PDA

View Full Version : Schism In The Atheist 'Church'!


Caboclo
6th Jan 2014, 06:48
After a schism, a question: Can atheist churches last? ? CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs (http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/04/after-a-schism-a-question-can-atheist-churches-last/?hpt=hp_t3)

Words fail me. I trust someone else is feeling more eloquent? :E

rh200
6th Jan 2014, 07:19
I trust someone else is feeling more eloquent?

Nope, f$%^# wack jobs.

cavortingcheetah
6th Jan 2014, 07:33
The Anglican Church together with its parochial offshoot, the Episcopal Church in the US have deviated mightily from the dignity and faith from which their strength used to flow. The recent diminution of the Service of Baptism by Justin Welby has done nothing other than demonstrate that the Devil's work started by Henry VIII in the furtherance of his lecherous lust for a trollop and courtesan continues unabated.
Faced with the destruction of the symbolism of their Church, many Anglicans, more diluted in soul than their Roman predecessors, turn to Atheism as being a survivable option without a move to Paganism which would be a volte face too far.
An Atheist Church is thus entirely appropriate and fills the need of the human soul for a community of spirit while relieving it of the obligation to find a spiritual obligation.
The inevitable consequence of this trend however will surely be a slack happy return to the days of the Hell Fire Club and Devil Worship. Black masses will return with accompanying sacrifices of blood. These will eventually once again be the common place whereas now they are more subtle, secret and hidden in their execution and enjoyment.
Meanwhile, the Church of Rome, steadfast and true to the rock upon which it was built will continue to prosper under the God given guiding hand of its new pope, Pope Francis. The Inquisition will be resurrected and the idolators, blasphemers and Satanists, having been contained under one roof, brimstone and fire will be more easily directed down upon their heads to their inevitable destruction and dispatch to the flames of Hell itself.

onetrack
6th Jan 2014, 07:45
Yes. This schism is obviously the Devils hand at work. :E

rh200
6th Jan 2014, 08:22
An Atheist Church is thus entirely appropriate and fills the need of the human soul for a community of spirit while relieving it of the obligation to find a spiritual obligation.

In general if your an Atheist, you think that science can explain every thing, if not now, but in the future. As such there is no spiritual hokus pokus stuff, hence no spirit.

Thus all you are is a machine with a complicated program that is able to be changed by outside input, in effect you are a machine with no free will as such, only the perception of fee will.

Most Atheists don't want to think about that, but in essence all you do is dependent upon whether the collection of neurons fire according to some chemistry.

cavortingcheetah
6th Jan 2014, 08:32
Surely those who think that science can explain everything are either scientologists or Scientologists.
Those who believe that science is responsible for everything quite often tend to some religious belief or other simply because there is no explanation for the beginning of science and that frightens them.

ricardian
6th Jan 2014, 08:57
The Episcopalian church in America was begun by the Scottish Episcopalians (http://theoldhighchurchman.********.co.uk/2010/07/scottish-influence-on-american.html)

7x7
6th Jan 2014, 09:01
Gee... a bunch of radical, attention-grabbing nonconformists can't agree on a common way to express their non belief in an all powerful Creator.

Whoathunkit?

Sallyann1234
6th Jan 2014, 09:02
In the end there is only belief. You believe in a god, or you believe there is not a god. Either way can be entirely convincing.

probes
6th Jan 2014, 09:49
It's religion that has shaken my belief in God (as presented in church). How could God possibly want believers fight, for example, about the sign of the cross - which fingers and clockwise or anti-clockwise, as it happened with some of the Orthodox?

rh200
6th Jan 2014, 10:00
How could God possibly want believers fight

He/She/It, most likely wouldn't, it's only our interpretation that He/She/It does.

Checkboard
6th Jan 2014, 10:03
The inevitable consequence of this trend however will surely be a slack happy return to the days of the Hell Fire Club
Cool! :D :E

black_shuck
6th Jan 2014, 10:04
I think the comedian Dave Allen hit the nail on the head with one of his jokes.


The Pope and an atheist were arguing and the Pope said " you are like a blind man in a dark cellar looking for a black cat that isn't there."


so the other guy said to the Pope well I suppose we are very similar to which the Pope replied "what do you mean" well you are like a blind man in a dark cellar looking for a black cat that isn't there the only difference is that you found it"

A A Gruntpuddock
6th Jan 2014, 10:07
'Most Atheists don't want to think about that'

Nope, we don't, but are prepared to accept it if that is the situation.

scotbill
6th Jan 2014, 10:07
Agree that religions have over complicated with unneccessary detail the concept that this infinite universe of ours must have some organising force/intelligence behind it all.

Atheism is the greatest blind faith of all. The belief that the incredible complication and sophistication of natural forces are the result of some mysterious big bang has been compared to believing that the Empire State building could be the result of an explosion at the cement works.

We live on a small planet linked to a minor star at the fringes of a minor galaxy in a universe, the limits of which we are unable to define.

The arrogance in believing one knows all the answers is a rather like the ants on the lawn speculating on the systems inside the house.

Lights blue paper and retires!

TURIN
6th Jan 2014, 10:38
Er, no.
Athiests do not believe in a god. They don't believe not to believe. That is nonsense.
They accept proven scientific evidence as fact.
Even if they don't necessarily understand it all...yet.
I don't understand in much detail how this phone I am now typing on actually works. But I do not choose to believe in a fairy story to answer the things I do not fully comprehend.

Cavortingcheetah, I have never met an athiest who was frightened by not knowing, only intrigued.

After all, it is the religeous who are frightened of death, not the athiests.





Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

TURIN
6th Jan 2014, 10:40
Bugger!

Religious. No edit function on this things.


Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

PTT
6th Jan 2014, 10:41
Most Atheists don't want to think about that, but in essence all you do is dependent upon whether the collection of neurons fire according to some chemistry. As an atheist I don't have an issue with that. It's the need to explain something in an extraordinary manner which requires explanation.
Those who believe that science is responsible for everythingScience is responsible for nothing. Science is nothing more than a way of looking at things, then looking at them again and again until we can, with reasonable (or at least measured) surety, describe them.
In the end there is only belief. You believe in a god, or you believe there is not a god. Either way can be entirely convincing. False dilemma. I don't believe that there is a God. It's saying "I don't know" but not assuming the answer to be that there is one.
this infinite universe of ours must have some organising force/intelligence behind it all.Why "must" it (http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Argument_from_design)?
The belief that the incredible complication and sophistication of natural forces are the result of some mysterious big bang has been compared to believing that the Empire State building could be the result of an explosion at the cement works.Falsely, too (http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Tornado_argument#Ultimate_747_Gambit).
The arrogance in believing one knows all the answers is a rather like the ants on the lawn speculating on the systems inside the house.
It's the religious who claim to know the answers, not the irreligious. Those who use science to find things out are specifically saying that they don't know things and are looking for answers.

rh200
6th Jan 2014, 11:39
It's the religious who claim to know the answers, not the irreligious. Those who use science to find things out are specifically saying that they don't know things and are looking for answers. The religious can do that because it relies on faith. This is the problem we have, they can just rely on faith, we have to rely on finding answers.

In effect its an impossible thing, science can never disprove god, but it could prove that god exists if evidence could be found. As such the absence of not actually being able to find evidence, does not mean that it does not exist.

On the the other hand, we are supposedly talking about an entity that can make the heavens and earth, suffice to say, everything we find and understand, can be as a result of it's will.

Hence we are eternally screwed when we try to use science as an excuse to disprove god. Which is what particular hardcore atheists like to do.

A A Gruntpuddock
6th Jan 2014, 11:40
We atheists may be arrogant, but how does that compare to believing that you are not only the image of a god but raised above most of your fellow humans?

PTT
6th Jan 2014, 11:45
In effect its an impossible thing, science can never disprove god, but it could prove that god exists if evidence could be found. As such the absence of not actually being able to find evidence, does not mean that it does not exist. You could substitue dragons, unicorns, fairies, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or absoultely anything in for the word "god" in that statement and it would still be true. That doesn't make you right to believe it, just credulous.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6e/Touched_by_His_Noodly_Appendage.jpg

I would ask any believer in god whether they believe in the above things (and more) and, if not, why not.

scotbill
6th Jan 2014, 12:15
We atheists may be arrogant, but how does that compare to believing that you are not only the image of a god but raised above most of your fellow humans?

In believing that "God" created man in His/Its/Her own image it is true that man has tried to define "God" in terms of man's own image. Probably essential over-simplification in creating concrete images for the great mass of humanity. Religions continue to divide more than they unite in fostering some of the worst kinds of tribalism.

However, the atheist has the blindest faith of all - rooted, if not in arrrogance, in failure of imagination. I can only believe what I can perceive and cannot conceive that there might be a spiritual part of life.

Keef
6th Jan 2014, 12:33
Cor!
Atheist church - what a fascinating concept! I need to think about that.

As a convinced non-atheist, I have to say the view from inside looking out is very different from the view expressed by those outside looking out.

But we've exhausted many tired little electrons on this theme on here over the years, and it's usually ended up taking on a close resemblance to megaphone diplomacy.

BDiONU
6th Jan 2014, 13:07
But we've exhausted many tired little electrons on this theme on here over the years, and it's usually ended up taking on a close resemblance to megaphone diplomacy.I totally agree with Keef (a man I have been extremely rude to over the years, for which I apologise). We've debated religion dozens of times in this bored. The results are invariably the same, you either have faith and believe or you don't. No one can argue anyone else round to their viewpoint.

Sallyann1234
6th Jan 2014, 13:08
They accept proven scientific evidence as fact.

But what is 'proven scientific evidence'? Scientific proofs are constantly changing. A hundred years ago the Bohr atom was the established description of matter. That was subsequently proven to be wrong, and even now we're still busily looking for ever more esoteric particles.

And I've yet to see any 'proven scientific evidence' that there is no God. Only theories that the universe could have somehow created itself without a god. Many believe those theories of course and that's fine for them. But it does not disprove a god.

DType
6th Jan 2014, 13:21
In Isaiah it says; Look at my fulfilled prophecies and know that I am God.
Works for me!

BDiONU
6th Jan 2014, 13:24
But what is 'proven scientific evidence'? <snip>Many believe those theories of course and that's fine for them. But it does not disprove a god.
"What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide on how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary."
Stephen W. Hawking (Der Spiegel, 1989)

"In reality, science provides no evidence for the existence of God and probably never will. Nothing in current cosmology demands that the universe was purposefully created. The most economical hypothesis, consistent with all astronomical observations and the established theoretical structure of modern physics and cosmology is that the universe is absent of any pre-existing design or plan."
Victor J. Stenger, "Big Bang Ripples No Message from God"

Keef
6th Jan 2014, 13:46
There is nothing in science that proves or disproves the existence of God. We can interpret evidence and research, and form a view.

There is nothing in theology that proves or disproves the existence of the Higgs boson. Ditto.

Mankind has made immense progress through scientific experiment and reasoning. Sadly, some of that has been directed into entirely inappropriate ventures.

Religion has likewise ventured into ...

eastern wiseguy
6th Jan 2014, 13:56
D type....

DType
Proof???
In Isaiah it says; Look at my fulfilled prophecies and know that I am God.
Works for me!

As an atheist I don't believe in the bible. Thank you for supplying a quote from it to help change my mind....:hmm:

racedo
6th Jan 2014, 14:01
After all, it is the religeous who are frightened of death, not the athiests.

Not in the slightest.

Sallyann1234
6th Jan 2014, 14:10
Having read Hawking et al, I have the greatest difficulty in understanding how the universe created itself out of nothing, or has been running for infinite time, or is boundless, or is turned in upon itself. All of these leave me with unanswered questions.

I could of course simply accept what the atheists say, and 'believe' that there is no god.
But then I could equally accept what the Abrahamic religions say, and 'believe' that there is a god.

Checkboard
6th Jan 2014, 14:13
"Science", is not a belief, but a system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method) by which you run a feedback mechanism to test beliefs (i.e. theories).

There is nothing in science that proves or disproves the existence of God.Which is, quite frankly, rubbish. You use the scientific method to disprove the theory of god in the same way you disprove any theory:
Define what you mean by "god". Make a prediction that would hold true under that belief. Test the prediction. If the test fails, the belief is incorrect.

Any concrete statement from the various religions about their various deities or how the world works according to those religious dogma has failed the test.

eastern wiseguy
6th Jan 2014, 14:29
There is nothing in theology that proves or disproves the existence of the Higgs boson. Ditto.

And there's a problem I have with religion(in this case Christianity). Science has explored and prodded and looked for ways to explain the world and the universe. . Religion....not so. It is as it was when the Bronze Age shepherds wrote it down.......and it will not (for the religiously inclined ) change.

Keef
6th Jan 2014, 15:27
And there's a problem I have with religion(in this case Christianity). Science has explored and prodded and looked for ways to explain the world and the universe. . Religion....not so. It is as it was when the Bronze Age shepherds wrote it down.......and it will not (for the religiously inclined ) change.

Er ... disagree. Strongly. "Religion" covers a very wide spectrum. While there are some who may be stuck in the bronze age, there are many more who are not.
Look, for example, at the Wikipedia entry for Guy Consolmagno. There are many like him.

Sallyann1234
6th Jan 2014, 15:39
Which is, quite frankly, rubbish. You use the scientific method to disprove the theory of god in the same way you disprove any theory:

Define what you mean by "god".
Make a prediction that would hold true under that belief.
Test the prediction.
If the test fails, the belief is incorrect.

which is of course entirely dependent upon how you choose your first two parameters.


During my technical education, I learned not to blindly accept any proposition but to test and question at every point. However I have yet to find that a purely scientific method answers every question I may pose.

Bern Oulli
6th Jan 2014, 15:51
Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him god?

Epicurus, 341-270 BC

wings folded
6th Jan 2014, 15:58
There is nothing in science that proves or disproves the existence of God. We can interpret evidence and research, and form a view.

There is nothing in theology that proves or disproves the existence of the Higgs boson. Ditto.




Quite so. Absolutely. And there is nothing in theology which proves the existence of a God. There are tomes and tomes which perpetuate all the nuances, all premissed upon the initial belief that there is a god, but take away that premiss and we are not left with very much.

If some people want to seek their solace in a certain belief, it is their choice.

It is a little bit ironic that bitter combats between divergent appreciations of the deity have so much marked the last two thousand years.

cavortingcheetah
6th Jan 2014, 15:58
Tell you what, after I'm dead, I'll use my transubstantiated spirit form to post a little note to everyone on this website. That'll really upset anyone whose got me on their ignore list.
One small if obvious enough thing, many of us confuse fear of death with the terror of dying which is something that could be very tedious and painful.

probes
6th Jan 2014, 16:01
God must exist - I totally agree with Keef (a man I have been extremely rude to over the years, for which I apologise).
I know nothing of your crusades, but the apology looks really convincing! :)

Well, more seriously, maybe the horrid deeds done 'in the name of God' have devalued it to meaninglessness? It seems to me there has to be some creative principle, call it whatever, - just think about the variety of life and ways of living. Even people, who should/would be more or less similar, but then there are the traditional peoples like the Dogon or the Papua tribes. Somehow three things have amazed me most - I remember a pic taken from a plane (or was it helicopter) of a jungle tribe untouched by civilization, gazing up to the sky - were they thinking it's a UFO or a God? Then, how the penguins have organised their life, especially the procedure of giving the egg from Mom to Dad - how do they know they mustn't let it freeze? And then the embryonic processes.

And of course people like Consolmagno, thanks for the hint, I looked him up. There must be something if so many have taken it seriously enough to participate.

PTT
6th Jan 2014, 16:08
I've yet to see any 'proven scientific evidence' that there is no God.I've yet to see any 'proven scientific evidence' that there are no dragons, unicorns, fairies or Flying Spaghetti Monsters. Do you believe in them too?

Keef
6th Jan 2014, 16:13
Is he able, but not willing?

I wasn't going to be drawn in, but that old Epicurean chestnut deserves to be put out to pasture. It's a few millennia beyond its sell-by date.

We have free will (we can even choose to post, or not post in here - most of the time anyway). God does not intervene in every detail of life at the expense of our free will. You can imagine the scenarios...

probes
6th Jan 2014, 16:17
every detail... but did he create the evil ones to see what happens when they're loose?

Checkboard
6th Jan 2014, 16:35
I like Wikipedia's take on Consolmagno :)

In 2006, he said, "Religion needs science to keep it away from superstition and keep it close to reality, to protect it from creationism...

... and the definition of creationism:
Creationism is the religious belief that life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being.
:D :D

God does not intervene in every detail of life at the expense of our free will.
The point is that god does not intervene in ANY observable aspect of life (or any other interaction) in this universe.

Sallyann1234
6th Jan 2014, 16:55
I've yet to see any 'proven scientific evidence' that there are no dragons, unicorns, fairies or Flying Spaghetti Monsters. Do you believe in them too?But I have not said what I believe in, indeed I have been careful not to since the discussion seems to be about principles of belief rather than mine as one insignificant individual.

Your question is a very common one of course, although you do seem to have omitted Santa Claus from the usual list. The simple answer of course is that there is no scientific evidence to prove the existence or otherwise of any of them. Therefore like god, they are a matter of belief. I would point out, however, the relative numbers of sentient adult believers in each of them.

airship
6th Jan 2014, 16:58
Going by the last 2 millenia, today's atheists should definitely not be building "churches", whether these are physical buildings or merely hypothetical ones. In 2014, the vast majority of the world's population still hold faith in the major religions.

I suggest that atheists, whoever and wherever they may be today, keep very low profiles. You never know when 1 or another of today's major religions may once again hold huge sway over us like they once did over the past 2,000 years or so, if not well before that when it comes to other "religions".

Why risk being burned at the stake, having both your hands amputated at the wrist etc. or simply being "shovelled aside" when it comes to your career / advancement today?! You may not believe in their Gods, but if "they" have any influence, believe me, they'll make you pay for that in some way if they know who you are, preferring others who do believe...?!

When it comes to religion, best to be discrete wherever possible, even in 2014. If you're fair-skinned, with blue eyes and blond hair, why not get circumcised anyway? Apparently it brings women greater pleasure, is more healthy, in addition to satisfying 2 of the world's most dangerous religions' basic requirements currently...?! :ok: :\

PTT
6th Jan 2014, 17:21
We have free will (we can even choose to post, or not post in here - most of the time anyway). God does not intervene in every detail of life at the expense of our free will. You can imagine the scenarios...So he chooses not to intervene? He chooses to allow evil to exist? Doesn't sound particularly "good" to me.
Your question is a very common one of course, although you do seem to have omitted Santa Claus from the usual list. The simple answer of course is that there is no scientific evidence to prove the existence or otherwise of any of them. Therefore like god, they are a matter of belief.I agree. I choose not to believe in any of them because the lack of any evidence, while not evidence of absence, implies it.
I would point out, however, the relative numbers of sentient adult believers in each of them.I would point out that the number of people believing something has no relevance whatsoever on the existence of that thing (unless you think we live in Terry Pratchett's universe). That is nothing more than an appeal to popularity (i.e. a simple logical error).

Sallyann1234
6th Jan 2014, 17:22
airship, your weren't the Vicar of Bray in a previous life were you?

eastern wiseguy
6th Jan 2014, 17:42
Keef

I think you are being disingenuous .

The church(in this case the Vatican and the Roman Catholics) persecuted scientists.

Galileo wasn't quite so welcome there. They took a somewhat different view and only when it was proven to be nonsense did they modify their "beliefs"

Isaac Asimov wrote


"I’ve never been particularly careful about what label I placed on my beliefs. I believe in the scientific method and the rule of reason as a way of understanding the natural Universe. I don’t believe in the existence of entities that cannot be reached by such a method and such a rule and that are therefore “supernatural.” I certainly don’t believe in the mythologies of our society, in Heaven and Hell, in God and angels, in Satan and demons. I’ve thought of myself as an “atheist,” but that simply described what I didn’t believe in, not what I did.

Gradually, though, I became aware that there was a movement called “humanism,” which used that name because, to put it most simply, Humanists believe that human beings produced the progressive advance of human society and also the ills that plague it. They believe that if the ills are to be alleviated, it is humanity that will have to do the job. They disbelieve in the influence of the supernatural on either the good or the bad of society, on either its ills or the alleviation of those ills."


I am happy to leave your fairy tales behind.

charliegolf
6th Jan 2014, 18:25
After all, it is the religeous who are frightened of death, not the athiests.

Whilst it's the atheists who bang on about God. Ad nauseum, seemingly.

CG

PTT
6th Jan 2014, 18:26
We all enjoy fiction ;)

charliegolf
6th Jan 2014, 18:30
Glad to provide a purpose for your existence.:ok:

CG

PTT
6th Jan 2014, 18:38
Not so much a purpose as a source of perplexion, bafflement and occasional amusement.

Wait... are you claiming to be God? :ooh:

charliegolf
6th Jan 2014, 18:41
Still at it- banging on.

CG (Charliegod)

cockney steve
6th Jan 2014, 18:50
There may well be a "god"...If that's what you wish to label an entity, malignant/benign/disinterested in our little Solar System.

Icame to the conclusion,many years ago, that all RELIGIONS were a huge con to control the feeble,gullible and vulnerable.

I really don't give a damn, one way or the other,but I do get upset ,how these hucksters have manipulated large sections of the populace, for millenia.

The third way, , being AGNOSTIC appears to be disregarded in this debate.

My intellect is not high enough to say, with 100% certainty, that a superior "being" to humanity, is not extant.
On the other hand, there's buggerall proof that there is such a thing.

There's a distinct lack of corroboration of most of the (heavily fudged, misrepresented and "interpreted" offering called the "bible" which , again, is purported to be highly selective excerpts of available ancient manuscripts.



DType
Proof???
In Isaiah it says; Look at my fulfilled prophecies and know that I am God.
Works for me!

Er, this Isiah bloke was a known junky and pothead who spent most of his life pissed as a rat and the crowds found cheap entertainment in encouraging him to babble on about his hallucinatory world.

Now disprove the above !..you can't!-can you!...it's hearsay fiction, that's why.
(both the Isiah quote and my exposition, that is. :}

airship
6th Jan 2014, 19:05
airship, your weren't the Vicar of Bray in a previous life were you?

I have no recollection of that. I sometimes think that I may once have existed variously as a cave bear, a sabre-toothed lion, or much more recently as an involuntary man-eating leopard or tiger. In addition to resembling more smaller insects, my shorter lives being terminated by the long tongues of assorted frogs, gekkoes or chameleons.

Probably why airship's abode is the safest place for stray pudicats (largest wildlife in the immediate surrounds comparatively) and fruit-flies and their off-spring over-wintering etc. I sometimes look at the flies swarming over the orange-peels or other peelings in the kitchen, a little annoyed, sometimes very annoyed or impatient. Then I see Mr. / Mrs. Spider emerging from a corner of their webs...?!

But I'm very glad that I don't have the necessary "faith" in any religions.

Especially those which appear to be stuck in some "1st -6th century time-warp", seeking to impose some sort of rough justice in the 21st century. Some of our so-called "modern governments" comply also. Not content with a human life-span being anywhere between 40-80 years, they all seek adequate punishment, whether or not justifiable, just to reinforce their own hegemonies upon their fellows. In that respect, there's little difference between David Cameron, a KKK-member, the Pope, the Dalai Lama, an Iranian or other -mullah preaching jihadism or the individual-terrorist on their way wearing an explosive belt. Somewhere along their route, they all "lost it", "it" being the sense of what we are and why we're here in the 1st place. :ok::confused::uhoh:

BAH?! :yuk:

fitliker
6th Jan 2014, 19:11
I was upset by a dyslexic agnostic who told me" There is no Dog "

airship
6th Jan 2014, 19:21
Woof woof woof?! (That's just one of my God impressions). :ok:

Lonewolf_50
6th Jan 2014, 20:21
I was upset by a dyslexic agnostic who told me" There is no Dog "
No you weren't. Agnostics do not make such pronouncements. You seem to have met a dyslexic atheist. (Sub category, strong atheist).

Agnostics do not believe one way or the other, and the sub group Apathetic Agnostics don't much care. ;)

Use the proper term, if you please.
I spent most of my life as an Agnostic.

(Am currently a practicing Christian).

PTT
6th Jan 2014, 22:15
Still at it- banging on.I'll consider stopping when the 26 unelected bishops are removed from the Lords, when people stop killing in the name of their god, and when organisations aren't given tax-exempt status merely because they profess to be churches.

Oh, and when some of these religions start practicing what they preach...

The 8 "I'd Really Rather You Didn't's" of Pastafarianism:

I'd Really Rather You Didn't Act Like a Sanctimonious Holier-Than-Thou Ass When Describing My Noodly Goodness. If Some People Don't Believe In Me, That's Okay. Really, I'm Not That Vain. Besides, This Isn't About Them So Don't Change The Subject.
I'd Really Rather You Didn't Use My Existence As A Means To Oppress, Subjugate, Punish, Eviscerate, And/Or, You Know, Be Mean To Others. I Don't Require Sacrifices, And Purity Is For Drinking Water, Not People.
I'd Really Rather You Didn't Judge People For The Way They Look, Or How They Dress, Or The Way They Talk, Or, Well, Just Play Nice, Okay? Oh, And Get This In Your Thick Heads: Woman = Person. Man = Person. Samey = Samey. One Is Not Better Than The Other, Unless We're Talking About Fashion And I'm Sorry, But I Gave That To Women And Some Guys Who Know The Difference Between Teal and Fuchsia.
I'd Really Rather You Didn't Indulge In Conduct That Offends Yourself, Or Your Willing, Consenting Partner Of Legal Age AND Mental Maturity. As For Anyone Who Might Object, I Think The Expression Is Go F*** Yourself, Unless They Find That Offensive In Which Case They Can Turn Off the TV For Once And Go For A Walk For A Change.
I'd Really Rather You Didn't Challenge The Bigoted, Misogynistic, Hateful Ideas Of Others On An Empty Stomach. Eat, Then Go After The B******.
I'd Really Rather You Didn't Build Multimillion-Dollar Churches/Temples/Mosques/Shrines To My Noodly Goodness When The Money Could Be Better Spent (Take Your Pick):
a. Ending Poverty
b. Curing Diseases
c. Living In Peace, Loving With Passion, And Lowering The Cost Of Cable. I Might be a Complex-Carbohydrate Omniscient Being, But I Enjoy The Simple Things In Life. I Ought To Know. I AM the Creator.
I'd Really Rather You Didn't Go Around Telling People I Talk To You. You're Not That Interesting. Get Over Yourself. And I Told You To Love Your Fellow Man, Can't You Take A Hint?
I'd Really Rather You Didn't Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You If You Are Into, Um, Stuff That Uses A Lot Of Leather/Lubricant/Las Vegas. If The Other Person Is Into It, However (Pursuant To #4), Then Have At It, Take Pictures, And For The Love Of Mike, Wear a CONDOM! Honestly, It's A Piece Of Rubber. If I Didn't Want It To Feel Good When You Did IT I Would Have Added Spikes, Or Something.

rh200
6th Jan 2014, 23:19
After all, it is the religeous who are frightened of death, not the athiests.

Actually I would have thought its the other way around. After all the ones who believe in a god, get a second go. I would have thought that Atheists just choose to go though life ignoring the fact that there existence will end. In general unless you are one of the very few to get noticed, then your life, will have been for nothing.

So he chooses not to intervene? He chooses to allow evil to exist? Doesn't sound particularly "good" to me.

This is the point I tried to make before, its about thinking at a deeper level, which Atheists don't want to do because they would have to examine themselves to deeply.

If there was a God, how would it do things, and what would the point be. An examination of that question shows that If you where god you most likely wouldn't do things any different. Just think for a moment, if there was 100% actually proof that god existed, what would it mean, and how would we act? The law of unintended consequences comes into play here.

God does not intervene in every detail of life at the expense of our free will.

And it is only at the spiritual level that we can say that we have free will. If the Atheist view on things is correct, there is no free will, only the perception of such.

dubbleyew eight
7th Jan 2014, 00:04
(Am currently a practicing Christian).

you must be a little slow.
all it takes is an "I believe" a donation in the plate and a bit of adultery that you can recite in lurid terms during the confessional.
if you are a pedophile, hell mate you can join the priesthood on the strength of that.

eastern wiseguy
7th Jan 2014, 00:23
Actually I would have thought its the other way around. After all the ones who believe in a god, get a second go. I would have thought that Atheists just choose to go though life ignoring the fact that there (sic) existence will end. In general unless you are one of the very few to get noticed, then your life, will have been for nothing.

They get a second go? Really? And the evidence for that is where exactly?

My life will have been for nothing.....arrogance in the extreme. Your average theist seems ONLY to go through life hoping for a reward from the supreme being....they will ONLY therefore have a moral compass based on their fear of and perception of that being. That is NOT the reason for your life.


I go through life realising that with no evidence to the contrary that this is the ONE life that we have. It is,if you will,the sliver of light between two massive blocks of darkness.

Enjoy it.....it's all you're going to get.(IMHO)

rh200
7th Jan 2014, 01:05
They get a second go? Really? And the evidence for that is where exactly?

Called faith.

My life will have been for nothing.....arrogance in the extreme

Not really, if your only a biological machine with no free will, then whats it all about.

fitliker
7th Jan 2014, 01:36
Well I read on the back of a toilet door once ,that Practice makes perfect so keep practicing. Although I think the subject matter was on the famed knuckle shuffle formation group that met there first Tuesday each month.


As for the Apathetic sub-group : apathy and impotence are the same thing, they both do not give a fcuk t-shirt.

eastern wiseguy
7th Jan 2014, 01:44
Rh200

Faith equals evidence?........“Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is the belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence." Dawkins.

What is it all about...subservience to a mythical being.....? That'll work.

Faith in which god?

rh200
7th Jan 2014, 02:21
Faith equals evidence

Of course not, thats why its faith, it doesn't need evidence.

Maybe its our weakness that we need evidence, and hence go down the road of science and Atheism?

eastern wiseguy
7th Jan 2014, 02:28
That's a strange answer .

A weakness that "we need evidence " and "hence go towards science and atheism?"

Is that a serious point?

We should just rely on faith and ignore science and reason?

I am sorry but that is just ridiculous.

Tinstaafl
7th Jan 2014, 02:48
I like this quote: "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

BDiONU
7th Jan 2014, 03:03
I know nothing of your crusades, but the apology looks really convincing! :)There have been discussions on here ad nauseam and they invariably turn into hamster wheels.
Yes my apology would appear pretty weak when written in an internet post, but it is heartfelt. I was wholly, totally and unnecessarily rude to Keef.

fitliker
7th Jan 2014, 03:26
Group unveils plans for Satan statue next to 10 Commandments monument at Okla. Capitol | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/01/06/group-unveils-plans-for-satan-statue-next-to-10-commandments-monument-at-okla/?intcmp=latestnews)


You just cannot make this stuff up : )


Apologies to Daily Wail and Guardian readers for quoting a Fox news story

PTT
7th Jan 2014, 06:32
Actually I would have thought its the other way around. After all the ones who believe in a god, get a second go. I would have thought that Atheists just choose to go though life ignoring the fact that there existence will end.It's this reliance on this unsubstantiated "second go" which shows how afraid of the end of life the theist is. Knowing that there is no second go simply makes you appreciate this life more, and live it.
In general unless you are one of the very few to get noticed, then your life, will have been for nothing.Why does my life have to have a reason or purpose outside of any I choose to give it?
This is the point I tried to make before, its about thinking at a deeper level, which Atheists don't want to do because they would have to examine themselves to [sic] deeply. I'm quite happy to think deeply about myself, thanks for the condescension :)
If there was a God, how would it do things, and what would the point be.How can you possibly know? All of your thoughts, all of your actions, are based on the presumptions of limitations which you are subject to right now - this is true from the fact that you think in a particular language (with all the limitations, loaded words and subtexts that come with it) to the fact that there are simply thoughts it is impossible to have (e.g. imagine the world without you in it: who is doing the imagining?). You can think past some of them but it is beyond any of our abilities to think past all of them, meaning you (and I) have no idea how some God, working with none of the limitations or restrictions we are, might think. It's astoundingly arrogant to think you can know the mind of something worthy of being called God. I barely know the minds of my wife (or at least I certainly get things wrong enough of the time for me to conclude that)!
Called faith.I have a bridge in London you might want to buy. Honest.

@ fitlicker - saw that a few weeks ago. Good on them!
http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/assets/660/371/SatanistMonument.jpg?ve=1&tl=1

Checkboard
7th Jan 2014, 10:07
If the Atheist view on things is correct, there is no free will, only the perception of such.
I honestly don't understand this point.

Is the contention that "free will" can only come from some mystical cloud-like whispy magic "soul", yet the world's most sophisticated organic computer cannot be capable of it? :confused:

rh200
7th Jan 2014, 10:55
I honestly don't understand this point.
Hmmm yea don't blame ya.

In essence the idea of having free will is problematic from a pure science viewpoint. Occasionally it is attacked at some level by science, but it gets a bit to hand wavy. I think New scientist did a report on the whole matter a few years ago.

Hence the idea of free will being part of some other system (soul or something else). If you take the pure science question, then the brain is only a biological computer that has its programming altered by a complex set of feedback inputs from the environment.

Hence at any particular moment in time, every decision you make is a function of the program that exists at that particular time. At a more basic level you can take it down to wave functions and whether or not particular electrons choose to change energy levels thereby altering the chemical make up so that neurons do their work.

Basically us Atheists are just a few models up from one of those fancy automatic vacuum cleaners that wizz around on the floor. :E

Sorry couldn't help myself.:p But have some comfort, before quantum physics came along we where all totally deterministic:(

dubbleyew eight
7th Jan 2014, 11:05
Basically us Atheists are just a few models up from one of those fancy automatic vacuum cleaners that wizz around on the floor.

rh200 you do sound as though you use vacuum cleaner logic.

the rest of us are just people.

the sincerity of your belief is no validation of it.

rh200
7th Jan 2014, 11:53
the rest of us are just people.

As we all are, but I guess at the heart of it all is what it means to be people.

Lonewolf_50
7th Jan 2014, 12:28
you must be a little slow.
all it takes is an "I believe" a donation in the plate and a bit of adultery that you can recite in lurid terms during the confessional.
if you are a pedophile, hell mate you can join the priesthood on the strength of that.
That's one of the more ignorant loads of shyte I've seen on these forums in a while.

PTT
7th Jan 2014, 13:07
rh200 - why do you not think it possible that free will is an illusion?

Lonewolf_50
7th Jan 2014, 13:29
PTT, have you ever made a choice?

PTT
7th Jan 2014, 13:57
Of course. The question is whether it was done freely through some supernatural force or not.

Lonewolf_50
7th Jan 2014, 14:04
PTT: you seem to have made up a definition of free will that isn't what other people are talking about. Free will "through supernatural something' has bugger all to do with this. It isn't through a supernatural agent that free will is exercised, it is by the person in question.

Every conscious choice you make is an exercise of your will.

If you think it's all illusion, the go ahead and have someone drop a concrete block on your foot and see if the pain and broken toe are illusory.

dubbleyew eight
7th Jan 2014, 14:52
lonewolf did you know that being burnt alive purifies your soul?

PTT
7th Jan 2014, 16:26
@ Lonewolf - I don't think I have, but we might get to that later.
What is it about the "person" which is doing the choosing? What is the agent of free will, exactly? Which bit?

Lonewolf_50
7th Jan 2014, 20:45
w8: you are welcome to revisit Joan of Arc and her fate, but I'm not interested in whatever game it is you are playing.

PTT: about four years ago, I spent some time and discussion on a philosophy forum discussing this will bit, and the sophistry and semantic gamesmanship of trying to define consciousness.

After all is said and done, I decided that I want those hours of my life back, but can't get them back. I am for damned sure not going to waste the same time again on the same topic.

When you make a choice, you exercise your will. If that isn't so, the legal system framework, the concepts of guilt and agency that are typical of Western Civilization legal systems, cannot be applied. You are welcomed to argue yourself into anarchy. I am also done with your games, on this issue. Go and play with someone else, or with yourself. I am not required to indulge time bandits.

PS: we have also strayed a bit from the topic of the OP, so I choose to stop doing that. Me. If you don't know who that is, I am not worried, because I do. ;)

PTT
7th Jan 2014, 21:44
No need to get irate with me just because you don't have an answer, lonewolf: you chose to take part in this discussion just as you are choosing to leave. The question is whether that choice is down to some consciousness (the supernatural force to which I alluded earlier) or whether we are the "biological computer" which rh200 mentioned earlier.

I don't think that a lack of free will does invalidate the concept of western legal systems at all. If people are deterministic (i.e. there is no separate "consciousness" making decisions) and a criminal individual carries out the actions in accordance with his (socially unacceptable) programming, then all society is doing is carrying out it's programming by punishing him. By assuming that, in a world where everyone is deterministic, society is wrong to punish a deterministic individual misses the point that society is also deterministic and merely carrying out its predetermined function.

The issue is one of information: we can't (in our current state of knowledge) know whether or not we have free will. It could well be an illusion and we'd not have any idea otherwise, particularly if part of our makeup is to wonder whether or not we have free will.

dubbleyew eight
9th Jan 2014, 22:39
lonewolf I wasnt even thinking of joan of arc. more the sordid dribble that churches have espoused for centuries. it is all toned down a bit now in all but the islamic world but if you look back over the centuries most of church activity was a thinly masked attempt by pathetic thinkers to dominate women.

hundreds of women who's only crime was to bring children into the world and preserve a heritage of herbal medicine declared as witches and burnt alive.

you believers in god are all pathetic.

BDiONU
14th Jan 2014, 06:17
Interesting that an aetheist has been given asylum in UK for his lack of religious beliefs. Being a muslim by birth (yes I know what I wrote) he gave the religion up, but the penalty for apostasy in the religion of peace is death. So he has successfully been permitted to stay in UK.
It's unfortunate that more places around the world which recognise freedom of religion don't recognise freedom from religion.

BBC News - Atheist Afghan granted religious asylum in UK (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25715736)

rh200
14th Jan 2014, 07:11
It's unfortunate that more places around the world which recognise freedom of religion don't recognise freedom from religion.

I was told once if I ever went to any of the mines in Indonesia, make sure if asked by a local that you believe in some god, any god, just not no god.

eastern wiseguy
14th Jan 2014, 07:49
make sure if asked by a local that you believe in some god, any god, just not no god.

I wonder why that is important to them?.

BDiONU
14th Jan 2014, 07:54
I was told once if I ever went to any of the mines in Indonesia, make sure if asked by a local that you believe in some god, any god, just not no god.Similar here in Dubai. When applying for your alcohol licence you cannot put no religion, you have to put something i.e. christian.

rh200
14th Jan 2014, 08:21
I wonder why that is important to them?

Some people take their faith a bit more serious than others:p.

eastern wiseguy
14th Jan 2014, 12:35
Quote:
I wonder why that is important to them?
Some people take their faith a bit more serious than others.

Precisely.....THEIR...faith being the operative words. Why should anyone else be forced to join in their delusions?