Here's one for the religious..

[Obelix]

When you get quotes from her like "militant atheists" and the ones where she rails at all atheists for haveing no morals, because that's what atheists are like, it's very difficult to draw any other conclusion I'm afraid.

[onewheeldave]

When you get quotes from her like "militant atheists" and the ones where she rails at all atheists for haveing no morals, because that's what atheists are like, it's very difficult to draw any other conclusion I'm afraid.

 

I don't share your sensitivity to the term 'militant atheist', neither have I noticed her railing at atheists for having no morals.

 

I think in these threads, things tend to get heated, and sometimes people attribute views to others that those others don't actually have. I've certainly been misunderstood and misinterpreted in these threads.

 

You make Janie sound like a bit of a thug- I don't think that's the case.

[Obelix]

I don't share your sensitivity to the term 'militant atheist',

 

That's good, because I don't have one thanks.

 

You make Janie sound like a bit of a thug- I don't think that's the case.

 

Regrettably that is exactly the way that she seems to comport herself to my eyes. I'm sure that's not the case but the way these debates seem to go it's an unfortunate by product shall we say of the way things are expressed.

[Mecky]

It has always confused me when people have tried to prove the existence of god, I thought that as it was a faith believing was enough.

 

Science and faith have always been at odds with each other, except a few years back when a few nutters ttied to prove the existence of God using science i.e The Hand of God scenario.

 

My personal opinion is that people created their own Gods to try and understand their own world, which is why there were many Gods, especially before the time of large cuitural exchanges and trade.

[PaliRichard]

(Ditto on cutting some bits, just trying to keep it manageable )

 

Then we've misunderstood each other again. Let me try to clarify things. See the group of Christian scientists, for whom you set up this debate....The trouble is, I think, that the people you've been discussing things with (the reason you set up this thread) are not practicing religious scientists, they're people who are trying to interpret what religious scientists have to say and if they don't fully understand it or are not prepared to research it they can't defend it very well and so won't engage with you about it. Is that your thought too? [/Quote]

 

I didn't set up this debate for Christian scientists (and never claimed I had done).

 

You are right the people I have been discussing things with are not religious scientists. However nor are they trying to interpret what religious scientists have to say. They are people who take science out of context and say 'this proves God' when it doesn't. So yes overall you are correct in your final couple of sentences. phew, that was a hard slog, sorry for my part in any misunderstanding.

 

I agree with the underlying principle I think the term itself is outdated as it implies there's just one method to science[/Quote]

 

Ok fair enough, what would you suggest would make an adequate new term to encompass the underlying principle?

 

If I miss vital elements out it will be through ignorance of them and I'd appreciate it if you'd point them out so I can learn more about it[/Quote]

 

Well, for example, there are three Abrahamic religions, two share many similar beliefs about the old testament and its teaching, Christianity deviates from some of these teachings and thus when talking about people trying to prove their religion (not just Christianity) with science just looking at Christianity would miss those elements claimed by the other two Abrahamic faiths (much more if we extended it to non Abrahamic religions which this thread was also aimed at). If for example they tried to prove their religion by using evidence for capital punishment (maybe they would say, and I have heard this argument) that studies would suggest capital punishment lowered the murder rate, looking at just Christianity would be irrelevant because most Christian denominations consider those OT rules dealing with it to have been overturned with Jesus.

 

You remember how we were discussing the notion that you can't apply 'real life' to history......I can't explain the mechanics to you, you'll have to look to the historical sources for that, I can only interpret what I know about it from my own perspective, which I've tried to do.[/Quote]

 

With all due respect though I'm still none the wiser as to why Christians would view the Higgs Boson as proof for God! I'm not even sure which historic sources I would start at to try to understand it.

 

I don't associate all Buddhists with this violence....also says that it's ok to believe something as long as you explore and examine that belief and don't follow it blindly[/Quote]

 

Alas I'm at work so can't read the paper - I'll have a look at it at a later date.

 

I don't think (certainly the texts don't suggest - without reading the linked paper I can't assess the sources used) that Buddha would say it's ok to believe something as long as you don't follow it blindly - he was quite critical of some peoples beliefs. I think he respected peoples rights to believe what they want but not always the beliefs themselves, there are certainly suttas that show him engaged in debate with other sects saying that what they believed didn't make sense.

 

I do think I fall into this second camp....As you can see, with a bit of inspiration, plenty of thinking and a bit more reading I can change my ideas pretty quickly[/Quote]

 

Which camp don't you fall into? I'm not sure which bit of my quote you're responding to here!

 

I think reductionism fails only if it leaves you with nothing to say, nothing to explore. I feel the political angle is one worthy of investigation because you can actually check the evidence against it. The investigation may well lead to a pluralism of ideas, but I haven't come across another idea for the creation of gods, including the Abrahamic god, that I also agree with as yet[/Quote]

 

Not even the idea that they were formed as a way of understanding the world around us? Do you really think political control is more likely than the idea that they were a channel to understanding life?

 

I don't understand enough about Buddhism/ Taoism to see the separation here I'm afraid. Could you clarify it for me? The paper I've linked seems to suggest that Buddha understood that given the right socio-political or other external factors (the storm) a belief (the boat) held too deeply and questioned too little could lead to violent behaviour even if that belief was based upon peace- that's what I was trying to get at[/Quote]

 

Ah ok, sorry I misunderstood your analogy, that makes more sense - thankyou for that.

 

I would actually. There have been some cases of this occurring and in each case the person, once discovered and brought back into society, has no recourse to learning language and no sense of their own history- no framework for understanding the world. They're humans in their purest animal form. Only others could create an account for them. I have a framework but no religious experience to put on it only what I learn from others[/Quote]

 

I've never heard of this, and it doesn't really marry with what I know of how personality and the brain works - that's not me criticising you, it means I'm intrigued and would like to learn more of these cases - could you point me in the right direction please?

 

The Aten wasn't a pre-existing god prior to Amenhotep IV, it was a symbol for one of the attributes of the creation god Amun-Ra (Ra being the sun god, the Aten the sun disc). I still believe this deity was created for purely political reasons. I've pointed out that many brand new deities were created at this time as social complexity increased[/Quote]

 

But it was pre existant in form, he didn't just say 'Here's my new God - now we all eat peas on Tuesdays instead of Thursdays', it was an adaption, which is what I've been trying to get at. I can't think of a single case where a God has just been 'made up' for political purposes. Am I right in thinking (and I fully acknowledge I may not be but this seems somehow stuck in the recess of my mind) that it was his father who first suggested (or more correctly placed the focus on) the deity and Amenhotep IV 'upgraded' (sorry) the God's status to being the only God?

 

---------- Post added 17-05-2013 at 18:17 ----------

 

It's always the same people when the thread is about religion...hello old companions!

 

Have you heard about Maurice Bucaille?

 

"In 1976 Bucaille published his book, The Bible, The Qur'an and Science which argued that the Qur'an contains no statements contradicting established scientific facts. Bucaille argued that the Qur'an is in agreement with scientific facts, while the Bible is not. He states that in Islam, science and religion have always been “twin sisters” . According to Bucaille, there are monumental errors of science in the Bible and not a single error in the Qur'an. Bucaille's belief is that the Qur'an's descriptions of natural phenomena make it compatible with modern science. Bucaille concludes that the Qur'an is the words of God."

 

Wrong.

 

Plain and simple, and I invite anyone to suggest the 'science' that stands up to scrutiny in the Quran - because I can show where it makes claims that are blatantly incorrect.

[janie48]

I think you are missing the point, and slightly slurring my character in the process.

 

Of course I see religious people being good, I used to be one, and many of my best friends are, but I was responding to Waldo's specific question; "So, why even spend time, worrying or speculating over the existence of god?"

 

Given that there are things done in the name of god that I don't like, I am obliged to consider god even though I lack belief in gods.

 

The conversation goes something like this:

 

Atheist: "Why do you hate homosexuals?"

Homophobe: "It's not me, it's God that hate's homosexuals."

Atheist: "Nonsense, god doesn't exist."

 

The fact that atheists have been drawn into the conversation, and even been given a "new" name, is in direct to response to the increasing amount of religious intolerance in recent years. It's not in response to religious people in general, or a denial that they can be good people.

 

There is a conversation that believers can have:

 

Believer: "Why do you hate homosexuals?"

Homophobe: "It's not me, it's God that hate's homosexuals."

Believer: "I don't think God hate's homosexuals."

Homophobe: "Look it says right here." [Points at scripture]

Believer: "That's not how I read it."

Homophobe: "Well it's pretty clear to me, and this book is without error."

etc, etc

 

Unfortunately that conversation is much more convoluted, and I suspect much less effective. Also many good believers seem to get rather more upset at atheists saying they don't believe in god than the intolerant aspects of their own religion. They are also chained by the fact that many good believers actually support some of the intolerant aspects of their religion.

I wouldn't dream of "slurring your character" and have absolutely no grounds for doing so.

I realise I shouldn't respond to a post in that manner, but its because I have become so accustomed to seeing comments describing the bad deeds of theists in general terms, "the tarring all with the same brush" attitude,as in events in history and of the present, with so little attention paid to any good that has ever been done .

 

You make valid points with those conversation examples.

As you will be aware though, theists vary so much in their views even within individual religions.

To give one example I recall listening to someone I admire on the radio, it was Baptist minister Steve Chalk expressing his views on Gay marriage, views that are not shared by many members of his denomination.

 

An article relating to that here> http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2013/18-january/news/uk/steve-chalke-backs-gay-relationships

 

---------- Post added 18-05-2013 at 00:03 ----------

 

And you are doing it again. You use the words "atheist" and "Dawkins" as dirty words Janie. I suspect that you don't even realise you are doing it. Regardless of what you may think and protest, it is abundantly clear you have a problem with athiests, and you treat them as a threat and as second class people. I'm sure you won't see it that way, but sadly that's the way it comes over, so I'll ask you once meore - please stop doing it.

Obelix once again you are exaggerating.

 

I disagree. While it may come across that way to you, it's certainly not the case for everyone, or even for the majority.

 

Janie does come across (to me) as someone who's somewhat sensitive to critisisms like the above, so I'd just like to emphasise that, as far as I can see from her posts on this board, she has no problem with atheists or Dawkins.

 

I have a bit of a problem with Dawkins- not anything personal, but I think many of his statements and little campaigns of the past have been somewhat couter-productive. In fairness, recently he does seem to have become aware of that himself, and started to tone things down somewhat. Possibly because there was so much critisism from atheists, that he started to think about what he was saying.

You are right Dave I can be a bit sensitive to criticism with a tendency to over-react sometimes when someone doesn't agree with me,as you have encountered when exchanging comments with me on a thread with a different topic.

I have a lot of respect for many of the atheists I've come across on this forum regardless of any opposing views, and you are most certainly one of them.

 

I agree with your comments about Richard Dawkins,he does seem to have mellowed to a degree, but then what I have noticed is that when debating with a theist who is his equal on an academic level, he appears to avoid using those mocking comments on religion- that he advocated in the past other atheists should be using- or at least toned them down as you say.

Any criticism I may appear to have about him does not mean I don't like him, but of course Obelix will never believe that.

[Obelix]

Obelix once again you are exaggerating.

 

As I said, I suspect you don't even realise that you are doing it.

[janie48]

As I said, I suspect you don't even realise that you are doing it.

You're quite wrong I've been a fan for some time now, I even started a thread about him.

It didn't get much of a response though.

 

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1051170

[Obelix]

You're quite wrong I've been a fan for some time now, I even started a thread about him.

It didn't get much of a response though.

 

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1051170

 

That's hardly a fan thread Janie.

[Focusnow]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jPDlgq-znrY#!

 

Another one for the religious...