36 replies to this topic

[emu88]

I think I have got somewhere, and I would imagine others reading this thread would be able to see a strong case against religion very clearly, whereas nothing of a case for religion.

But yes, the conversation isn't going anywhere, so truce!

[baykus]

I can't see a strong case against religeon, just someone who has a bee in their bonet about it and I don't think that sunny was trying to make a case for religeon, just saying it has been going on for a long time and in all cultures.
So billions of people are wrong who believe in a God and you are right? No, nobody could call you arrogant!
You can not give a reason behind everything with science and it is wrong to call religeon mumbo jumbo just because you don't believe in it.

[swabs]

Ive just been watching this episode about Muslim extremists, what's sad is that i only found out about this because two of my work colleagues were watching this yesterday on bbc three and came and asked me questions today in work. Its about a girl called Stacey Dooley going back to her home town to try and find out what's going on with Muslim extremists and English fanatics. On both sides the behaviour is very bad and upsetting. Watching some of the things one Muslim girl says to Stacey was not very nice and too far. I class myself as a Muslim, i am a new muslim but never the less i follow the religion and have read and reading again the Q'ran, seeing the behaviours of both extremists just showed how bad it has got and can get.

I suggest you to watch this, its really good, and she's gone about presenting the program very well

http://www.bbc.co.uk...rammes/p00pbclq

[emu88]

baykus, on 13 February 2012 - 05:33 PM, said:

I can't see a strong case against religeon, just someone who has a bee in their bonet about it and I don't think that sunny was trying to make a case for religeon, just saying it has been going on for a long time and in all cultures.
So billions of people are wrong who believe in a God and you are right? No, nobody could call you arrogant!
You can not give a reason behind everything with science and it is wrong to call religeon mumbo jumbo just because you don't believe in it.

If you think the valid points I have raised are simply the ravings of someone with a 'bee in their bonnet' then you aren't very observant. Unfortunately, the obsessive nature with which many people treat peoples' sensibilities on the matter of religion seems to utterly cloud their otherwise very present ability to see plain fact as fact.

Are you suggesting that because billions of people believe in some sort of god (thousands of opposing gods all of which arrogantly, with no evidence, claim the rest are wrong I might add), it makes them right due to sheer popularity? That does not constitute an argument at all nor strengthen the position of defending belief. Moreover, the multitude of opposing gods I just mentioned gives their followers absolutely no right to be 'arrogant', whereas someone who has proof of their stance is far more liable to be forgiven for it. Yet we usually see the exact reverse, religious people who have no leg of debate to stand on excused for their totalitarian attitude, and atheists accused of arrogance!

I have said I have no qualms with people who believe in a god, and that it is harmless if they keep it to themselves. But since this thread is ABOUT religion and the dangers it poses, it is not in the least bit arrogant to put my lot so confidently in with reason, science and logic. Especially when, as I have repeatedly said, the likelihood of religion being anywhere near as much of a sufficient explanation of life and existence is virtually nil. And don't ask for me to prove that, it is up to the religious to prove their stance since they are the ones making all the claims.

Like sunny, you simply make the point that 'science can't answer everything', as though that validates the consideration of religion as an alternative. To anyone with the ability of logical train of thought, which I am sure you have, that is simply ridiculous! Under that pretence, it is more than acceptable to call religion mumbo jumbo. It is not a pot-shot at something I don't like, it is an observation.

My reason for posting in this thread was to highlight how people endlessly seek definitive answers to the big questions of existence and also to the big fear, death, which NOTHING can claim to answer. Religion, of course, DOES claim to answer these questions, and it's this aspect that generates the billions of adherents who get solace from clutching at phoney straws that are fabricated by man in the first place. Not only is this highly immoral of the powers that be in religion - many of whom I suspect covet their positions of power and maybe even put little stock in the stuff they spout - but it is also immeasurably arrogant.

The fact that religion by its nature usually fails to keep itself to itself (and therefore ceases to become 'harmless') leads me to lament how many people cannot simply glean the pleasures and vast satisfaction of this short life, enjoy the abilities that our bodies have to the full, the feelings it can feel and the sights, sounds and wonders of this vast world we can experience and tap the wealth of knowledge and understanding that the thinkers and progressives of our race have revealed WITHOUT filling their lives with tenets of authoritative religion that demands subservience, endless self pity and demands that this be foisted upon others.

The great aspects that exist in religion - the feasts, family get-togethers, celebrations, and promotion of love and kindness (the latter two often contradicted) - are all taken from humanity, from something we all have innate in us anyway. We don't need religion, or belief in a god or a set of commands to enjoy these things, and the sooner more people understand that and act upon it (and quit with this endless kowtowing to the sensibilities of the religious) then the sooner this world will be able to move forward on the basis of these human qualities without the inhibition, segregation and malice religion adds to the pot.

[sunny]

I think emu that it boils down to this - a lot of people have what is called faith and you don't. QED

[swabs]

Yes i agree sunny, but what it comes down to is what people want, if you you want to believe then you do and follow it but if you dont then thats your choice. The worst thing i think in both cases is to ever push your opinions onto someone, you should be peacful and decide what you want in your own time. xx

[emu88]

Quite right. As Nietzsche said, faith is not wanting to know what is true.

The lack of it is not a bad thing.

[sunny]

Professor Richard Dawkins today dismissed his hard-earned reputation as a militant atheist - admitting that he is actually agnostic as he can't prove God doesn't exist.

[Ken]

Emu, we are not going to prove the existence, or lack of existence of God here. I look at the same world as you do, I have spent a lot of time on the question, including looking at the fossil record and a variety of other things I won't go into here. I am convinced there is a creator. If you aren't, that's fine. I am not going to convince you there is a creator any more than you are going to convince me there isn't one.

People who believe in God aren't necessarily less enlightened than you.

[swabs]

I agree with you Ken! People can argue to the ends of the earth about this topic, but you will never be able to change anybodies minds. Someone has to be willing to change, and if their beliefs are strong then the highly wont happen! xx

[emu88]

Of course I cannot convince anyone that 'I am right', but when faced with evolution vs creationism it is a massive error on humanity's part to assume they are both on an even footing, that both have fair arguments and both are plausible explanations to the 'big questions'. The irrefutable truth is that creationism has Z.E.R.O evidence to back up it's claims (which vary widely from preacher to pastor to priest) whereas the 'theory' of evolution has plenty. That people cannot be satisfied with that simple fact and cannot quit endlessly seeking some other-worldly irrational explanation despite evidence of the truth staring them right in the face is quite disheartening. But it is a reality of humankind and something everyone is used to.

I would be extremely interested, Ken, to hear the reasons behind why you concluded there must be a creator, especially after having looked at fossils.

And sunny, your mentioning of Richard Dawkins saying that he is an agnostic is nothing new. As I have said before, on paper anything which is claimed to be undetectable and untraceable cannot of course be disproved. That applies to God and Hogwarts and the celestial teapot that Dawkins himself suggested may very well exist... You are simply repeating yourself with sentences none of which constitute an argument, and your last one suggests that 'it is acceptable to warrant belief in a god because it cannot be 100% disproved'. In actual fact, the ball is ENTIRELY in the believer's court since it is up to them to prove their claims rather than attempt to do so by saying 'it cannot be disproved'. This sort of thing is the classic escape-guaranteed retort religious people come up with and it does little more than to compound the convictions of the ignorant and overwhelmingly suggest that religion is man-made.

Swabs says it right when he says 'People can argue to the ends of the earth about this topic, but you will never be able to change anybodies minds.' I'd rejoice if the presence of the 2 combatants of this topic were both viable, likely and similarly researched theories with much effort based on the seeking of truth put in to them, but alas, only one is, and for the other to be constantly pitched as an equal alternative is little more than an embarrassment to the intelligence of humankind!

One just has to see how creationism is making a creeping comeback into UK classrooms, not to mention American, to understand the perils that teaching archaic, unfounded myths to impressionable young children poses. The potential social impact that may have further down the line with more and more adults engrained with beliefs that are complementary only to backward religious ideas is frightening to consider. Many contemporary religious people like to think they would always have control of their faculties and would always treat their fellow humans kindly regardless of what they believe, and may may well be true for a percentage. However religion gives us more than enough examples of how it can make good people do bad things and also encourage pack mentality where scapegoats are al to easily targeted and condemned with no logic involved at all. I would NOT want to bring my family up in a country where in maybe 30 years time the return to a prevalence of creationism looms over society, threatening in times of hardship to divide, condemn and punish. The dogmatic nature of religion makes it VERY susceptible to that as we have seen time and time again, regardless of what friendly religious people may say now. In going back to my opening paragraph, the push to get creationism taught in schools on an even footing with evolution is not part of a drive to be 'fair'. It is a plan of the dogmatic powers that be in religion - with the support of their growing feckless flock - to peddle ideas that OPPOSE progress and understanding. They will not stop at 'equal representation', they will eventually seek the replacing of evolution altogether.

I seriously doubt anyone here would like to live in a world where that becomes the norm, and all the luxuries and progress (to which religion is essentially inhibitive) that we enjoy today (like intellectual freedom) are gradually eroded and replaced with the re-establishment of religious supremacy. Call me sensational, but there is grave underestimation of the 'march of faith' that is occurring largely unheeded in many parts of the world.

[baykus]

In actual fact the ball is ENTIRELY in the believer's court since it's up to them to prove their claims.

What a load of rubish - they don't have to prove anything to anyone. If they believe it, they believe it and nothing you or anyone can say is going to change that just like nomatter what anyone else says is not going to change your mind.

So now for goodness sake can you please give it a rest as you are going nowhere and its getting very boring with you going over and over the same things

[Cukurbagli]

Emu we've gone way off topic here, I agree with Baykus, you've said everything that can be said, for both sides of your argument, now can we leave it alone please. Any more posts should be on the topic please.

[Meral]

I've been following this thread with great interest, having also read one of Richard Dawkins' book (in the UK, as he was apparently banned in Turkey for being a non-believer)............I must say I'm just glad that we don't live in a society where religion is pushed on us forcibly and we don't live by religious rule (such as under the Taliban) .............."Thank God" !!!!

[emu88]

Well the idea of a debate is for it to transform anyway. It's not like I am wildly off topic! But yes, I have said everything that can be said thus far, but only because of the lack of solid response that has hardly contributed to a proper debate. Then again, debate between non religious and religious (or their supporters) rarely gets anywhere since the latter never has anything conclusive to contribute. Debates involving Hitchens and Dawkins for example thankfully only last for an hour or so and the end is usually exemplified with the beginnings of a viscous circle in which the religious are stubbornly repeating themselves despite a valid argument staring them in the face. The topic of religion simply isn't conducive to a prolonged intelligent debate.


And Baykus, there's no need to lose your rag. The ball is entirely in the court of the religious people I am talking about in my posts since because they expect to be treated as seriously as an evolutionist, they need to provide some proof!

Sure, I am getting nowhere - with you - and sure, I am repeating myself often because replies I receive are repetitive and pose no real argument. I keep reiterating my first points because due to the flaccid, short responses I've received I can only come to the conclusion that they have not been comprehended properly .

To end, Meral seems to have been following this thread with some interest despite it being 'off topic', but if it is generally wished for me to shut up then I will gladly oblige and let the thread wither - though only for myself I might add, the thread has only compounded for me the misguided and potentially aggressive (Baykus) way in which people tend to illogically defend faith. (Again, this will of course be retorted to with 'people can believe what they want' which, again, totally misses my first points).

[Abi]

Thank you Emu for your final words. This thread can now go back to topic.

[gazio]

sunny, on 12 February 2012 - 09:45 AM, said:

Can you tell me of a culture that doesn't have a deity?
From the evolution of man there has been some sort of 'higher being' and which deity people believe in is an accident of birth. Perhaps they started with people wanting to know why things happened and the elders of the group, not knowing the answers, invented the all powerful, unseen being who controlled things.

Which seems to be a good argument for not believing in the existence of any of them..