Rationalist Society

philologos

Dubhghaillix wrote: »

A valid point. By definition, Rational Arguements don't work with religious people.

What is rational? It's a good point to look up definitions without throwing words about rendering them meaningless.

Dubhghaillix wrote: »

If they did then there would be no religious people.

One could look at it from the other side, and say if there was really a rational argument against religion, it wouldn't exist the way it does today. Intelligent people, contrary to common belief do believe in God.

Dubhghaillix wrote: »

Religion cannot stand up against scientific fact, if you accept the facts without prejudice and with reason.

This only works if we see science and religion as being in opposition. Personally I think that science answers the how, and religion and philosophy deal with lifes whys.

Dubhghaillix wrote: »

To believe in something without any reason to, be it gods, crystals, homeopathy,miracles etc.

I have reason to believe in God.

Dubhghaillix wrote: »

requires an abandoment of reality, truth, reason, logic, sense,and evidence which quite frankly works as a textbook definition of "Insane".

Why are we to assume that atheism is reality any more so than anything else? That's what I find to be curious. You're not making an argument here, all you are doing is proclaiming to be correct, and throwing in an ad-hominem at the end.

Personally, I don't particularly care whether or not people regard me as insane for holding to my beliefs.

Dubhghaillix wrote: »

So sadly any attempts to convince the terminally religious that they should stop feeling sorry for themselves and stop apologizing for being human, are doomed to failure. If you've been brainwashed as a child it takes years to recover. I only snapped out of it last year, thanks be to Darwin (literally).

Why on earth would I feel sorry for myself? Just a recap, I believe that I have received salvation through Christ's saving death on the cross. What is there to feel sorry about?

Dubhghaillix wrote: »

let's get the religious out of political power before they kill us all and destroy everything the Human Race has acomplished. After all, you wouldn't give an insane lunatic raving nonsense on the street corner your home address, so why do we let people who believe in a patriarchal sky god into government?

Considering the amount of deaths in the 20th century by state-atheist regimes one could argue we have much more to fear the other way around (figures range from 100 million to 200 million worldwide).

Just wondering, how does this affect your relationship with your friends who believe in God? It seems rather venomous to say the least. If one sees that as a positive worldview, I would highly question their motives.

Dubhghaillix

Jakkass wrote: »

What is rational? It's a good point to look up definitions without throwing words about rendering them meaningless.



One could look at it from the other side, and say if there was really a rational argument against religion, it wouldn't exist the way it does today. Intelligent people, contrary to common belief do believe in God.

Intelligent people certainly do believe in these things. Rational people don't.
Rational: based on or accordance with reason or logic
Reason: The power of the mind to think, understand and form judgements by a process of logic
Logic: Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity
Intelligence:the ability to apply and acquire knowledge and skills
-The New Oxford American Dictionary

There is a difference between intelligence and reason. I'm accusing you, and all religious people of ignoring reason, not of being unintelligent. The vast majority of intelligent people over our history* have been religious (whether or not they'd have been religious if not for social pressures is a matter for debate) I know plenty of intelligent people who believe in the irrational. I do not profess to be more intelligent than them. I profess to being more rational, i.e. I base my opinion on reason, logic, evidence and experience. My experience of religion was, on the whole not negative. My opinion is that we'd be infinitely better off without it. Admittedly if christianity had never existed I would most likely not exist either. I owe my existence to that damn religion and it's anti-human message. But that doesn't stop me from criticising it, and the influence it's had on our countries politics.
[*By which I mean written history]

Jakkass wrote: »

This only works if we see science and religion as being in opposition. Personally I think that science answers the how, and religion and philosophy deal with lifes whys.

Science and religion are at odds. I was once of your opinion. But since Science follows the scientific method of sceptical enquiry, whereas religion involves taking someone else's word for it without question, or being damned for all eternity. An Institute of Science is the polar opposite of a church. One is a place of enlightenment, questions, and knowledge, the other is a decadent place of submission to senseless tradition and authority. Science deals with the how. The why is irrelevant. All we know is we are here, and that fact, is quite remarkable. The fact that there is something rather than nothing does not mean that it must have been created. It's just a happy coincidence that there is something rather than nothing. If there is a creator he has not made himself known. The Hebrew mythology being true is no more probable than any other mythology being true. The simplest explanation is that they were all composed by humans, who knew no better to explain where they found themselves and how they got here. In our world of Evolutionary Biology, Quantum Mechanics and Existentialism, the gods no longer have a place.

Jakkass wrote: »

I have reason to believe in God.

Wow, my words exactly two years ago. Since I'm embarrassed enough for both of us as we are debating on the internet, I won't enquire further, do tell if you wish, I'm sure some commentators would be delighted to have a go at your reasons. I believe I cited a dream as reason. Eventually I realised I was just brainwashed by my parents and school, and when I looked at what I believed rationally and looked at all the facts, biology, comparative mythology, theories on the origin of religion etc. I realised that all those feelings that religion inspires come from within, not from without, and the chain of thought in the back of my head was not god, it was me.

Jakkass wrote: »

are we to assume that atheism is reality any more so than anything else? That's what I find to be curious. You're not making an argument here, all you are doing is proclaiming to be correct, and throwing in an ad-hominem at the end.

Well, then you get into the question of what is reality? Usually that just makes my brian go ouch. Well, put it this way, I'm going to judge reality as everything I can perceive with my various senses. I can't taste, smell, hear, touch etc. god. Ergo god is not part of reality.

Jakkass wrote: »

Personally, I don't particularly care whether or not people regard me as insane for holding to my beliefs.

Ohh, I like the phrasing, again spooky that that's word for word what I said back in the day. Well, at least you can accept yourself for who you are. That's more than alot of christians can muster. (Ted Haggard and all those other "ex-gays") I'm fine with people's freedom to believe what they want. It's when people who believe in the jealous patriarchal sky god, are in government that I get annoyed, or when their prejudices find their way into law.

Jakkass wrote: »

Why on earth would I feel sorry for myself? Just a recap, I believe that I have received salvation through Christ's saving death on the cross. What is there to feel sorry about?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to the Church aren't all people born into a state of "Original Sin"? It's just an excuse to feel bad about yourself for no reason. Whatever about the alleged jesus (The similarities of your messiah to Mithras, Krishna, Dionysus, and other gods from that era strike me as being too much to be just a coincidence.) dying for your sins, you still have to spend your life apologising for them. and you still believe that Human beings are "Fallen men" rather than "Rizen Apes".

Jakkass wrote: »

Considering the amount of deaths in the 20th century by state-atheist regimes one could argue we have much more to fear the other way around (figures range from 100 million to 200 million worldwide).

Aside from the Crusades, Magdeline Laundries, Clerical child sexual abuse, the inquisitions,and of course spreading your dogma by the sword, the Holocaust (Hitler was Catholic. How do I know that? Atheists don't spend time looking for the magical Jesus spear to help them conquer the word, by your logic, Catholics are responsible for the Holocaust). the faithful are ****ing saints? Ain't they?
Unless people are motivated by an ideology, be it Marxist, Nazi, or Christian, they're unlikely to kill. Crimes of passion, sociopathy, and revenge excluded of course. You will agree, I imagine, that all over the world, people are doing naughty things. Killing, raping, hurting and ostracising. Yes? And you will also agree that some of these people will be Christian, some Muslim, some Hindu and some Atheist/Agnostic. Correct? So do you think it's fair if we were to hold religions responsible for all the crimes committed by their adherents, and hold atheism responsible for all the crimes committed by atheists. If the answer is yes, then I'm done talking to you. If a man, christian, atheist or otherwise kills a man who raped his wife, you would agree I'm sure that would be morally justified, albeit he prolly should have left it to the police. If a religious man kills his daughter for having sex before marriage, or another man for being a homosexual that is morally wrong. That is just religious ideology, with no moral justification. We have a innate sense of morality, from years of natural selection (Those who had a sense of morality survived and reproduced, passing morality onto the next generation. I'm not an expert on evolutionary psychology, so if someone who is could step in if you're reading. And plz don't argue against my limited knowledge of that particular field, as you can see I don't have all the facts, but I have the jist from reading New Scientist) We know what is right and wrong, and the important things, don't kill, don't hurt, don't steal, are reinforced by society. Even christians acknowledge that we have "Knowledge of Good and Evil" correct?

Jakkass wrote: »

Just wondering, how does this affect your relationship with your friends who believe in God? It seems rather venomous to say the least. If one sees that as a positive worldview, I would highly question their motives.

I admire you curiosity, quite unreligious n'est pas?*. It's hardly affects my relationship with others at all actually. I've had one nasty argument with a close friend, but we're cool now. (She brought booze and cadbury roses to my last DVD night.) anything else has just been discussions of the good or evil that organised religion does. I do not, (while sober, but hey, In vino veritas) openly ridicule their beliefs, I make criticisms of the Church and and religious extremists. I am quite vocal about that. I also make critiques (ie. My friend "Happy Easter" me "Yeah Magical-Make-believe-Jesus-Come-back-from-dead-day" My friend "Lol, oh you :-)") about religious belief and even question the Historical truth of Jesus. To be honest abandoning religion is the best thing I've ever done, it has had only a positive effect on my social, sporting and academic life. Oh and my mental health too, that was a big'un.

*Yes, I am a pretentious ****.

Dubhghaillix

Whoops, 4got ur first arguement. Deducing based on the oral tradition of bronze-age goat hearders that there is a god is not rational. Deducing that all Indo-European Languages are descended from a common tongue based on comparative and historical lingustics is quite rational. By your logic if, based on the Judeo-Christian mythology Yahewh exists, then Zeus, Ishtar, Lugh Lamhfháda, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc. also exist.
Isn't it easier to just accept the world as we see it, rather than pretend there must be something beyond what we perceive?

ZorbaTehZ

Jakkass wrote: »

Considering the amount of deaths in the 20th century by state-atheist regimes one could argue we have much more to fear the other way around (figures range from 100 million to 200 million worldwide).

The difference being that hitler, stalin et al didn't commit the atrocities they did for their belief (or lack thereof)... unlike the Christians have been inclined to do.

philologos

Dubhghaillix wrote: »

Intelligent people certainly do believe in these things. Rational people don't.
Rational: based on or accordance with reason or logic
Reason: The power of the mind to think, understand and form judgements by a process of logic
Logic: Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity
Intelligence:the ability to apply and acquire knowledge and skills
-The New Oxford American Dictionary

What standard do you have for assessing what is reasonable, or rational? I personally think the existence of God is more logical, and makes much more sense than not. I mean this discussion is incredibly useless unless we have a measure of what is "reasonable" and what isn't.

If there isn't such a measurement, all your discussion has come down to is, "You're wrong and I'm right". That's all well and good, but it might be useful to shed some light as to why.

Dubhghaillix wrote: »

There is a difference between intelligence and reason. I'm accusing you, and all religious people of ignoring reason, not of being unintelligent.

Right. I stand accused in your view. Under what basis do you accuse me of ignoring reason? What is reason? What is reasonable for you? What is reasonable for me?

Dubhghaillix wrote: »

The vast majority of intelligent people over our history* have been religious (whether or not they'd have been religious if not for social pressures is a matter for debate) I know plenty of intelligent people who believe in the irrational.

Unless we are willing to accept that what may seem irrational to one person can be perfectly rational to another we are at a deadlock. All this results in is saying "Oh, I'm right, and you're wrong". That's wonderful, where do we go from here though?

The only way you can objectively brand me as irrational, is if there is an objective standard of what is rational, and what is irrational. If there isn't one it's mere opinion.

Dubhghaillix wrote: »

I do not profess to be more intelligent than them. I profess to being more rational, i.e. I base my opinion on reason, logic, evidence and experience. My experience of religion was, on the whole not negative. My opinion is that we'd be infinitely better off without it.

My opinion is that I'm a better person with my faith. I'm glad that I have a purpose, a rhyme and a reason for my life in order to serve Christ and my neighbour.

By your experience of religion, many people within Christianity, even on the Christianity forum are skeptical of denominations. I find the best way to know what Christianity is, is to look at the New Testament, and find out who Jesus is for yourself.

I guess we just differ. My experience is that my life is better off with my faith than without it.

Dubhghaillix wrote: »

Admittedly if christianity had never existed I would most likely not exist either. I owe my existence to that damn religion and it's anti-human message. But that doesn't stop me from criticising it, and the influence it's had on our countries politics.

So biology is based around how many Christian lived in a particular nation.

Feel free to criticise. I like criticism, but I also like to make my counterpoint with what free speech I have. I don't want you to stop criticising Christianity. Criticism is how answers are achieved.

Dubhghaillix wrote: »

Science and religion are at odds. I was once of your opinion. But since Science follows the scientific method of sceptical enquiry, whereas religion involves taking someone else's word for it without question, or being damned for all eternity.

Does it? I can research the Biblical text and think about it for myself. I'm an adult, I don't take things on peoples word, I actually think about it, and what it means for me.

I think it's a bit grandiose for atheists to claim that they have a monopoly on science given the input that people of faith, have given to science, and continue to give to science.

Dubhghaillix wrote: »

An Institute of Science is the polar opposite of a church. One is a place of enlightenment, questions, and knowledge, the other is a decadent place of submission to senseless tradition and authority. Science deals with the how. The why is irrelevant.

Is it submission to senseless tradition? I'd say it depends what church you go to.

Jesus personally had a lot to say about the traditions of men, and how they didn't cut the mark.

Matthew 15:6-9 wrote:

So for the sake of your tradition, you make void the word of God. You hypocrites! Isaiah prophesied rightly about you when he said: "This people honours me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching human precepts as doctrines."

I don't know who I am meant to be submitting to apart from the will of God as a Christian.

Arguably a church could be a place of enlightenment, questions and knowledge. It generally depends on the church itself. I personally view the Bible as a book of enlightenment, questions and knowledge in a way that a science book doesn't offer me. Science offers the great hows about how things are. Christianity offers me a guide for me to follow, an assessment of human nature, and an assessment of God's relationship with man.

You mightn't realise this, but science and religion offer entirely different things to people, hence why I don't compare them.

Dubhghaillix wrote: »

All we know is we are here, and that fact, is quite remarkable. The fact that there is something rather than nothing does not mean that it must have been created.

I think we can agree on the universe being remarkable, what we don't agree on is why it is remarkable.

Dubhghaillix wrote: »

It's just a happy coincidence that there is something rather than nothing. If there is a creator he has not made himself known.

What makes you so sure of this?

I don't think a coincidence cuts it for me. If something comes into being there is generally a cause or a reason for why it came to be.

Dubhghaillix wrote: »

The Hebrew mythology being true is no more probable than any other mythology being true. The simplest explanation is that they were all composed by humans, who knew no better to explain where they found themselves and how they got here. In our world of Evolutionary Biology, Quantum Mechanics and Existentialism, the gods no longer have a place.

If God didn't have any place in the world. It would have been effectively been disproven. For as long as there is uncertainty about the God question, there will always be discussion about it whether atheists like it or not.

It's forever going to be a part of our world, we may as well get used to our differences.

Dubhghaillix wrote: »

Wow, my words exactly two years ago. Since I'm embarrassed enough for both of us as we are debating on the internet, I won't enquire further, do tell if you wish, I'm sure some commentators would be delighted to have a go at your reasons. I believe I cited a dream as reason. Eventually I realised I was just brainwashed by my parents and school, and when I looked at what I believed rationally and looked at all the facts, biology, comparative mythology, theories on the origin of religion etc. I realised that all those feelings that religion inspires come from within, not from without, and the chain of thought in the back of my head was not god, it was me.

I find it ironic that you are claiming that you are somehow more advanced than me because you have rejected faith. We are both pretty much the same age.

I was an agnostic about 3 years ago, I was unsure about what I believed. I decided to read the Bible, and I accepted Christ's sacrifice and genuinely accepted that I believed in Him.

Dubhghaillix wrote: »

Well, then you get into the question of what is reality? Usually that just makes my brian go ouch. Well, put it this way, I'm going to judge reality as everything I can perceive with my various senses. I can't taste, smell, hear, touch etc. god. Ergo god is not part of reality.

Funnily enough. I do the same, yet I have come to a different conclusion.

Dubhghaillix wrote: »

Ohh, I like the phrasing, again spooky that that's word for word what I said back in the day. Well, at least you can accept yourself for who you are. That's more than alot of christians can muster. (Ted Haggard and all those other "ex-gays") I'm fine with people's freedom to believe what they want. It's when people who believe in the jealous patriarchal sky god, are in government that I get annoyed, or when their prejudices find their way into law.

Oh no. I don't think I'm insane at all, but I'm quite happy to let you call me insane. I believe in Jesus Christ and I'm not ashamed of it nor will I ever be.

Do you think that because people believe in God, that they are inferior to you? Genuine question.

I guess you won't be voting unless people don't have faith.

Dubhghaillix wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to the Church aren't all people born into a state of "Original Sin"? It's just an excuse to feel bad about yourself for no reason. Whatever about the alleged jesus (The similarities of your messiah to Mithras, Krishna, Dionysus, and other gods from that era strike me as being too much to be just a coincidence.) dying for your sins, you still have to spend your life apologising for them. and you still believe that Human beings are "Fallen men" rather than "Rizen Apes".

Who are you referring to when you are referring to "The Church"? - You will need to ask a Roman Catholic about the Vatican's stance on original sin. I am coming from a non-Catholic background.

However, the basis for original sin comes from the epistle of Paul to the Romans:

Romans 5:12 wrote:

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned—

We have a sinful nature, because of the transgression of Adam. It doesn't mean that I personally am guilty for Adams sin, it means that I am of a sinful nature and that I will sin. I'm not perfect.

I don't feel bad for myself for that reason at all. I have received mercy, and I have a chance to explore my relationship with God and grow in faith.

As for Mithraism and Christianity. Since the earliest source texts of Mithraism post date Christianity it is more likely by far that Mithraism actually plagiarised from Christianity. Infact in the 2nd century AD, the Church Fathers claimed this in their writings.

As for Mithra having a "virgin birth", this is absurd as Mithra was born as a fully grown man from a rock:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithraic_Mysteries#Mithraism_and_Christianity

The more people actually look into Mithraism, the lesser the similarities seem.

Dubhghaillix wrote: »

Aside from the Crusades, Magdeline Laundries, Clerical child sexual abuse, the inquisitions,and of course spreading your dogma by the sword, the Holocaust (Hitler was Catholic. How do I know that? Atheists don't spend time looking for the magical Jesus spear to help them conquer the word, by your logic, Catholics are responsible for the Holocaust). the faithful are ****ing saints? Ain't they?

The Crusades, were a horrible act motivated by corruption, and greed and are completely contrary to Christianity.

Again, I condemn any abuse of any kind as being contrary to the example that Jesus set us.

On Hitler, please read here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_beliefs#Private_statements

He was referred to as "deeply anti-Christian" by members of his own party.

Continuing on:

In 1998 documents were released by Cornell University from the Nuremberg Trials, that revealed Nazi plans to exterminate Christianity at the end of World War II. The documents cover the Nuremberg trials of leading Nazis and demonstrate the deliberate genocide of Jews during the Holocaust, in which some six million Jews were killed. One senior member of the U.S. prosecution team, General William Donovan, as part of his work on documenting Nazi war crimes, compiled large amounts of documentation that the Nazis also planned to systematically destroy Christianity

The point wasn't to prove that anyone was a saint. My reason for citing state-atheism was to show that atheism is equally capable of motivating people to kill other people when twisted. All ideologies can be used towards this goal whether we like it or not.

Dubhghaillix wrote: »

Unless people are motivated by an ideology, be it Marxist, Nazi, or Christian, they're unlikely to kill. Crimes of passion, sociopathy, and revenge excluded of course. You will agree, I imagine, that all over the world, people are doing naughty things.

Yes, that was my point in raising it as a retort to people claiming that religion is responsible for death. Heres the point, it's not the faith itself that is responsible, but people who abuse it. The same is true for atheism or any other ideology.

Dubhghaillix wrote: »

So do you think it's fair if we were to hold religions responsible for all the crimes committed by their adherents, and hold atheism responsible for all the crimes committed by atheists.

No, I don't but other posters on this thread think it's fair to ask me to explain corruption of Christianity in the world. I aim to follow Christ, I don't aim to follow Pope Urban II (leader of the First Crusade), or anyone who has twisted faith for their own personal aims.

Dubhghaillix wrote: »

If a man, christian, atheist or otherwise kills a man who raped his wife, you would agree I'm sure that would be morally justified, albeit he prolly should have left it to the police.

Actually, I don't agree that it is justified for one person to take vengeance over another. People probably deserve death for rape. However, if I have been forgiven my sins through mercy, I have no reason to kill another person for theirs however hard it may be. Punishment is to be left to the hands of the State, or to God.

Dubhghaillix wrote: »

If a religious man kills his daughter for having sex before marriage, or another man for being a homosexual that is morally wrong.

Of course it is. Jesus died for our sins, if we don't forgive others their sins we will not be forgiven ourselves.

Dubhghaillix wrote: »

That is just religious ideology, with no moral justification.

I don't believe there is moral justification for putting a rapist or a murderer to death if I too am guilty of my sins. So that's nothing new to me. Even in the most heinous of crimes, I believe people should be spared from death.

Dubhghaillix wrote: »

We have a innate sense of morality, from years of natural selection (Those who had a sense of morality survived and reproduced, passing morality onto the next generation).

My morality is different to yours. I agree that we have a sense of morality but I disagree that all humans are destined to share it. I believe morals are universal, but that people can do what is wrong and justify it in their own sight.

Dubhghaillix wrote: »

I'm not an expert on evolutionary psychology, so if someone who is could step in if you're reading. And plz don't argue against my limited knowledge of that particular field, as you can see I don't have all the facts, but I have the jist from reading New Scientist) We know what is right and wrong, and the important things, don't kill, don't hurt, don't steal, are reinforced by society. Even christians acknowledge that we have "Knowledge of Good and Evil" correct?

I disagree that we know what is right and wrong automatically. There are many people who don't know what is right and wrong. I believe we have a conscience that we can choose to develop or that we can choose to ignore.

Christians acknowledge that all people are capable of doing good, but Christians do not acknowledge that all people know what is good.

Romans 2:13-16 wrote:

For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous in God's sight, but the doers of the law who will be justified. When Gentiles, who do not possess the law do instinctively what the law requires, these though not having the law are a law to themselves. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them on the day when according to my Gospel, God through Jesus Christ will judge the secret thoughts of all.

Dubhghaillix wrote: »

I admire you curiosity, quite unreligious n'est pas?*.

Just because I have faith doesn't mean I amn't interested in how other peoples ideas impact their lives.

Dubhghaillix wrote: »

It's hardly affects my relationship with others at all actually. I've had one nasty argument with a close friend, but we're cool now. (She brought booze and cadbury roses to my last DVD night.) anything else has just been discussions of the good or evil that organised religion does.

I like having discussions with my friends who don't believe in God. Although I disagree with them I find their views intriguing at times.

Dubhghaillix wrote: »

I do not, (while sober, but hey, In vino veritas) openly ridicule their beliefs, I make criticisms of the Church and and religious extremists. I am quite vocal about that. I also make critiques (ie. My friend "Happy Easter" me "Yeah Magical-Make-believe-Jesus-Come-back-from-dead-day" My friend "Lol, oh you :-)") about religious belief and even question the Historical truth of Jesus.

Again, I guess it's an old habit, but you do realise that there are more churches than just Catholicism?

Carrying on, you claim that you make people question the historical truth of Jesus. However, many Christians already have.

Dubhghaillix wrote: »

To be honest abandoning religion is the best thing I've ever done, it has had only a positive effect on my social, sporting and academic life. Oh and my mental health too, that was a big'un.

You have had a completely different experience than I have had.

Dubhghaillix wrote: »

Whoops, 4got ur first arguement. Deducing based on the oral tradition of bronze-age goat hearders that there is a god is not rational. Deducing that all Indo-European Languages are descended from a common tongue based on comparative and historical lingustics is quite rational. By your logic if, based on the Judeo-Christian mythology Yahewh exists, then Zeus, Ishtar, Lugh Lamhfháda, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc. also exist.

If something is true, it is true irrespective of age. It's irrelevant to me whether or not prophets were goat-herders or not.

I disagree with you, if the Judeo-Christian God exists, and if Christianity is indeed true, the other gods cannot exist if God is as described in the Bible. There are no other gods apart from Him, apart from what comes from delusion.

Assuming that all are true, also means that all ideas are of equal merit.

I would take the pragmatic approach, and say that where religions differ they cannot all be true. I am quite aware of the gravity of my commitment to Christianity.

Dubhghaillix wrote: »

Isn't it easier to just accept the world as we see it, rather than pretend there must be something beyond what we perceive?

I'm not pretending about anything. I've found that God has a very real impact on how I live my life, and given what I have come to know, I don't think that God is anything other than a part of reality.

ZorbaTehZ wrote: »

The difference being that hitler, stalin et al didn't commit the atrocities they did for their belief (or lack thereof)... unlike the Christians have been inclined to do.

Persecution of Christians, Muslims, Jews and other people of faith in Russia was largely motivated by atheism. Russian atheist propoganda motivated a lot of hatred towards people of faith.

If you are claiming that Christians have persecuted in accordance with the example of Christ, I have yet to see one example.

I think all ideologies can be distorted from Islam to atheism. The bottom line is that people are capable of atrocities irrespective of their beliefs.

TheCosmicFrog

I was at the meeting outside Smokey's today - it was a good experience and Charles and Kevin showed that they're intelligent, rational lads.

One thing I cannot get my head around within Christianity is the existence of "free will". Thinking rationally, an all-knowing intelligent designer would have known what humans would have done with free will. Said god would have known that free will would, ultimately, result in the massacre of 8 million Jews, the destruction of the World Trade Center and the almost countless cases of child abuse outlined in the Ryan Report.

DroneWorker

Jakkass wrote: »

I have reason to believe in God.

This is obfuscation. Clearly when Dubhghaillix said:

Dubhghaillix wrote: »

To believe in something without any reason to, be it gods, crystals, homeopathy,miracles etc. requires an abandoment of reality, truth, reason, logic, sense,and evidence which quite frankly works as a textbook definition of "Insane".

he was using 'reason' to signify
"a. the faculty or power of acquiring intellectual knowledge, either by direct understanding of first principles or by argument.
b. the power of intelligent and dispassionate thought, or of conduct influenced by such thought."
while you (Jakkass) appear use it as "a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event, etc.: the reason for declaring war." Clearly these are not exactly the same things.
You might mean that you have used reason to arrive at your position of faith but that is not what you have said. I simply suggest that in such a controversial arguement it is necessary to be precise in what one says.

Jakkass wrote: »

Personally, I don't particularly care whether or not people regard me as insane for holding to my beliefs.

I absolutely agree. We simply sit on opposite sides of a very interesting fence. People should be allowed to think and believe whatever they wish, and live their life how they like, so long as it does not impinge on the lives of others. Sadly this utopia does not exist. Like Voltaire (I think) said "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." Well, maybe not to death

TheCosmicFrog

Question for Jakkass:
Why do you think Humans are so much more important than dogs, cats, hippopotamii, pathogenic bacteria etc. that we go to heaven and the above don't?

Why won't my pet goldfish (named "Mr. Fish" for those interested) be with me in heaven?

DroneWorker

Jakkass wrote: »

I think all ideologies can be distorted from Islam to atheism. The bottom line is that people are capable of atrocities irrespective of their beliefs.

Absolutely true. People will find any excuse to kill other people, and often religion is the easiest excuse. Let me be clear, I'm saying religion is the reason, the excuse given, not that it is in itself inherently the source. If it wasn't religion it would be race, gender, sexual orientation etc.. But religion breeds intolerance as one of its basic funtions, like any dogmatic or totalitarian organisation, whether or not it is intended to do so.

Jakkass wrote: »

If you are claiming that Christians have persecuted in accordance with the example of Christ, I have yet to see one example.

Yes, indeed. But Jews have been persecuted by Christians in revenge of his death. Muslims have been persecuted because they do not worship his death, and Muslims have persecuted Christians because they do. Protestants and Orthodox Christians have been persecuted by, and have in turn persecuted, Catholics because they do not follow the same doctrine concerning his death/ressurection/meaning of his teachings etc.. Clearly many Christians don't get the point of Christ's example. Indeed I think many Christians don't really take the time to be faithful to Christ's teachings and simply follow the orders of the Church.

DroneWorker

TheCosmicFrog wrote: »

Question for Jakkass:
Why do you think Humans are so much more important than dogs, cats, hippopotamii, pathogenic bacteria etc. that we go to heaven and the above don't?

Why won't my pet goldfish (named "Mr. Fish" for those interested) be with me in heaven?

All dogs go to heaven, haven't you seen the movie?

DroneWorker

TheCosmicFrog wrote: »

One thing I cannot get my head around within Christianity is the existence of "free will". Thinking rationally, an all-knowing intelligent designer would have known what humans would have done with free will. Said god would have known that free will would, ultimately, result in the massacre of 8 million Jews, the destruction of the World Trade Center and the almost countless cases of child abuse outlined in the Ryan Report.

Maybe they were collateral damage in the war on sin... Who ever said god was rational? He is, afterall, made in our image...

DroneWorker

By the way, did ye get enough signatures to start up?

TheCosmicFrog

We got seven signatures today, but we all claim to know at least one person each who would sign. We'll definitely get the 15

philologos

TheCosmicFrog wrote: »

Question for Jakkass:
Why do you think Humans are so much more important than dogs, cats, hippopotamii, pathogenic bacteria etc. that we go to heaven and the above don't?
Why won't my pet goldfish (named "Mr. Fish" for those interested) be with me in heaven?

I don't know whether or not animals go to heaven or not. There is no clear passage that says that they do or don't. Some passages could be interpreted in favour of a view of animals being in heaven:

Psalm 36:6 wrote:

6Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains,
your judgements are like the great deep;
you save humans and animals alike, O Lord.

However, the word "save" in other translations, and in the original Hebrew implies preservation on the earth.

Others argue that humans go to heaven because we are the only species that inherited a spiritual nature from God (Genesis 1:26-27).

I personally don't know what happens to animals in heaven, and I'm willing to say that much.

You know many other people have asked why God is mindful of human beings before. Including the Psalmist King David:

Psalm 8:4 wrote:

4what are human beings that you are mindful of them,
mortals[URL="javascript:void(0);"]*[/URL] that you care for them?

Ultimately, I have to recognise that I cannot possibly know everything about God, because God is a far greater being than I am.

DroneWorker wrote: »

Absolutely true. People will find any excuse to kill other people, and often religion is the easiest excuse. Let me be clear, I'm saying religion is the reason, the excuse given, not that it is in itself inherently the source. If it wasn't religion it would be race, gender, sexual orientation etc.. But religion breeds intolerance as one of its basic funtions, like any dogmatic or totalitarian organisation, whether or not it is intended to do so.

I don't see how by believing in God, I am intolerant. Honestly, some people have shown a greater intolerance towards people of faith on this thread alone.

Religion is what is twisted and abused, likewise in the Soviet Union, atheism was twisted and abused to justify hatred.

DroneWorker wrote: »

Yes, indeed. But Jews have been persecuted by Christians in revenge of his death. Muslims have been persecuted because they do not worship his death, and Muslims have persecuted Christians because they do. Protestants and Orthodox Christians have been persecuted by, and have in turn persecuted, Catholics because they do not follow the same doctrine concerning his death/ressurection/meaning of his teachings etc.. Clearly many Christians don't get the point of Christ's example. Indeed I think many Christians don't really take the time to be faithful to Christ's teachings and simply follow the orders of the Church.

Again, all of this is due to distortionism.

Christ's death was going to happen, it was prophesied centuries before. If Jesus had not died, He would not have been the Jewish Messiah.

Again, who are you referring to when you are talking about "the Church"? Which church, the Catholic Church, or the global Christian church. It's a pity that word has even become distorted over the centuries. In the Early Church it meant a community of believers.

I personally attend a non-Catholic church. I have respect for the teachings of Catholicism, but I disagree with quite a few at the same time.

kevinmcinerney

DroneWorker wrote: »

I absolutely agree. We simply sit on opposite sides of a very interesting fence. People should be allowed to think and believe whatever they wish, and live their life how they like, so long as it does not impinge on the lives of others. Sadly this utopia does not exist. Like Voltaire (I think) said "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." Well, maybe not to death

I like this..It captures the paradoxical mixture of moderation and passion I feel on the subject.....

Wish i had more time to reply to all posts.v interesting..

1. Is it fair to say after a lenghty discussion we have proofed that the flying spagetti monster is as likely to be the almighty creator?

2. Does Jakkass deny the teachings of Pastafarainism? There is as much evidence. And eye witness testimony. Do you scoff at those who embrace the warm loving noodly appendage of our Father? Seriously?

Dubhghaillix

Last night, I had some difficulty sleeping. The question nagging at the back of my head. Why is there something rather than nothing? The fear nawing at my mind "what if they're right?" "What if there is life after death?". For a few moments I let the temptation to be irrational creep in, as it did before. Oddly enough, what snapped me out of it was looking at the Bust of Pallas Athena, the ancient glory of Wisdom Personified,(Above my chamber door) and I thought once more. I must admit, that I must thank you Jackass, I'd almost forgotten what it is to truly doubt, not, not knowing, but for a moment doubting even my own senses and reason. It was...unpleasant. I saw things from your side of the fence again, the overwhelming fear of death stood out. I remember what that was like now. Fearing eternal damnation unless I please the powers that be, desperate to stay in the good books, even to the point of misogyny and homophobia. Death is an ever present reality, I will die, as certain as I am that nausea is bad and pleasure is good. Then I remembered the events which made me realise that the loss of consciousness in death is preferable to the alternative (except eternal life on earth,or at least as long as you want that'd be sweeeeeet).

In January 2009 I did the Art O'Neill Challenge in aid of the Stewart Mangan (R.I.P.) appeal. I was then, a recent convert to Atheism, but I was struggling to accept the finality of death. The Hike was 55km long, starting at midnight from Dublin Castle. I remember drudging along the trails, half asleep, in the cold moonlit winter's night. I remember falling on the icy mountain paths and wiping the blood from my face. I remember the joy I felt when I crossed the finish line. But most of all I remember the sleep I had after it was done. When I collapsed into my warm bed I slept, not just my body, but all of me. I did not dream that night, and when I woke up the next morning, more refreshed than ever before. That was the greatest sleep I've ever had. A dreamless sleep. I knew then, that Death is better dreamless too.

I hope for a dreamless death. Wherein the particles that make up my body will be broken down into their most basic molecules and become part of the Living world once more, as was done countless times before I arrived on the scene. To me, that scientific truth is more moving and beautiful than all the lies and empty promises of religion. While I cannot say with absolute certainty that there are no gods, I can say with absolute certainty that they have no authority over me.

I am a Human Male. I am the product of countless generations of survival, adaptation and reproduction. I am a lean mean surviving machine. Every feature of me, from the way I walk on my hind legs, to my eighteen or so senses, to my pentadctyl hands adapted for grabbing and climbing, to my enlarged brain with the capacity for reason and thought and language beyond anything any animal has ever mustered, is remarkable. This applies to every single one of us. And not just Humans, while we are quite impressive, all of us living organisms are remarkable, the single most remarkable thing in the known universe. Why so? Because we exist on our own terms. We were not created. The Universe is a clock without a craftsman. It, and we, came into existence without any outside help. To suggest, that Life and the Universe were made on the whim of a creator is a most grievous and demeaning insult to me, all living things and the Magnificent Universe in which we find ourselves.

Perhaps I am being to hasty, perhaps there was a creator of the universe, but certainly life is uncreated. If there was he has never made himself known to us. Or perhaps the universe itself is the product of a natural selection of universes, the ones which have the right settings to exist do, and the ones which don't flicker out of existence leaving no trace that they were once here. I shall not argue if you god or Zeus, or Ra exist. They have not made themselves known to us. We created the gods. I do not expect for you to see this. I can change many things, but I cannot change a mind which closes itself to Reason. I would have more luck trying to teach a tree to speak, than to convince a christian that god is the creation of man. The day that I first asked myself, "Wait, why do I believe in god?" and for the first time, examined my beliefs impartially and rationally I saw the truth. That is the key. You cannot look at religious faith impartially and rationally and still believe it. I used to say you could, but that was a lie.

I still fear the end, but I intend to die having lived my life, the short time which I have, to the max. I shall one day die, and the universe shall not know that I was here. But I will have known that the universe is here. I will have experienced as much of it as I can, good and bad alike. Christians claim that they seek a paradise. I intend to make my paradise in the here and now, upon the earth, because that short time, is the only time I have. Forget eternity, carpe diem.

I hold no doubts about what I believe, but for practical reasons I cannot say that I am right and you are wrong, to the extent that I can say that 2+2=4.

We make our society, in the hopes of making this world a better place. A fairer place, where the freedom of speech of each of us is inviolable (regardless of how stupid or irrational the ideas are, because we also have a right to not listen if we choose to do so), Where the old mystics of the past are denounced as the deceivers of the minds of Men and striped of all authority, and where the Scientific Method of Sceptical and Reasoned Inquiry is given the respect it deserves.

To all of you who've read this speech (or skimmed through it coz you get the jist by every few words) I am left with two thing to say:

BOOM-DE-YADA!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=at_f98qOGY0

and

Seize the Day

philologos

Dubhghaillix wrote: »

Last night, I had some difficulty sleeping. The question nagging at the back of my head. Why is there something rather than nothing? The fear nawing at my mind "what if they're right?" "What if there is life after death?". For a few moments I let the temptation to be irrational creep in, as it did before. Oddly enough, what snapped me out of it was looking at the Bust of Pallas Athena, the ancient glory of Wisdom Personified,(Above my chamber door) and I thought once more. I must admit, that I must thank you Jackass, I'd almost forgotten what it is to truly doubt, not, not knowing, but for a moment doubting even my own senses and reason. It was...unpleasant. I saw things from your side of the fence again, the overwhelming fear of death stood out. I remember what that was like now. Fearing eternal damnation unless I please the powers that be, desperate to stay in the good books, even to the point of misogyny and homophobia. Death is an ever present reality, I will die, as certain as I am that nausea is bad and pleasure is good. Then I remembered the events which made me realise that the loss of consciousness in death is preferable to the alternative (except eternal life on earth,or at least as long as you want that'd be sweeeeeet).

I don't get why people think that Christians are mainly concerned with life after death. I personally have a life to live in the here and now, and I want to live the best life I possibly can before it's over.

Yes, before anyone asks, I do believe that heaven and hell exist, but I feel I have to be as much a part of this existence as I can before I am judged.

I'm quite happy to say that I will be leaving this world at some point.

Although doubting hell or heaven isn't the doubt I'd have anticipated that you'd have. I personally think the question of whether Jesus' teachings were a reality, or whether or not committing to God's plan for your life might just be the best thing. Alas, I can't be particular.

As for misogyny and homophobia, I find the first claim laughable given the amount of women who are believers in Christ. I find the second claim absurd considering that Christianity doesn't advocate any form of hatred, let alone homophobia but I digress.

As for causing you trouble sleeping, I didn't know I was capable of provoking such an impact :pac:

Dubhghaillix wrote: »

In January 2009 I did the Art O'Neill Challenge in aid of the Stewart Mangan (R.I.P.) appeal. I was then, a recent convert to Atheism, but I was struggling to accept the finality of death. The Hike was 55km long, starting at midnight from Dublin Castle. I remember drudging along the trails, half asleep, in the cold moonlit winter's night. I remember falling on the icy mountain paths and wiping the blood from my face. I remember the joy I felt when I crossed the finish line. But most of all I remember the sleep I had after it was done. When I collapsed into my warm bed I slept, not just my body, but all of me. I did not dream that night, and when I woke up the next morning, more refreshed than ever before. That was the greatest sleep I've ever had. A dreamless sleep. I knew then, that Death is better dreamless too.

That was interesting. Thanks a lot for that.

Dubhghaillix wrote: »

I hope for a dreamless death. Wherein the particles that make up my body will be broken down into their most basic molecules and become part of the Living world once more, as was done countless times before I arrived on the scene. To me, that scientific truth is more moving and beautiful than all the lies and empty promises of religion. While I cannot say with absolute certainty that there are no gods, I can say with absolute certainty that they have no authority over me.

You can't say this with absolute certainty. If there is a Creator of the universe, and if this Creator has given us moral laws on how best to conduct our lives in the here and now, it is conceivable if God is omnipotent that you will be judged.

Dubhghaillix wrote: »

I am a Human Male. I am the product of countless generations of survival, adaptation and reproduction. I am a lean mean surviving machine. Every feature of me, from the way I walk on my hind legs, to my eighteen or so senses, to my pentadctyl hands adapted for grabbing and climbing, to my enlarged brain with the capacity for reason and thought and language beyond anything any animal has ever mustered, is remarkable. This applies to every single one of us. And not just Humans, while we are quite impressive, all of us living organisms are remarkable, the single most remarkable thing in the known universe. Why so? Because we exist on our own terms. We were not created. The Universe is a clock without a craftsman. It, and we, came into existence without any outside help. To suggest, that Life and the Universe were made on the whim of a creator is a most grievous and demeaning insult to me, all living things and the Magnificent Universe in which we find ourselves.

That's the difference. I see it as demeaning to say that the Universe merely created itself. If there were some form of Creator, the Universe and it's majesty would be a testament to His greatness. That's how I regard God.

I'd advise you to check out this youtube video and the rest of it's parts:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewKtSKbWZUI

Dubhghaillix wrote: »

Perhaps I am being to hasty, perhaps there was a creator of the universe, but certainly life is uncreated.

How is life uncreated? Surely something had to start the whole chain of evolution off?

Dubhghaillix wrote: »

If there was he has never made himself known to us.

Is it that God has never made Himself aware to us, or that He has through divine revelation and you do not like the conclusion?

Dubhghaillix wrote: »

Or perhaps the universe itself is the product of a natural selection of universes, the ones which have the right settings to exist do, and the ones which don't flicker out of existence leaving no trace that they were once here.

Natural selection has to do with organisms, not physics.

Dubhghaillix wrote: »

I shall not argue if you god or Zeus, or Ra exist. They have not made themselves known to us.

See above, this seems a touch presumptuous.

Dubhghaillix wrote: »

We created the gods. I do not expect for you to see this.

I don't accept this as being the case no.

Dubhghaillix wrote: »

I can change many things, but I cannot change a mind which closes itself to Reason.

I believe I am thinking based on reason. It seems infinitely more logical to me that God exists, than God not existing.

Dubhghaillix wrote: »

I would have more luck trying to teach a tree to speak, than to convince a christian that god is the creation of man. The day that I first asked myself, "Wait, why do I believe in god?" and for the first time, examined my beliefs impartially and rationally I saw the truth. That is the key. You cannot look at religious faith impartially and rationally and still believe it. I used to say you could, but that was a lie.

I asked why I believed in God, then I went and found what arguments other people put out there. They made sense for the most part.

You have to accept the only answer to "Wait, why do I believe in God?" isn't always to reject God, but to find Him.

Dubhghaillix wrote: »

I still fear the end, but I intend to die having lived my life, the short time which I have, to the max.

Hm, I'm not sure if I do. Death is something we all go through, I began my life on this earth and it will be inevitably ended. I guess the only difference is that I don't believe that this is the end.

Dubhghaillix wrote: »

I shall one day die, and the universe shall not know that I was here. But I will have known that the universe is here. I will have experienced as much of it as I can, good and bad alike. Christians claim that they seek a paradise. I intend to make my paradise in the here and now, upon the earth, because that short time, is the only time I have. Forget eternity, carpe diem.

I'm living my life now, I'm enjoying it with faith. Believing in God doesn't make life less enjoyable or less fulfilling. I find it enhances it actually.

Dubhghaillix wrote: »

I hold no doubts about what I believe, but for practical reasons I cannot say that I am right and you are wrong, to the extent that I can say that 2+2=4.

Do you not? You just said you doubted last night concerning them. We don't need to pretend that we doubt. I personally doubt my faith from time to time. However, I have returned to the conclusion that God exists, and that I need to live the best life I can for Him and for my neighbour.

Dubhghaillix wrote: »

We make our society, in the hopes of making this world a better place. A fairer place, where the freedom of speech of each of us is inviolable (regardless of how stupid or irrational the ideas are, because we also have a right to not listen if we choose to do so), Where the old mystics of the past are denounced as the deceivers of the minds of Men and striped of all authority, and where the Scientific Method of Sceptical and Reasoned Inquiry is given the respect it deserves.

They can't be denounced as deceivers if we cannot be convinced that they are deceivers. I believe these men were inspired by God, and that these men have been the prophetic link between God and man. It seems we just take two different assessments of what we are talking about.

I believe that science is worthy of respect, but no more worthy of respect than any other area of academia from philosophy to politics.

aguaclara

can't believe the society's actually set up! seems to be plenty of support too. woohoo! i'm already planning guest speakers and debates and posters for said guests and debates...i'd say richard dawkins would be only too happy to come and give his opinion on the blasphemy joke. i wonder does p.z. myers do universities? fun! woo!!! i should be studying, but...feckit.

Dubhghaillix

That'd be savage! I was talking to the socs box ppl today about societies day, and I've gotten more signatures. Anyone else got interested people?

Yitzhak Rabin

Setting up a society like this is just a bad idea. Everyone is guilty of sin and the only way that we can be redeemed is through the love and fogiveness of Our Lord Jesus Christ. If you open your heart to Jesus you will know what I am talking about.

I really hope someone at your university puts a stop to this. I am going to write a letter to the dean.

I honestly don't know why you atheists hate God so much when he has given you life. You should be thanking Him everyday.

I will pray for you.

ZorbaTehZ

yekahs wrote: »

Setting up a society like this is just a bad idea. Everyone is guilty of sin and the only way that we can be redeemed is through the love and fogiveness of Our Lord Jesus Christ. If you open your heart to Jesus you will know what I am talking about.

I really hope someone at your university puts a stop to this. I am going to write a letter to the dean.

I honestly don't know why you atheists hate God so much when he has given you life. You should be thanking Him everyday.

I will pray for you.

Yitzhak Rabin

What has star trek got to do with anything!?

Try giving a RATIONAL response you moran!

aguaclara

@ ZorbaTehZ -

rumour has it the zoological society are planning on inviting dawkins to give a talk on darwin...wonder if he'd be happy to do two talks? one on darwin and one on religious silliness and "blasphemy"? ...how does one go about approaching such a person...and yes, i should probably wait 'til the next meeting to ponder this stuff...on a non-religious, general mumbo-jumbo note, patrick holford is giving talks in galway. you can pay cold hard cash to learn how to reverse diabetes using all-natural methods. jesus ain't got nothin' on this dude.

Dubhghaillix

I hope they do, I'd love to hear him give a talk of Darwin. The new book's savage, easier to read than Origin. The bit at the start where he compares creations to holocaust deniers and ppl saying the romans didn't exist. Hit the nail on the head!

DroneWorker

yekahs wrote: »

Setting up a society like this is just a bad idea. Everyone is guilty of sin and the only way that we can be redeemed is through the love and fogiveness of Our Lord Jesus Christ. If you open your heart to Jesus you will know what I am talking about.

I really hope someone at your university puts a stop to this. I am going to write a letter to the dean.

I honestly don't know why you atheists hate God so much when he has given you life. You should be thanking Him everyday.

I will pray for you.

Atheists don't care. I'm not attacking your religious fervor, just pointing out that they don't care because that is the whole point of being atheist. Just like attacking you for being a theist of the Christian variety would be an exercise in futility. Atheists don't believe god gave them life, or that Jesus was in any way divine. They don't hate god. It is rather difficult to hate something you don't believe exists. That's like saying they hate dragons, the tooth-fairy, or smurfs...

yekahs wrote: »

What has star trek got to do with anything!?

Try giving a RATIONAL response you moran!

It was a rational response, perfectly reveals the incredulity of ZorbaTehZ upon reading your post, and is also rather humorous. How are either of your posts rational? One is simply a faith-statement espousing dogmatic clichés, and the latter is a flimsy rebuttal...

kevinmcinerney

If we want dawkins we would have to set up some kind of intervarcity skeptics conglomerate..He would hardly come to our society alone....but who knows...someday....if we donate enough to rdf perhaps....

facepalm.....classic

kevinmcinerney

DroneWorker

Brilliant poster. Will seek it out on campus!:D

DroneWorker

as for the society, you might find inspiration here...

http://www.skeptic.com/

TheCosmicFrog

I'm sure when many of you registered for NUIG, you selected "Not Specified" as your religion. How about tying in "Not Specified" into the campaign?