Religious obsessed by Atheism

ankaragucu

I thought aetheists were people who dont believe in gods or religion.

Brian Shanahan

lazybones32 wrote: »

If there was no truth in what I wrote, you will easily be able to supply links or clips that show atheist organisations parodying and mimicking all religions and not just Christianity. I look forward to seeing this...

I'm in no mood to do anything for people who constantly try to play the victim, especially when they're so quick to try and make out others far more victimised than themselves are getting an easy ride.

To give you an example of real victimisation, in London a muslim is 20 times more likely (or more) to be stopped and searched than a white christian (it seems that the Met like stopping blacks of any persuasion as muslims), a situation which has been going on for a good number of years. Are you saying to me that somebody pointing out and using the massive inconsitencies in your religion is more discrimination than going along minding your on business only to be subjected (repeatedly over time) to a highly invasive, stressful and offensive procedure?

pauldla

Allow me to interrupt the discourse with this thought from Dara O'Briain.

feargale

pauldla wrote: »

Allow me to interrupt the discourse with this thought from Dara O'Briain.

Not convincing.

Absolam

feargale wrote: »

Not convincing.

Maybe you had to be there.

Hotblack Desiato

feargale wrote: »

Not convincing.

I re-read a thread last posted in 16 months ago for THAT?

robdonn

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I re-read a thread last posted in 16 months ago for THAT?

Haha, I did the same. I was a few posts in when I read someone say that they were embarrassed that Ireland didn't have same-sex marriage yet and only then did I check the dates of the posts!

RDM_83 again

Absolam wrote: »

Maybe you had to be there.

Too take this Zombie seriously for a second, if its Dara O'B in Ireland making that comeback its valid, if it was in London or the English middle cities not so much if he's doing a show at The Apollo the audience would probably know more Muslims than Catholics. I'm guessing Dara O'B makes his cash in the UK mainly these days in general so the "scared too/sacred cow " thing is valid.

robdonn

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Too take this Zombie seriously for a second, if its Dara O'B in Ireland making that comeback its valid, if it was in London or the English middle cities not so much if he's doing a show at The Apollo the audience would probably know more Muslims than Catholics. I'm guessing Dara O'B makes his cash in the UK mainly these days in general so the "scared too/sacred cow " thing is valid.

But whether he is scared to make those jokes or not is irrelevant in light of the actual reasons given. If he does not know enough about Islam then how is he even supposed to create jokes about it without simply appealing to stereotypes and potential factual errors.

And even if his first point about his own knowledge was invalid, his second point would still stand. Simply stating that if he is playing in London then his audience would know more Muslims than Catholics doesn't hold much water. I live in London and the general awareness of Islamic practises amongst most people does not appear to go much farther than call to prayers, Ramadan and dietary requirements.

To assume that the slightly higher proportion of Muslims in London would constitute an overall greater knowledge of specific religious practises or ideology is false.

beerbuddy

MrPudding wrote: »

You are fcuking joking, right? Have you ever walked past an abortion clinic? Have you ever walked past the gpo on a Saturday? Have you ever had a Jehovah witness at your door? Have you ever read a thread with JC on it? Have you ever been to a board of governors meeting at 98% of the primary schools in Ireland? Have you ever read any amicus briefs for any legal cases involving abortion or same sex marriage? Have you ever read any lobbying directed at the government when they are discussing same sex marriage or abortion? Have you ever read a John Water's article? Have you ever read anything published by the Iona institute?

MrP

I THINK YOU JUST PROVED HIS POINT

robdonn

beerbuddy wrote: »

I THINK YOU JUST PROVED HIS POINT

I think your CapsLock is broken.

Brian Shanahan

RDM_83 again wrote: »

if he's doing a show at The Apollo the audience would probably know more Muslims than Catholics.

No they wouldn't. There's 5.7m catholics in the UK (not counting old catholics), there's 2,786,635 muslims of all types in the UK. 5.7m is more than twice 2.7m, I'm sure you'll concede.

Not a NSA agent

Most people in the UK would be protestant. Protestants would have more of an understanding of Catholicism as they are both Christianity. You wouldnt tell a joke about someone from Cork when you are in the US but you might tell a joke about an English person.

MrPudding

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

No they wouldn't. There's 5.7m catholics in the UK (not counting old catholics), there's 2,786,635 muslims of all types in the UK. 5.7m is more than twice 2.7m, I'm sure you'll concede.

Not only that, but as pointed out above, most people don't have a clue about the religion, which makes jokes either extremely difficult to write, or simply not funny to most.

I lived next door to a muslim family for a year in Milton Keynes, they were without doubt some of the nicest people I have ever met, but I don't have a clue about their religion beyond the. Road strokes we see on TV. Not a sound basis for making jokes, or more precisely, understanding jokes that someone else makes.

MrP

RDM_83 again

robdonn wrote: »

But whether he is scared to make those jokes or not is irrelevant in light of the actual reasons given. If he does not know enough about Islam then how is he even supposed to create jokes about it without simply appealing to stereotypes and potential factual errors.

And even if his first point about his own knowledge was invalid, his second point would still stand. Simply stating that if he is playing in London then his audience would know more Muslims than Catholics doesn't hold much water. I live in London and the general awareness of Islamic practises amongst most people does not appear to go much farther than call to prayers, Ramadan and dietary requirements.

To assume that the slightly higher proportion of Muslims in London would constitute an overall greater knowledge of specific religious practises or ideology is false.

The general exposure is higher, and in general English people are pretty clueless about religion unless they are devout.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

No they wouldn't. There's 5.7m catholics in the UK (not counting old catholics), there's 2,786,635 muslims of all types in the UK. 5.7m is more than twice 2.7m, I'm sure you'll concede.

Apollo is in London and I specifically mention the uneven distribution of British Muslims there is twice the UK average so YES they would. I'm not bashing British Muslims here by the way I'm bashing Dara O'B

robdonn

RDM_83 again wrote: »

The general exposure is higher, and in general English people are pretty clueless about religion unless they are devout.

The same can be said about most people in any country, but still doesn't help your argument.

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Apollo is in London and I specifically mention the uneven distribution of British Muslims there is twice the UK average so YES they would. I'm not bashing British Muslims here by the way I'm bashing Dara O'B

While some areas of London do have proportionately high numbers of Muslims, they are distributed very sporadically and is still very low in the view of Greater London.

wp_rathead

If you looking for a comedian that pokes fun at Islam aswell as Christianity - Tim Minchin's song "Ten Foot Cock and Few Hundred Virgins" is a decent listen

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

would British Catholics have that much in common with Irish Catholics? or Northern Irish Catholics?
There's three completely different environments when it comes to growing up in the Catholic faith

Brian Shanahan

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Apollo is in London and I specifically mention the uneven distribution of British Muslims there is twice the UK average so YES they would. I'm not bashing British Muslims here by the way I'm bashing Dara O'B

Which is absolutely pointless when trying to make a rebuttal of my shredding of your non-argument. The Apollo is a nationally known theatre with an audience from all over Britain, not the parts of London with a high predominance of muslims. You cannot extrapolate from its geographic location about what its patrons do or do not know.

feargale

Ok, I get it.
Dara O'Briain is well versed in all aspects of Christianity, the good, the bad and the ugly, which is why he does jokes about it. He is knowledgeable about Christian philosophy, theology, history, the Inquisition, the sex and other scandals, the Popes' support for some shady people such as Mr. Franco, slavery practised by Christians, and the Crusades.
He knows nothing about Islam/Muslims, the good, the bad or the ugly, nothing about the Hajj, Ramadan, Zakah, the great civilisation of Cordoba, ISIS, al-Quaeda, 9/11, the ban on women driving in Saudi Arabia, the existence of slavery in some Muslim societies, the existence in some countries of the death penalty for apostasy, or indeed the Crusades. Therefore he doesn't do Muslim jokes.

P.S. Amend that to read: But he does know enough about Muslims to know that his interrogators know nothing about them.

Absolam

feargale wrote: »

But he does know enough about Muslims to know that his interrogators know nothing about them.

He doesn't look so tough. I reckon he'd say anything under interrogation in fairness.

robdonn

feargale wrote: »

Ok, I get it.
Dara O'Briain is well versed in all aspects of Christianity, the good, the bad and the ugly, which is why he does jokes about it. He is knowledgeable about Christian philosophy, theology, history, the Inquisition, the sex and other scandals, the Popes' support for some shady people such as Mr. Franco, slavery practised by Christians, and the Crusades.
He knows nothing about Islam/Muslims, the good, the bad or the ugly, nothing about the Hajj, Ramadan, Zakah, the great civilisation of Cordoba, ISIS, al-Quaeda, 9/11, the ban on women driving in Saudi Arabia, the existence of slavery in some Muslim societies, the existence in some countries of the death penalty for apostasy, or indeed the Crusades. Therefore he doesn't do Muslim jokes.

P.S. Amend that to read: But he does know enough about Muslims to know that his interrogators know nothing about them.

There is a difference between knowing about a topic and knowing enough about a topic that you can make (very) public comments on it. I fully respect anyone who admits that they are not confident in their own understanding of something and therefore does not try to spout off facts that may very well be incorrect.

antiskeptic

PopePalpatine wrote: »

And FFS...have you ever considered it is possible to come up with a system of morality/ethics without creating a religion?

If you could explain how the religion-free system of morality/ethics is supposed to find it's root other than in the inner convictions of men then I'm all ears.

Because if you can't then it would appear the root of both religious and non-religious morality/ethics system are both going to lie in inner convictions of men.

I mean, you can't prove killing immoral.

robdonn

antiskeptic wrote: »

If you could explain how the religion-free system of morality/ethics is supposed to find it's root other than in the inner convictions of men then I'm all ears.

Because if you can't then it would appear the root of both religious and non-religious morality/ethics system are both going to lie in inner convictions of men.

We could try basing a system of morality on the inner convictions of women.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I mean, you can't prove killing immoral.

When trying to create a system of morality you must first define what 'moral' and 'immoral' mean. If we define it as 'something bad for society' (simplistic for purpose of example) then it can be quite easy to make judgements of morality based on reason alone.

Murder has a measurably negative effect on society, as a social species we require a level of trust to function. If we were to allow murder then that trust would disappear and our species would cease to function cohesively.

As stated, very simplistic example, but one based on reason rather than conviction.

antiskeptic

robdonn wrote: »

We could try basing a system of morality on the inner convictions of women.

I meant, of course, men as mankind.

When trying to create a system of morality you must first define what 'moral' and 'immoral' mean. If we define it as 'something bad for society' (simplistic for purpose of example) then it can be quite easy to make judgements of morality based on reason alone.

You would, of course, be merely kicking the can down the road. If, for example, inner conviction told you that the God you believed in was in a position to know "the whole picture" and could, therefore know of far reaching consequences (in butterfly flaps it's wings in China fashion) then you might be prepared to forego the product of necessarily limited reason and align yourself with Him.

Murder has a measurably negative effect on society, as a social species we require a level of trust to function. If we were to allow murder then that trust would disappear and our species would cease to function cohesively.

As stated, very simplistic example, but one based on reason rather than conviction.

Understood. You might find God reasons similarily (bearing in mind that God himself, in killing, isn't murdering). It is an inner conviction of man that would suppose reason an ultimate means of arriving at a conclusion

robdonn

antiskeptic wrote: »

You would, of course, be merely kicking the can down the road. If, for example, inner conviction told you that the God you believed in was in a position to know "the whole picture" and could, therefore know of far reaching consequences (in butterfly flaps it's wings in China fashion) then you might be prepared to forego the product of necessarily limited reason and align yourself with Him.

And when your inner conviction of God's plan comes face to face with the contradicting inner conviction of someone else's God's plan, then what? When neither side are able to prove to each other, or the population at large, which one is the true path, then we must default to creating our own system that disregards both. The world should put a lot more effort into shaming people who try to change policies based solely on their beliefs when those beliefs go against the objective good.

antiskeptic wrote: »

(bearing in mind that God himself, in killing, isn't murdering)

The only thing that prevents God's actions from being deemed murder is that "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another" does not cover the actions of imaginary beings.

feargale

Absolam wrote: »

He doesn't look so tough. I reckon he'd say anything under interrogation in fairness.

interrogate (third-person singular simple present interrogates, present participle interrogating, simple past and past participle interrogated)

1. (transitive) To question or quiz, especially in a thorough and/or aggressive manner.

You have a problem with that?

antiskeptic

robdonn wrote: »

And when your inner conviction of God's plan comes face to face with the contradicting inner conviction of someone else's God's plan, then what? When neither side are able to prove to each other, or the population at large, which one is the true path, then we must default to creating our own system that disregards both. The world should put a lot more effort into shaming people who try to change policies based solely on their beliefs when those beliefs go against the objective good.

In surprising few posts you've forgotten the problem given you. What, other than inner conviction are you to rely on? Your inner conviction that reason is the best route to objective good (whatever the hell that's supposed to be) is but: inner conviction. Your not going to prove reason the best way to morality any more than I'm going to prove God.

PopePalpatine

I base that inner conviction on empathy - I think you'd be familiar with the "Golden Rule" and the "Silver Rule", unless you've swallowed your Bible course instructor telling you that looking those up is a sin.

feargale

robdonn wrote: »

There is a difference between knowing about a topic and knowing enough about a topic that you can make (very) public comments on it. I fully respect anyone who admits that they are not confident in their own understanding of something and therefore does not try to spout off facts that may very well be incorrect.

That's a lame defence of O'Briain's inconsistent apologia and his arrogant presumptiousness regarding the level of knowledge about Islam possessed by his interrogators.
Des McHale was honest. When asked the same question he said he didn't do Muslim jokes because he was scared.
Charlie Hebdo is principled satire as opposed to cheque-book satire.

antiskeptic

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I base that inner conviction on empathy

Wouldn't empathy merely belong to the group of inner convictions? If basing morality on what you find springs naturally from you then what's your basis for proposing society adhere you your and your ilks inner convictions?

Andrewf20

I see evolution as the basis for morality - we are social creatures who rely on each other to get through life and to help humans propagate.

feargale

expectationlost wrote: »

what is it with this people who claim to happy in their faith but are obssesed by atheism huh?

This thread has strayed far from OP. To address OP's question would it not be a good idea to do spot checks of Christianity and A&A threads and to report back the number of references to Atheism in Christianity threads and vice versa?

The Black Oil

I take Dara O' Briain's remarks at face value. I've seen that meme and Youtube clip before, but admittedly not the full gig in question. I think the other point he's making, and you find this online too, is that some of people who press him on this aren't actually interested in an answer. They do so as a form of self-congratulation and to service their own narrative that no one ever touches Islam or Muslims.

Marcus Brigstocke - shocker - a left wing comedian - has ranted about most religions in the past, including Islam. Whether he still does, I've no idea. Religions should be open to being mocked, however imo if you don't have experience of the cultural baggage it's a little hard to construct material that nails the target, somehow manages to tape into the zeitgeist and also contains a few necessary home truths.

O' Briain is one of the safer comedians around and has found a formula that works i.e. large scale crowd pleaser whilst not being lowest common denominator. I don't really see an issue with that. Outside of his on stage work he appears to be more intellectually curious than some of his peers. Not sure the extent to which he puts that stuff into his gigs.

If he is avoiding Islam out of fear then perhaps that's no less self-serving that comedians who overindulge in Catholic bashing.

Hotblack Desiato

antiskeptic wrote: »

If you could explain how the religion-free system of morality/ethics is supposed to find it's root other than in the inner convictions of men then I'm all ears.

Because if you can't then it would appear the root of both religious and non-religious morality/ethics system are both going to lie in inner convictions of men.

I mean, you can't prove killing immoral.

Religious people choose which religion to follow and, importantly, which parts of its sacred text are 'gospel' and which are 'myth'.

The idea that a supernatural being can reveal a morality to humans through the word of other humans is entirely laughable.

'God's truth - he told me you can't do that - no you can't ask him yourself. He told ME.'

antiskeptic wrote: »

Wouldn't empathy merely belong to the group of inner convictions? If basing morality on what you find springs naturally from you then what's your basis for proposing society adhere you your and your ilks inner convictions?

Oh, I dunno, chop their heads off if they don't agree with me? It's what religions do.

Or, maybe, appeal to people's intellect and empathy rather than basest instinct and tribalism and death fears.

antiskeptic

Andrewf20 wrote: »

I see evolution as the basis for morality - we are social creatures who rely on each other to get through life and to help humans propagate.

Since evolution has no purpose neither can a morality produced by it. Evolution isn't aiming to get folk to rely on each other and to help humans propagate.

Which makes the morality that would murder as much a product of evolution as the morality that doesn't murder.

antiskeptic

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Religious people choose which religion to follow

IF God reveals himself to someone in overwhelmingly convincing fashion THEN they've no choice but to believe. You mightn't believe the IF has happened but you can't exclude that it can happen.

In which case, the then follows the if.

gospel' and which are 'myth'.

Just as anyone does with any piece of text. What is true, what is fiction, what is allegory, etc.

The idea that a supernatural being can reveal a morality to humans through the word of other humans is entirely laughable.

If it's the God-inspired word of humans then. Another if/then which makes problematic your certainty.

Oh, I dunno, chop their heads off if they don't agree with me? It's what religions do.

Or, maybe, appeal to people's intellect and empathy rather than basest instinct and tribalism and death fears.

Have you read The God Delusion?

Pherekydes

antiskeptic wrote: »

Since evolution has no purpose neither can a morality produced by it.

Evolution gave rise to your god, hence any morality derived from this invented god can have no purpose, according to your good self.

Checkmate, eh, theists.

antiskeptic

Pherekydes wrote: »

Evolution gave rise to your god

That view is what's called "a belief".

Stalemate.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

Since evolution has no purpose neither can a morality produced by it. Evolution isn't aiming to get folk to rely on each other and to help humans propagate.

The "purpose" of evolution is to preserve genetic material. Getting "folk to rely on each other" does "help humans propagate" by helping to preserve genetic material, so sociability is central to evolution - in fact, there are entire areas of academic study devoted to the topic.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Which makes the morality that would murder as much a product of evolution as the morality that doesn't murder.

As above, that's a trivially wrong interpretation of evolution.

Religions, on the other hand, have evolved for the sole purpose of acquiring more and more believers - so religions have evolved to believe that the removal of non-believers from the memetic pool, either by execution of rules or by well, execution, is conducive to religions' health. That's why religions have so many rules regarding when, where and how people can have sex - they're interested only in getting people to have more babies, so that the religions can flood out other religions.

All of which works "fine" until the religions left standing have managed to evolve to have the same reproduce/kill dominance strategy in which case you end up with religious people overbreeding or murdering outgroup members.

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

The "purpose" of evolution is to preserve genetic material.

The "purpose" of evolution isn't to preserve anything. Rather, the upshot of the circumstances life happens to find itself in means that some genetic material survives and some doesn't. That some life mutates so as to better deal with circumstances, so as to preserve genetic material isn't purpose, it's happy accident.

Getting "folk to rely on each other" does "help humans propagate" by helping to preserve genetic material,

There is no getting being done. What survives survives: some genetic material being preserved by it's survivability under the circumstances at the time .. and some not. With nobody or thing caring/acting/directing things one way or the other.

so sociability is central to evolution

...thus not. Sociability is central to the direction evolution happens to have taken. Which could be said of anything that was central to any direction evolution could have taken - including all life coming to an end.


There was talk of morality* being produced by evolution as if evolution figured this an essential tool in it's onward march upwards. Or something.

* presumably cherry picking a nice morality. Although how you figure evolution produced one branch of morality and not another is beyond me. Didn't it produce all flavours?

As above, that's a trivially wrong interpretation of evolution

For one so reliant on " "purpose" " and "getting" this is a bit rich.

Religions, on the other hand, have evolved for the sole purpose of acquiring more and more believers - so religions have evolved to believe that the removal of non-believers from the memetic pool, either by execution of rules or by well, execution, is conducive to religions' health. That's why religions have so many rules regarding when, where and how people can have sex - they're interested only in getting people to have more babies, so that the religions can flood out other religions.

I wouldn't disagree - although I'd permit a level of nuance that you can't. The God inhabiting the gaps of religion just as he does all other areas of human activity.

Pherekydes

antiskeptic wrote: »

That view is what's called "a belief".

Stalemate.

So, an evolution denier?

antiskeptic

Pherekydes wrote: »

So, an evolution denier?

A Godless universe denier. How it came about is another matter.

antiskeptic

Andrewf20 wrote: »

I see evolution as the basis for morality - we are social creatures who rely on each other to get through life and to help humans propagate.

Didn't evolution produce every version of morality there is in the world, in your view. If not, where else did they come from?

What do you mean by "evolution the basis for morality" when it produced diametrically opposed moralities?

Hotblack Desiato

antiskeptic wrote: »

IF God reveals himself to someone in overwhelmingly convincing fashion THEN they've no choice but to believe. You mightn't believe the IF has happened but you can't exclude that it can happen.

If they are overwhelmingly convinced, why can't they convince me?
I posit that they are far from overwhelmingly convinced, they are somewhere between deluded and choosing to believe because they find unbelief unpalatable.

Just as anyone does with any piece of text. What is true, what is fiction, what is allegory, etc.

So any piece of text is as ambiguous and/or downright provably false as the bible? That's quite a bizarre claim.

If it's the God-inspired word of humans then. Another if/then which makes problematic your certainty.

Worthless circular reasoning nonsense. 'What these people say about god must be true because it was god who told them because they say god told them'

Have you read The God Delusion?

I have a copy beside me, it's on the holiday reading list along with GinG and Hitch-22


Edit: been a while since we did this but it's fun

antiskeptic

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

If they are overwhelmingly convinced, why can't they convince me?

Because they are not God. God could clearly convince someone of his existence - it's a different matter for 2nd hand news to convince - especially for something as monumental as this

I posit that they are far from overwhelmingly convinced, they are somewhere between deluded and choosing to believe because they find unbelief unpalatable.

Posit away. It doesn't affect the IF/Then one jot

So any piece of text is as ambiguous and/or downright provably false as the bible?

I can't say I've been impressed by typical atheist attempts as demonstrating the Bible any of those things. Terry Eagleton described one of New Atheism's high priests (Dawkins) as theologically illiterate. It effectively means you don't have the first notion of how you should approach the Bible in order to critique it.

Worthless circular reasoning nonsense. 'What these people say about god must be true because it was god who told them because they say god told them'

I don't think you quite understand the workings of an if/then statement. The only reasoning going on there is a logical statement. If the if true then consequences follow. If not not.

You're claiming not, but don't appear to be able to show your work, as it were. How worthless is that: I mean, any old fool can make an unevidenced truth claim!

I have a copy beside me, it's on the holiday reading list along with GinG and Hitch-22

I'd have guessed as much by your style of argumentation.

Hotblack Desiato

antiskeptic wrote: »

Because they are not God. God could clearly convince someone of his existence - it's a different matter for 2nd hand news to convince - especially for something as monumental as this

Do the majority of religious believers actually believe they have heard god speaking to them? Doubtful.

I can't say I've been impressed by typical atheist attempts as demonstrating the Bible any of those things.

A flat earth at the centre of a universe created in six days about 6000 years ago, I think we can dismiss that as false. All humanity descended from a man made from dust and a woman made from a rib?

Then a man who was 600 years old built an impossibly large ark out of wood in an area with little or no trees, put two of every animal into it and then a geologically impossible flood which left no evidence behind happened, and once again (despite the genetic evidence) all humanity are inbred descended from one family?

Etc. etc. etc.

Now if you want to employ the 'it's a metaphor' argument, how far do you go with that? Is the very idea of a god a metaphor for a higher power within ourselves, as some believe? How do you or anyone else decide what is literally true in the bible, what is metaphor, and what can safely be ignored entirely e.g. most people won't stone their neighbour to death for picking up sticks on the sabbath or wearing mixed fibres.

I suppose that's the reason there are tens of thousands of denominations of christianity - they can't agree on what is scripture, what translations are valid, what interpretations are valid, what rituals are valid, what the role of scripture vs. tradition should be...

Terry Eagleton described one of New Atheism's high priests (Dawkins) as theologically illiterate. It effectively means you don't have the first notion of how you should approach the Bible in order to critique it.

LOL
You need a degree in theology to be able to criticise it? Is god's message only for an elite or a chosen people? Why would a god create humans who can never achieve salvation? (including atheists - surely an all-powerful god could convince anyone.) So clearly this god is quite happy to condemn a sizeable chunk of humanity to this supposedly eternal torture, for no real fault of their own except to never have heard the message, or heard the 'wrong' one, or never been convinced by it.

You're claiming not, but don't appear to be able to show your work, as it were. How worthless is that: I mean, any old fool can make an unevidenced truth claim!

There must be an awful lot of old fools running every religion in the world then. I think they're far from fools though as religion gives them great status, power, and wealth.

It's not up to atheists to prove anything. Give us evidence and we will evaluate it. Until credible evidence is presented, then the existence of a god cannot be accepted by atheists any more than the existence of any other fantastical claim.

I'd have guessed as much by your style of argumentation.

Can you stick to discussing the posts rather than the poster. Ta.

N.B. If it wasn't clear from the previous post, I haven't read that book yet.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

I mean, any old fool can make an unevidenced truth claim!

*cough*

Brian Shanahan

antiskeptic wrote: »

That view is what's called "a belief".

Stalemate.

Wrong, belief in gods is a construct of the social nature of humanity, specifically the needs to tell stories explaining the world and to create in- and out-groups. Humanity's social nature is a construct of evolution. Ergo, it is safe to say that your belief in god is a result of your evolutionary past.

antiskeptic

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Do the majority of religious believers actually believe they have heard god speaking to them? Doubtful.

I couldn't say.

Now if you want to employ the 'it's a metaphor' argument, how far do you go with that?

Not as far as you.

Is the very idea of a god a metaphor for a higher power within ourselves, as some believe? How do you or anyone else decide what is literally true in the bible, what is metaphor, and what can safely be ignored entirely e.g. most people won't stone their neighbour to death for picking up sticks on the sabbath or wearing mixed fibres.

You're exhibiting the fact that you've no idea at all about the structure of the Bible. Here, for example, you pick on laws applicable for a particular people at a particular time for a particular reason and suppose them commandments for all people at all times. I made the point about theological illiteracy...

You need a degree in theology to be able to criticise it?

Not at all. But you do need a enough humility to suppose the most crass view of it is perhaps a poor starting point. That Dawkins/Hitchens don't raise their game about this level doesn't mean everyone else need follow suit. Unfortunately, they do, in droves.

Is god's message only for an elite or a chosen people?

God's message is for all. But unlike books of men, it requires eye's opened in order to be able to discern that message. Eye's can be opened by reading or might be opened otherwise, after which you can read and discern. The opportunity for eyes to be opened is open to all.

Why would a god create humans who can never achieve salvation?

There is no one to whom the opportunity of salvation is closed: not atheists, not Hindus, not cultural Christians. Not folk of any time or place. If they are saved it will be by God on the terms/in the manner he has deemed suitable for the purpose - not in the manner folk would demand ("I am God" in big letters across the sky, for instance).

I don't suppose that anyone should object to how they are convinced so long as they be convincingly convinced to their satisfaction.

It's not up to atheists to prove anything.

It is if they say things like God doesn't exist. That's a truth claim.

Give us evidence and we will evaluate it. Until credible evidence is presented, then the existence of a god cannot be accepted by atheists any more than the existence of any other fantastical claim.

The only person who can demonstrate God to you is God.