Respect for the religious + religion - where does it start/stop?

lazygal

katydid wrote: »

There's lack of evidence in both directions. Those who state DEFINITIVELY that there is no God have no proof. Those who state there is a God don't try to offer proof because they know there is no such proof.

So who are the people making unsubstantiated claims????

And you patronise ME?

Why on earth would you spend your time on something you have no proof exists? I'm honestly not being patronizing. I often hear people cite 'proof' of god when their child gets better or they find their car keys or they win a match. What makes someone worship something they can state they have no such proof exists?

Skrynesaver

To return to the thread topic, about 11 pages ago...

Zubeneschamali

katydid wrote: »

Faith can be blind faith, or it can be an intelligent conviction that there are dimensions beyond our comprehension.

If these dimensions are beyond our comprehension, how come you understand them well enough to believe all that stuff about God and Jesus and heaven?

marienbad

katydid wrote: »

There's lack of evidence in both directions. Those who state DEFINITIVELY that there is no God have no proof. Those who state there is a God don't try to offer proof because they know there is no such proof.

So who are the people making unsubstantiated claims????

And you patronise ME?

I never understand how anyone over the age of 7 can post this . But then again maybe the Jesuits have always known this.

Bandana boy

swampgas wrote: »

But if someone genuinely believes that I'm going to burn in hell, and they tell me this, isn't it equally valid for me to tell them that I genuinely believe that they are deluded?

Is that not just two people exchanging views, rather than "two wrongs"?

if you read his post it suggests some religious people are rude hence I can be rude to all religious people, not a discussion with somebody else where you are exchanging opinions.

that said we are though getting to the crux of the problem and this thread is a perfect example of this problem.

Too many people who identify as atheists believe that this makes them superior or more intelligent than the religious. That berating the religious and "catching" them out in the absurdities of their religion is about standing up to this religion and the persecution religion inflicts on many around the world.
It is not though ,it is in reality a form of bullying. It is about the atheist feeling superior to the so called feeble minded religous people ,and I believe it is a selfish act of vanity.

Even if you disagree with me and believe it is the powerful religious institutions you are standing up to ,this is not an effective way. The way to bring down organised religion is to take away its power ,which is its followers , and winning hearts and minds over to a more logical way of thinking will not be done by belittling the people who currently believe.

Tldr
Energy spent mocking the religious would be better spent extolling the virtues of logic. This is a much better long term strategy to reduce the power and influence that religion holds in the world.

Brian Shanahan

Bandana boy wrote: »

Because two wrongs don't make a right

But calling somebody delusional because they believe in something delusional is not a wrong, it is an accurate assessment. What you are doing is equivalent to stopping people from calling Harold Shipman a murderer simply because you think its "not nice". He is a murderer, proved as such in a court of law.

But on the other hand a religious person calling me a sinner is them judging me based solely on their own prejudice and bias. They have no actual evidence to support their assertion, and they only do it because I am different to them, and they want to denigrate me as a person.

See the difference?

Zubeneschamali

Bandana boy wrote: »

winning hearts and minds over to a more logical way of thinking will not be done by belittling the people who currently believe.

You can't win people over to a logical view of the world using logic - they have to accept that logical arguments apply first. If religious people accepted that logical arguments applied to religion, they wouldn't be religious people, would they?

Mockery generally doesn't work either, but I don't mock people as part of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy's plan to defeat organized religion - I laugh at them because they are funny.

Brian Shanahan

katydid wrote: »

There's lack of evidence in both directions. Those who state DEFINITIVELY that there is no God have no proof. Those who state there is a God don't try to offer proof because they know there is no such proof.

So who are the people making unsubstantiated claims????

The problem with your reasoning is two-fold:
1) As the person making a claim which would significantly alter our perception of reality (in scientific terms), the burden of proof is squarely on your shoulders. We have no need to provide any proof for the non-existence of god because such non-existence is consistent with the universe as we understand it and the evidence we have doesn't favour an alternative.
2) This follows on from the first part. While we have no direct evidence for or against deitic existence, we do have quite a lot of evidence that a deity (or deities) is not necessary to ensure that the universe was created, grew, developed, and all the other stuff that got us to where we are today, and which will continue to propel us to wherever we are going.

These two related reasons are essentially why we don't need to furnish proof for the non-existence of god but that believers do, if they want their beliefs to be taken seriously in a scientific context (and to be honest that is why most strong believers don't want any truck with science, they realise {probably subconsciously} that their beliefs are incompatible with the scientific view of the universe).

MrPudding

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

You can't win people over to a logical view of the world using logic - they have to accept that logical arguments apply first. If religious people accepted that logical arguments applied to religion, they wouldn't be religious people, would they?

Mockery generally doesn't work either, but I don't mock people as part of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy's plan to defeat organized religion - I laugh at them because they are funny.

House said it best...

Gregory House MD wrote:

You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

MrP

katydid

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

The problem with your reasoning is two-fold:
1) As the person making a claim which would significantly alter our perception of reality (in scientific terms), the burden of proof is squarely on your shoulders. We have no need to provide any proof for the non-existence of god because such non-existence is consistent with the universe as we understand it and the evidence we have doesn't favour an alternative.
2) This follows on from the first part. While we have no direct evidence for or against deitic existence, we do have quite a lot of evidence that a deity (or deities) is not necessary to ensure that the universe was created, grew, developed, and all the other stuff that got us to where we are today, and which will continue to propel us to wherever we are going.

These two related reasons are essentially why we don't need to furnish proof for the non-existence of god but that believers do, if they want their beliefs to be taken seriously in a scientific context (and to be honest that is why most strong believers don't want any truck with science, they realise {probably subconsciously} that their beliefs are incompatible with the scientific view of the universe).

But I'm not making an argument that I expect you to believe. I can't prove what I am asserting so there's no point in my trying. I don't want my beliefs to be taken seriously in a scientific context; where did you get that idea.
You are setting up things YOU think I wish and then knocking them down - a rather pointless exercise, to be honest.

There is no proof that there is a divinity, but there is no proof to the contrary. Having proof that something is not necessary for some processes doesn't prove anything other than it's not necessary for those processes.

People like you shout "logic" from the rooftops, but can't see the lack of logic in front of your face.

katydid

marienbad wrote: »

I never understand how anyone over the age of 7 can post this . But then again maybe the Jesuits have always known this.

You can't understand logic? Now I see the problem.

katydid

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If these dimensions are beyond our comprehension, how come you understand them well enough to believe all that stuff about God and Jesus and heaven?

I don't understand them. If I understood them, I wouldn't be sitting here writing on this computer

katydid

lazygal wrote: »

Why on earth would you spend your time on something you have no proof exists? I'm honestly not being patronizing. I often hear people cite 'proof' of god when their child gets better or they find their car keys or they win a match. What makes someone worship something they can state they have no such proof exists?

Because I BELIEVE it exists and I BELIEVE it's worth spending time on, because it answers questions for me and makes me think

Zubeneschamali

katydid wrote: »

I don't want my beliefs to be taken seriously in a scientific context

I think it is safe to say that we can oblige.

katydid

swampgas wrote: »

Apologies if I'm coming across as patronising.

Of course there is no proof that God doesn't exist - there is absence of proof that he does exist. There is no way to prove that unicorns don't exist either.

If there is no proof that something exists, surely the safest assumption to make is that it really doesn't exist? Why pick just one thing of the many that have no supporting evidence, and run with that?

Why not?

katydid

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

But calling somebody delusional because they believe in something delusional is not a wrong, it is an accurate assessment.

But first you have to prove they ARE delusional.

katydid

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I think it is safe to say that we can oblige.

But you're not obliging, because no one is asking you...

robindch

katydid wrote: »

But first you have to prove they ARE delusional.

Nope, not "prove", but simply show that beyond any reasonable doubt.

The language + logic games played by the religious work because nothing they calk talk about is "provable" one way or the other.

katydid

robindch wrote: »

Nope, not "prove", but simply show that beyond any reasonable doubt.

The language + logic games played by the religious work because nothing they calk talk about is "provable" one way or the other.

So, come on. Show beyond reasonable doubt.

No, nothing "the religious" talk about is provable one way or the other. They are not the ones talking about proof. So basically where we are is that non-believers set up the notion that believers are making claims of veracity, and then they knock those claims down. But since the latter didn't make them in the first place, it's a rather pointless exercise.

Live and let live and stop twisting your knickers.

Zubeneschamali

katydid wrote: »

I don't understand them. If I understood them, I wouldn't be sitting here writing on this computer

You are claiming on the one hand that these dimensions are incomprehensible, and on the other hand that you believe all sorts of detailed things about who lives in these dimensions, how they interact with people in our dimensions, what their plan is for us, and and so on.

This is very silly.

katydid

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

You are claiming on the one hand that these dimensions are incomprehensible, and on the other hand that you believe all sorts of detailed things about who lives in these dimensions, how they interact with people in our dimensions, what their plan is for us, and and so on.

This is very silly.

I believe that we can have glimpses of understanding into the realms beyond us; we will never understand it all. Why is that silly? Is it not totally beyond the bounds of credibility that there is more to our world than what we experience with our five senses?

Zubeneschamali

katydid wrote: »

I believe that we can have glimpses of understanding into the realms beyond us; we will never understand it all. Why is that silly? Is it not totally beyond the bounds of credibility that there is more to our world than what we experience with our five senses?

I know for a fact that there is more to the world than what we experience with our five senses. Getting at what is really out there is extremely difficult - most modern physics is an incomprehensible dimension to anyone without an advanced degree.

The silly bit is saying "It's all incomprehensible, so I can believe my childhood religion is true if I like". This is just wishful thinking.

It's like saying "Modern physics suggests there are 11 spatial dimensions, not just 3, so I can believe Heaven is in dimensions 4 through 6 and Hell is 7 through 9 if I like."

robindch

katydid wrote: »

But first you have to prove they ARE delusional.

katydid wrote: »

No, nothing "the religious" talk about is provable one way or the other. They are not the ones talking about proof.

*cough*

marienbad

katydid wrote: »

You can't understand logic? Now I see the problem.

No I don't think you do .

'Give me the child until he is seven and I’ll give you the man'

Bandana boy

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

You can't win people over to a logical view of the world using logic -

Yes you can ,it might take time but of course you can do it.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

they have to accept that logical arguments apply first. If religious people accepted that logical arguments applied to religion, they wouldn't be religious people, would they?

I don’t agree with this assessment either ,Most followers of organised religion worldwide had no choice in joining . Most people are casual followers and do so more so because they did it yesterday than any devout belief.
An alternative prescription with a compelling case will succeed in at least a portion of cases.
It is very rare that Atheists have a road to Damascus moment that decides they are atheist ,most from my experience ,come to doubt religion , investigate further and find a compelling argument against it and eventually are convinced. This process can take years.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Mockery generally doesn't work either, but I don't mock people as part of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy's plan to defeat organized religion - I laugh at them because they are funny.

I would suggest you laugh at them as a form of bullying and an egotistical superiorty complex rather than some attempt at comedy stylings.

Bandana boy

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

But calling somebody delusional because they believe in something delusional is not a wrong, it is an accurate assessment. What you are doing is equivalent to stopping people from calling Harold Shipman a murderer simply because you think its "not nice". He is a murderer, proved as such in a court of law.

But on the other hand a religious person calling me a sinner is them judging me based solely on their own prejudice and bias. They have no actual evidence to support their assertion, and they only do it because I am different to them, and they want to denigrate me as a person.

See the difference?

It would though be rude and counter productive to continually refer to a criminal as a criminal. You would reinforce that persons stance as criminal and make it very difficult for that person to break free from this criminal behaviour you would offer little to no chance of rehabilitation.
If you want to be rude and square the intolerance of some religoius people ,then go ahead but know you are part of the problem not the solution .

To be clear ,I have little time for most criminals and what crimes are worth rehabilitating ,is an argument for another day ,but I do believe that the majority of people who follow organised religion are worth rehabilitating

silverharp

katydid wrote: »

Because I BELIEVE it exists and I BELIEVE it's worth spending time on, because it answers questions for me and makes me think

But if you want to think why not think about why primitive societies needed a god of the gaps. They didn't know what happened to the sun in the evening , what a comet was.....
Then think about the fact that humans have been around for 200000 years yet the numerous gods seem to have operated in a window of a few thousand years ending a thousand years ago or so and then silence.
Then ask why the "real" one is the one you happen to know about because its culturally the easiest one to follow. If you were born in Saudi you would be Muslim.
Odds beyond reasonable doubt point to them being man made. If there is a god it flicked a switch several billion years ago and doesn't want to be known and for sure inst interested in what you get up to in the bedroom or what you have coveted lately

Zubeneschamali

Bandana boy wrote: »

Most followers of organised religion worldwide had no choice in joining . Most people are casual followers and do so more so because they did it yesterday than any devout belief.

I quite agree, but to have continued to believe into adulthood, they have to have some sort religious defense mechanism. Mine was just a general sense that I was not allowed ask questions about religion, but it wore off when I was about 13.

To be 20, or 30, or 40 and still believe, you have to have a pretty robust anti-logic system. Offering a logical argument to these people is like telling a French lawyer about some point of Irish law - they operate in a different system, they don't care.

Bandana boy

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

To be 20, or 30, or 40 and still believe, you have to have a pretty robust anti-logic system. .

Again I disagree ,a large % follow because it is easier than changing (Laziness) ,they have not been convinced of an alternative (Indescion ) worry about offending a family or community (Fear) or because they profit from it (Greed)
These people can be offered a compelling alternative at any age ,I think only those who actively proselytise for their religion can be accused of having an anti-logic system.
But we all continue to grow and change until our death so there is always a chance that in the future they can change.

the_syco

lazygal wrote: »

When I'm asked to attend a christening of a child who's parents openly say they are only doing it because

Because it gets them into the local school.

Nodin

katydid wrote: »

Because I BELIEVE it exists and I BELIEVE it's worth spending time on, because it answers questions for me and makes me think

Why?

lazygal

the_syco wrote: »

Because it gets them into the local school.

Not always. I've known people do it because of the grannies. There was a poster said she baptised as an "atheist Christian" because of tradition and an heirloom christening robe. In areas where there's no issue getting into a school that excuse doesn't hold water.
I also know of pragmatic baptism where the eldest is baptised and then the siblings get priority and aren't"done". In areas of intense demand, maybe that's an excuse. But it's also done so children can attend mammy and daddies fee paying alma matters.

katydid

Nodin wrote: »

Why?

Because it does

katydid

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I know for a fact that there is more to the world than what we experience with our five senses. Getting at what is really out there is extremely difficult - most modern physics is an incomprehensible dimension to anyone without an advanced degree.

The silly bit is saying "It's all incomprehensible, so I can believe my childhood religion is true if I like". This is just wishful thinking.

It's like saying "Modern physics suggests there are 11 spatial dimensions, not just 3, so I can believe Heaven is in dimensions 4 through 6 and Hell is 7 through 9 if I like."

If it's incomprehensible, why CAN'T I believe what I believe? Who is to say that I am not right?

marienbad

katydid wrote: »

Because I BELIEVE it exists and I BELIEVE it's worth spending time on, because it answers questions for me and makes me think

do you believe God exists or do you know God exists ?

katydid

silverharp wrote: »

But if you want to think why not think about why primitive societies needed a god of the gaps. They didn't know what happened to the sun in the evening , what a comet was.....
Then think about the fact that humans have been around for 200000 years yet the numerous gods seem to have operated in a window of a few thousand years ending a thousand years ago or so and then silence.
Then ask why the "real" one is the one you happen to know about because its culturally the easiest one to follow. If you were born in Saudi you would be Muslim.
Odds beyond reasonable doubt point to them being man made. If there is a god it flicked a switch several billion years ago and doesn't want to be known and for sure inst interested in what you get up to in the bedroom or what you have coveted lately

Of course the understanding of the nature of the divine varies from time to time and culture to culture. The commonality is the belief in something beyond this dimension - the expresssion of the belief is culturally relative.

What "them" do the odds beyond reasonable doubt point to? And how do you calculate the odds?

katydid

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

To be 20, or 30, or 40 and still believe, you have to have a pretty robust anti-logic system. Offering a logical argument to these people is like telling a French lawyer about some point of Irish law - they operate in a different system, they don't care.

Why? Logic doesn't apply to religion so why would anyone need logic to be a believer in a religion?

One can be logical in parts of life that require logical thought and still have faith in religion.

You are starting with a false premise.

katydid

marienbad wrote: »

do you believe God exists or do you know God exists ?

Both.

marienbad

katydid wrote: »

Both.

So can you prove God exists ?

katydid

marienbad wrote: »

So can you prove God exists ?

Oh for heaven's sake. How many times do you want me to repeat the same thing...?

Nodin

katydid wrote: »

Because it does

How?

katydid wrote: »

Why? Logic doesn't apply to religion so why would anyone need logic to be a believer in a religion?

You referred to intelligent belief earlier. You have yet to admit this is not possible.

Nodin

katydid wrote: »

Oh for heaven's sake. How many times do you want me to repeat the same thing...?

I'm reasonably sure you've yet to lay out proof for God's existence.

pollyannawins

the aetheist lobby is not so strong to readily brook such a blatant and pointless offence against an institution that is held as sacred by so many of our citizen peers

katydid

Nodin wrote: »

How?




You referred to intelligent belief earlier. You have yet to admit this is not possible.

It just does.

Why do I have to admit intelligent belief is not possible? Because YOU base your OPINIONS on a false idea?

I don't think so.

marienbad

katydid wrote: »

Oh for heaven's sake. How many times do you want me to repeat the same thing...?

Just the once will do, clearly and concisely, with the understanding that proof of Gods existence means I will believe it too.

katydid

Nodin wrote: »

I'm reasonably sure you've yet to lay out proof for God's existence.

You can be more than reasonably sure. You can be completely sure.

It's rather amusing that you and others like you claim to be so superior and intelligent, yet keep asking the same question based on something that isn't claimed in the first place. I can't work out whether it's obtuseness or stupidity.

Nodin

katydid wrote: »

You can be more than reasonably sure. You can be completely sure.

It's rather amusing that you and others like you claim to be so superior and intelligent, yet keep asking the same question based on something that isn't claimed in the first place. I can't work out whether it's obtuseness or stupidity.

Being dishonest where theres a record of what you typed is never a good idea.


Originally Posted by marienbad
do you believe God exists or do you know God exists ?

"Both."

Originally Posted by marienbad
So can you prove God exists ?

"Oh for heaven's sake. How many times do you want me to repeat the same thing...?"

katydid wrote:

It just does.

Clearly a dishonest answer. You seem to be avoiding explaining yourself.

katydid wrote:

Why do I have to admit intelligent belief is not possible? Because YOU base your OPINIONS on a false idea?
.

Belief without proof = faith. That's not intelligent belief. Quite the opposite. Nor is that an opinion.

katydid

Nodin wrote: »

Being dishonest where theres a record of what you typed is never a good idea.


Originally Posted by marienbad
do you believe God exists or do you know God exists ?

"Both."

Originally Posted by marienbad
So can you prove God exists ?

"Oh for heaven's sake. How many times do you want me to repeat the same thing...?"



Clearly a dishonest answer. You seem to be avoiding explaining yourself.




Belief without proof = faith. That's not intelligent belief. Quite the opposite. Nor is that an opinion.

I have answered your questions honestly and directly, even when you have asked the same questions repeatedly. I am not prepared to go through this charade ad infinitum, because you are unable to understand my responses, and have made up your mind

Nodin

katydid wrote: »

I have answered your questions honestly and directly, even when you have asked the same questions repeatedly. I am not prepared to go through this charade ad infinitum, because you are unable to understand my responses, and have made up your mind

No, you did not. 'Because it does' is not an answer. You've been evasive from the outset I'm afraid.

katydid

Nodin wrote: »

No, you did not. 'Because it does' is not an answer. You've been evasive from the outset I'm afraid.

"Because it does" is the only answer I can give and the only answer you're going to get. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean I'm being evasive.