there are posters up about 'god'. People who I know who are non-believers never come up to me and say 'did you see that bus with that poster about a 'god' existing' - because they wouldn't be bothered.
I feel that when the non-believer buses are let loose, believers would be bothered by something like this, much more than a non-believer would when seeing a sign about there being a 'god'.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, your post wasn't clear that it was supposed to be us who were outraged with the anti-God posters. I'll try to remember to be cross enough to write someone a letter about it or something.
 
Tibbs said:
Yes but to be fair, non-believers (imo) including myself aren't really bothered about it. This was my point earlier. Most of us don't really care if there are posters up about 'god'. People who I know who are non-believers never come up to me and say 'did you see that bus with that poster about a 'god' existing' - because they wouldn't be bothered.
Click to expand...

Do you think that maybe this is only because we've always put up with it? I can't remember a time when I wasn't bombarded every day with religious content.

I don't really care, but perhaps that is only because I'm completely desensitised to it.
 
Religion can be an evolving personal experience.

Do you think that maybe this is only because we've always put up with it? I can't remember a time when I wasn't bombarded every day with religious content.

I don't really care, but perhaps that is only because I'm completely desensitised to it.
Click to expand...
I think later in life you can still adapt to it and change. You either go one way or another.
 
Last edited:
ethan said:
I think I would be more interested in what the church would have to say about it?
Click to expand...

At a guess, there'll be at most a couple of articles about it in the papers, the Archbishop might say something if he can really be bothered, the actual nutter Christians will try to make a major fuss about it, most Christians who hear of it will pray a bit about it, and then it will all blow over.

I doubt anyone will be blowing up any buses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom