Atheism thread

[michael_bolton]

14 hours ago, LesJambes said:

I'm not calling anyone an idiot. I will say if for example someone has access to information about evolution, and chooses to disregard scientific consensus because of a translation of a translation of ancient myths, that is somewhat wilful ignorance imo. That's their choice, but when they start to attack science then I'll fight back. Science literally gives us wings, cures diseases, let's us fly across the World, drive to work, watch football matches taking place across the World, talk to others on this very forum. If religion wants to fight science there's no question which side I'm taking.

 

I genuinely think you want to be argued out of religion here, maybe I'm wrong. But if so being atheist or agnostic doesn't mean you need to wear a fedora and shout at little old ladies going to church, it just means you don't go to church every week and pray to something that most likely doesn't answer back. But either way I think you understand why the reptilian theory is equally as valid as it's counterpart. If not do you think the flat earth theory is equally valid as it's opposite?

 

Atheism is not an ideology though, it is simply a lack of belief in god. Do you believe in fairies? If not would it be fair for me to call that an ideology? Yes you can have ideologies which incorporate atheism as part of their dogma, some communists incorporate anti-clericalism for example. But atheism in and of itself is not an ideology. I'm an atheist and I believe Jesus existed, I've even heard compelling arguments for the tomb they discovered in Israel. But do I believe the creator of the entire universe chose to have sex with a 14yr old girl to give birth to himself and talk to himself to persuade others to be peaceful, and ultimately get killed but totally intentionally so he could sacrifice himself/ his son to forgive our original sin which he created us with? No, I don't believe that. It's not an ideology, I simply just don't believe it.

 

As for the dank memes well this is an atheist thread. Christians can go right ahead and create a Christian thread and post whatever christian maymays are doing the rounds. Or any other religion.

 

I think we can agree on churches though, maybe some day you'll come round to the atheist club. We have music and dancing, guilt free!

 

I don't think God having sex with Mary is part of any mainstream religious teaching.

 

I appreciate you're making a wider point, but that's quite a statement to make there.

[deesidejambo]

5 hours ago, Eldar Hadzimehmedovic said:

I don't care either way, to be honest. Live and let live. Tell you what I have noticed since the rise of t'Internet, twitter, facebook etc. - I see far more atheists than religious types living with absolute conviction, holding onto dogmatic 'truth', spreading the word, trying to convince others.

Exactly this.    Atheism is no different to religion.  Those atheists who spend time trying to persuade or convert others to their « truth » are no different to religious spuds doing the same the other way.   Both are nobs.

[deesidejambo]

7 hours ago, Smithee said:

The fact that there are more than 3000 gods supports my view that humans of all types seek to have some sort of spiritual dimension, whether it be a god or otherwise.

 

its the peak of Maslow triangle in action.

 

or it could  be a manifestation of the human characteristic of « hope » in practice.

 

Either way, there must be a psychological reason for humans to turn to « gods » or whatever else they choose in times of need.

 

Gervais won’t understand this.

[deesidejambo]

3 hours ago, John Gentleman said:

There's an abundance of evidence to demonstrate that greater levels of secular education lead to lower levels of religious belief (Hungerman et al) in all populations, irrespective of the prevailing tradition (Christian, Muslim, Hindhu etc).

I've no doubt that fear coupled with promise (stick & carrot) has been/continues to be a strategy employed by religions to keep their flocks in line. Quite why they use this approach eludes me. Emotional and material gain derived from proscribed adherence, perhaps?

Increasingly—and globally—it's now being met with the two finger salute. And that's no bad thing for humanity IMO.

There will always be tribal behaviour in humans.   It’s in the DNA.

 

If it was proven all gods didn’t exist, humans would naturally chokes something else to form into tribes - nationality, skin colour, race, whatever.     That will happen.

 

Then, as Lord Of The Flies demonstrates, group dynamics will kick- in and « Leaders » will emerge.

 

these leaders will gain power over the group, and as we all know, power corrupts.

 

The Church is nothing to do with belief, and everything to do with control over others - The « flock ».

 

Belief is an individual choice, whether it be atheism or flying saucers or god or the pink unicorn.

[Unknown user]

 

1 hour ago, deesidejambo said:

The fact that there are more than 3000 gods supports my view that humans of all types seek to have some sort of spiritual dimension, whether it be a god or otherwise.

 

its the peak of Maslow triangle in action.

 

or it could  be a manifestation of the human characteristic of « hope » in practice.

 

Either way, there must be a psychological reason for humans to turn to « gods » or whatever else they choose in times of need.

 

Gervais won’t understand this.

The guy has a degree in philosophy from UCL but your ideas are too smart for him? How patronising is that?

[Ray Gin]

5 hours ago, michael_bolton said:

 

The fact that that quote exists shows that the quote itself is false.

 

People who don't collect stamps simply don't collect stamps. They don't write books about not collecting stamps; they don't put thousands of videos on Youtube about not collecting stamps; they don't have famous evangelists for the cause of not collecting stamps (such as this quote); they don't evangelise to their friends about not collecting stamps; they don't regularly comment on the harmful nature of the practice of collecting stamps.

 

Atheism is a belief system for sure. While it is not a uniform belief system, neither is any other religion. For example, atheists will disagree with each other on many aspects of morality, meaning (or lack of) of life, the beginnings of life etc, but so do other religions. Ask two baptists a detailed list of questions about ethics, science, and meaning in life, and you'll get two different sets of answers. Atheism is not special in that regard.

 

Atheists have a dogmatic position on God, in that they believe that there isn't one. If you're unsure about this, then you're an agnostic, not an atheist. Religions have a dogmatic position on God. People who disagree with their position are 'wrong', and atheism shares this behaviour. Religious people evangelise for their faith. Atheists evengelise for their faith (and, like Christian evangelists, many of them make an absolute fortune doing so). This thread is an easy example. This is not promotion as in the promotion of Hearts by wearing a Hearts top. I doubt any of us regularly sits with Aberdeen-supporting friends and tries to convince them to become Hearts supporters. Yet atheists and people of faith both share this behaviour.

 

So, basically it comes down to what you mean by 'religion'. I'm wary about applying the word to atheism because of its lack of any kind of supernatural belief. But, in practice, this is just a technicality. I think on a day-to-day basis the behaviour of atheists and the shape of atheism strongly resembles that of standard religions.

 

I can't agree with any of that. 

The fact that that quote exists merely shows a reaction to people continually coming out with the false claim that Atheism is a religion.

 

Atheism has no belief system. There is one, and only one prerequisite to being considered an atheist and it is the REJECTION of a belief in any deities. That's it. Atheism says nothing else about what anyone does or doesn't believe in. Only that they do not believe in any Gods. They can not believe in any Gods for absolutely any reason they like. You don't have to believe in one single thing to be considered an atheist. It cannot be considered a belief system in any way.

 

You don't have to believe in the Big Bang. You don't need to believe the earth is round. You don't need to believe in evolution. You can think science is a load of mumbo jumbo, and you'd still be an atheist if you simply DON'T believe in any Gods.

Edited March 12, 2018 by Ray Gin

[Ray Gin]

2 hours ago, deesidejambo said:

Exactly this.    Atheism is no different to religion.  Those atheists who spend time trying to persuade or convert others to their « truth » are no different to religious spuds doing the same the other way.   Both are nobs.

 

Completely wrong as per the post above.

 

[deesidejambo]

37 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

The guy has a degree in philosophy from UCL but your ideas are too smart for him? How patronising is that?

Its simple - please explain why there are 3000 gods.

 

There has to be a reason for this human behaviour, and I am attempting to suggest reasons.  

 

So let me know why you think humans, jungle tribes, Aztecs, Egyptians, Hindus, Greeks, Romans etc etc chose for some reason to worship deities that have no physical evidence of existence.

[deesidejambo]

1 minute ago, Ray Gin said:

 

Completely wrong as per the post above.

 

Nope.  Rejection of a belief system is a belief system in itself.

[Ray Gin]

1 minute ago, deesidejambo said:

Nope.  Rejection of a belief system is a belief system in itself.

No it isn't. That's like saying not having a car is having a type of car.

Edited March 12, 2018 by Ray Gin

[Ray Gin]

9 hours ago, jake said:

The laws of physics are applicable to known dimensions.

These are explained by mathematics.

There is now I think the general agreement of a 4th dimension in science.

For example the speed of light is no longer regarded as the fastest speed.

So if the law of physics is explained in mathematical terms then the plus 1 is the theory of infinity.

It's just that a theory.

 

The only true science is one of experiment.

Which renders much of what we think we know untrue.

 

 

 

Edit.

I could give examples of unproved science if you like but you wouldn't like it?

I could also give you examples of experimental science which disproves what we are told is true but isn't but that would take this thread into tinfoil hat territory.

☺

 

Einstein's theory that nothing can more faster than the speed of light in a vaccuum still holds true as far as I know. I've not seen any proof to the contrary - any links?

 

I'm unclear what you are on about regarding 'unproved science' and 'experimental science which disproves what we are told is true'. However if it ventures into tinfoil hat territory, it sounds like it isn't credible science.

 

 

[Unknown user]

42 minutes ago, deesidejambo said:

Its simple - please explain why there are 3000 gods.

 

There has to be a reason for this human behaviour, and I am attempting to suggest reasons.  

 

So let me know why you think humans, jungle tribes, Aztecs, Egyptians, Hindus, Greeks, Romans etc etc chose for some reason to worship deities that have no physical evidence of existence.

 

Aye, good strawman. This is what you said that I didn't like. 

 

1 hour ago, Smithee said:

Gervais won’t understand this.

 

Second upper honours in philosophy but he's too div to understand your argument? Have a word.

[deesidejambo]

21 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

Aye, good strawman. This is what you said that I didn't like. 

 

 

Second upper honours in philosophy but he's too div to understand your argument? Have a word.

 

Gervais is wrong on the first count and weak on the second.  Using the fact he got a second in philosophy is weak argument on your part.  I got a first in psychology - do I win?

 

Firstly he claims that anyone who believes in a god excludes the 2999 other gods as being non-existent.  That is rubbish.  Of course there will be some who claim their god is the only true god etc but there are many others who accept that different deities and religions can co-exist.

 

So as an example - a deity is a spiritual concept in peoples minds.   If I want to I can create my own unique god right now - Snorty.   Snorty is my god and if I want to I can talk to Snorty or worship him/her.       But does my immediate creation of a personal god now mean the other 3000 disappear immediately?  No.    So Gervais is wrong - there is nothing to stop you, or me, or anyone else creating their own gods, even multiple gods - they are spiritual concepts created in peoples minds to satisfy needs, either Maslow or hope etc.

 

On the second count he fails to understand that for whatever reason, thousands of deities exist in populations credos.   If you go into darkest Borneo you will find tribes that have their own gods, created themselves.      Why did they do that?   Are they stupid?   What is the reason for them doing this?     If he, or indeed you, can explain why people all over the world need to have some sort of spiritual dimension instead of putting up smarmy memes then the discussion can proceed.   I'd like to see Gervais going into Borneo and glibly take the piss out of some of the tribes there - they also practice headhunting.

 

And as for religion - I have now created Snortyism.  All hail Snorty.   Will you join me?

 

 

 

 

[jake]

52 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

Einstein's theory that nothing can more faster than the speed of light in a vaccuum still holds true as far as I know. I've not seen any proof to the contrary - any links?

 

I'm unclear what you are on about regarding 'unproved science' and 'experimental science which disproves what we are told is true'. However if it ventures into tinfoil hat territory, it sounds like it isn't credible science.

 

 

http://bigthink.com/dr-kakus-universe/what-travels-faster-than-the-speed-of-light

[Ray Gin]

5 minutes ago, deesidejambo said:

 

On the second count he fails to understand that for whatever reason, thousands of deities exist in populations credos.   If you go into darkest Borneo you will find tribes that have their own gods, created themselves.      Why did they do that?   Are they stupid?   What is the reason for them doing this?  

 

They have no idea how the universe works so made up some story to fill in the gaps in their knowledge.

[jake]

54 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

Einstein's theory that nothing can more faster than the speed of light in a vaccuum still holds true as far as I know. I've not seen any proof to the contrary - any links?

 

I'm unclear what you are on about regarding 'unproved science' and 'experimental science which disproves what we are told is true'. However if it ventures into tinfoil hat territory, it sounds like it isn't credible science.

 

 

As for the other points you raised .

I will get back to you.

Sounds like I was trying to be clever.

Which usually doesn't end well.

?

[Ray Gin]

2 minutes ago, jake said:

http://bigthink.com/dr-kakus-universe/what-travels-faster-than-the-speed-of-light

 

Thanks, so Einstein's law remains intact.

 

[deesidejambo]

Just now, Ray Gin said:

 

They have no idea how the universe works so made up some story to fill in the gaps in their knowledge.

 

1 minute ago, Ray Gin said:

 

They have no idea how the universe works so made up some story to fill in the gaps in their knowledge.

 

That is one possible reason - personally I think its more related to hope and protection for their tribe against crop failure (a common cause for prayer) or attack from other tribes.

 

The outcome is the same though - the tribes see fit to ask for help and support from spiritual deities.      Taking the piss out of them wont work.

[Francis Albert]

One of the pluses of being an atheist is that you don't have to read about or think about religion. Or atheism really.

[deesidejambo]

1 minute ago, Francis Albert said:

One of the pluses of being an atheist is that you don't have to read about or think about religion. Or atheism really.

 

Doesn't explain this thread then - which was created presumably by an atheist to discuss atheism.

 

All hail Snorty.

[Ray Gin]

20 minutes ago, deesidejambo said:

 

 

That is one possible reason - personally I think its more related to hope and protection for their tribe against crop failure (a common cause for prayer) or attack from other tribes.

 

The outcome is the same though - the tribes see fit to ask for help and support from spiritual deities.      Taking the piss out of them wont work.

 

What do you mean it 'won't work'? What is supposed to be working?

[deesidejambo]

Just now, Ray Gin said:

 

What do you mean it 'won't work'? What is supposed to be working?

 

I am referring to memes such as the one by Ricky Gervais, which presumably is intended to persuade people reading it that gods dont exist.  It is done in a way to take the piss out of anyone who choses to believe in a deity.       Now sometimes ridicule is a good tactic and I can take it and give it out.  But many people, like the tribes I refer to, will not be convinced by the argument written in the meme, i.e. it wont work.

 

What was Gervais' intention in creating the meme?   To be funny?  To make a serious point?  Or to just ridicule those who dont share his worldview?

 

I'll pray to Snorty for you.  If you win some money send it to me as I asked Snorty to give you it.

[Ray Gin]

Who give a **** about whether tribes are convinced by the meme?

 

 

 

[jake]

31 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

Thanks, so Einstein's law remains intact.

 

October we will know for sure.

 

[deesidejambo]

Just now, Ray Gin said:

Who give a **** about whether tribes are convinced by the meme?

 

 

 

Gervias does, otherwise why did he write it?     He wrote it with an intent - what was it?   Who was he trying to convince?

[Ray Gin]

I think it's fair to say that his target audience isn't some remote tribe with no media access.

 

Edited March 12, 2018 by Ray Gin

[deesidejambo]

2 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

I think it's fair to say that his target audience isn't some remote tribe with no media access.

 

 

So who is his target audience then?

 

Th point I'm trying to make is that religious spuds are often entrenched in their views.  So are atheists btw.       An posting Memes that are for the first part not correct (belief in one deity actually doesn't preclude others) and for the other fail to realise that, for whatever reason, people choose to believe in deities for some reason, which he hasn't recognised.

 

But Meme on.

[Francis Albert]

42 minutes ago, deesidejambo said:

 

Doesn't explain this thread then - which was created presumably by an atheist to discuss atheism.

 

All hail Snorty.

I was questioning the point of the thread rather than trying to explain it.

 

[jake]

7 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

I was questioning the point of the thread rather than trying to explain it.

 

 

54 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

One of the pluses of being an atheist is that you don't have to read about or think about religion. Or atheism really.

?

[deesidejambo]

31 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

I think it's fair to say that his target audience isn't some remote tribe with no media access.

 

So who is the target audience?

 

What was he trying to achieve?

 

do you agree with his statement that all gods are mutually exclusive?  I have posted that this statement is incorrect as many religious believers actually accept co-existence of deities.    Do you agree with him that this is not the case?

[jake]

 

Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source . . . They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres. (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2000

[Ray Gin]

20 minutes ago, deesidejambo said:

So who is the target audience?

 

What was he trying to achieve?

 

do you agree with his statement that all gods are mutually exclusive?  I have posted that this statement is incorrect as many religious believers actually accept co-existence of deities.    Do you agree with him that this is not the case?

 

You've lost me. Which quote are you talking about now? Where has he said anything about all Gods being mutually exclusive?

 

I'm not entirely sure where he said the original quote that I posted, but I would assume it was on one of his podcasts or TV appearances, making his target audience predominantly atheists and christians with some jews and muslims thrown in.

[Ray Gin]

Actually I have found the source. It was an article he wrote for the Wall Street Journal. You can read it in full below:

 

https://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2010/12/19/a-holiday-message-from-ricky-gervais-why-im-an-atheist/

[LesJambes]

 

10 hours ago, Eldar Hadzimehmedovic said:

I don't care either way, to be honest. Live and let live. Tell you what I have noticed since the rise of t'Internet, twitter, facebook etc. - I see far more atheists than religious

types living with absolute conviction, holding onto dogmatic 'truth', spreading the word, trying to convince others.

It's easy to say that if you live in a relatively secular country. In many parts of the World people don't have that luxury. An atheist group in Indonesia has been arrested by police for simply meeting up to discuss atheism, an atheist blogger in Saudi Arabia has been in prison for years, possibly facing execution, children in schools in the USA have been punished or expelled for talking about atheism or questioning christianity in the public school system. I could mention a lot more. This idea that atheists are somehow intolerant of others is ridiculous when you compare it to the historical and ongoing persecution of those who questioned the prevailing religious authorities. One of the biggest growing groups of atheists online are Ex-Muslims, like the Secular Jihadists podcast, people like Sarah Haider, Ayaan Hirsi Ali.  In many Muslim countries people who question Islam risk being killed, like the Bangladeshi bloggers who were butchered in the street. If you really want to compare notes let's start with that.

 

 

8 hours ago, michael_bolton said:

 

The fact that that quote exists shows that the quote itself is false.

 

People who don't collect stamps simply don't collect stamps. They don't write books about not collecting stamps; they don't put thousands of videos on Youtube about not collecting stamps; they don't have famous evangelists for the cause of not collecting stamps (such as this quote); they don't evangelise to their friends about not collecting stamps; they don't regularly comment on the harmful nature of the practice of collecting stamps.

 

Atheism is a belief system for sure. While it is not a uniform belief system, neither is any other religion. For example, atheists will disagree with each other on many aspects of morality, meaning (or lack of) of life, the beginnings of life etc, but so do other religions. Ask two baptists a detailed list of questions about ethics, science, and meaning in life, and you'll get two different sets of answers. Atheism is not special in that regard.

 

Atheists have a dogmatic position on God, in that they believe that there isn't one. If you're unsure about this, then you're an agnostic, not an atheist. Religions have a dogmatic position on God. People who disagree with their position are 'wrong', and atheism shares this behaviour. Religious people evangelise for their faith. Atheists evengelise for their faith (and, like Christian evangelists, many of them make an absolute fortune doing so). This thread is an easy example. This is not promotion as in the promotion of Hearts by wearing a Hearts top. I doubt any of us regularly sits with Aberdeen-supporting friends and tries to convince them to become Hearts supporters. Yet atheists and people of faith both share this behaviour.

 

So, basically it comes down to what you mean by 'religion'. I'm wary about applying the word to atheism because of its lack of any kind of supernatural belief. But, in practice, this is just a technicality. I think on a day-to-day basis the behaviour of atheists and the shape of atheism strongly resembles that of standard religions.

Stamp collecting is simply an example, maybe not the best one imo. Let's take belief in fairies instead. I'll give you the benefit of assuming you're not gullible enough to believe in fairies, and ask you if that lack of belief in fairies is a 'belief system'? If the fairy believers were bombing and killing people every week in the name of their fairies don't you think there may be some books, blogs and videos explaining that fairies aren't real? Maybe even somewhat annoyed with the fairy believers? And don't forget that the fairy believers aren't exatly tolerant of us, or each other for the most part. Why do you expect people who don't believe in fairies to show this reverntial respect to those who do, and not the other way around?

 

Re atheism/ agnosticism please see my previous post, they are not mutually exclusive, most atheists are agnostic.

 

8 hours ago, michael_bolton said:

 

I don't think God having sex with Mary is part of any mainstream religious teaching.

 

I appreciate you're making a wider point, but that's quite a statement to make there.

Okay fair point, I admit I was a little hyperbolic there.

 

5 hours ago, deesidejambo said:

Exactly this.    Atheism is no different to religion.  Those atheists who spend time trying to persuade or convert others to their « truth » are no different to religious spuds doing the same the other way.   Both are nobs.

I'm sure there are some who do this, but for me and most people I've spoken to they don't give two shits what nonsense you want to believe. None of us want Ken Ham or Pat Robertson 'on our side'. What we want is secularism, the removal of political and social power from religions. All religions. We don't want Scientologists dictating government policy any more than we want christians doing so.

 

5 hours ago, deesidejambo said:

The fact that there are more than 3000 gods supports my view that humans of all types seek to have some sort of spiritual dimension, whether it be a god or otherwise.

 

its the peak of Maslow triangle in action.

 

or it could  be a manifestation of the human characteristic of « hope » in practice.

 

Either way, there must be a psychological reason for humans to turn to « gods » or whatever else they choose in times of need.

 

Gervais won’t understand this.

I don't understand this either. Are we talking about the parts of the brain seemingly hardwired for religion/ spirituality? To me that seems almost conclusive proof religion is all in our heads than otherwise.

 

2 hours ago, deesidejambo said:

Its simple - please explain why there are 3000 gods.

 

There has to be a reason for this human behaviour, and I am attempting to suggest reasons.  

 

So let me know why you think humans, jungle tribes, Aztecs, Egyptians, Hindus, Greeks, Romans etc etc chose for some reason to worship deities that have no physical evidence of existence.

Because we make irrational connections between things that aren't connected, because for a long time we didn't understand why it rains or why there are lightning strikes. So we invented stories to soothe children, and those stories are perpetuated as religion, myths, fairytales. It's quite natural when there's no understanding of why something happens. What's less forgiveable is holding onto these myths when science can explain many of these things, including evolution, the age of the earth, the age of the universe, but we'd rather believe the ramblings of a man who died millenia ago.

 

2 hours ago, deesidejambo said:

Nope.  Rejection of a belief system is a belief system in itself.

Well you must have a lot of belief systems! How do you get through the day while having to actively disbelieve in Odin, Thor, Zeus, Poseidon, Ra, Hachiman, Osiris.. ?

 

 

7 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

I was questioning the point of the thread rather than trying to explain it.

 

I just find it an interesting topic. I didn't intend it to be a debate, but I suppose theists feel the need to earn heaven points by defending jesus on an atheism thread.

[Ray Gin]

27 minutes ago, jake said:

 

Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics

 

Really? I've not heard of any secular governments beheading believers.

[jambo89]

1 hour ago, deesidejambo said:

 

Gervais is wrong on the first count and weak on the second.  Using the fact he got a second in philosophy is weak argument on your part.  I got a first in psychology - do I win?

 

Firstly he claims that anyone who believes in a god excludes the 2999 other gods as being non-existent.  That is rubbish.  Of course there will be some who claim their god is the only true god etc but there are many others who accept that different deities and religions can co-exist.

 

So as an example - a deity is a spiritual concept in peoples minds.   If I want to I can create my own unique god right now - Snorty.   Snorty is my god and if I want to I can talk to Snorty or worship him/her.       But does my immediate creation of a personal god now mean the other 3000 disappear immediately?  No.    So Gervais is wrong - there is nothing to stop you, or me, or anyone else creating their own gods, even multiple gods - they are spiritual concepts created in peoples minds to satisfy needs, either Maslow or hope etc.

 

On the second count he fails to understand that for whatever reason, thousands of deities exist in populations credos.   If you go into darkest Borneo you will find tribes that have their own gods, created themselves.      Why did they do that?   Are they stupid?   What is the reason for them doing this?     If he, or indeed you, can explain why people all over the world need to have some sort of spiritual dimension instead of putting up smarmy memes then the discussion can proceed.   I'd like to see Gervais going into Borneo and glibly take the piss out of some of the tribes there - they also practice headhunting.

 

And as for religion - I have now created Snortyism.  All hail Snorty.   Will you join me?

 

 

 

 

In terms of evolution, the creation of an all seeing deity would be beneficial for reproduction purposes. If you feel that someone is watching over you, you are less likely to do something bad and less likely to be shunned from your tribe, allowing you to pass on your genes. 

[jake]

23 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

Really? I've not heard of any secular governments beheading believers.

No they usually just bomb the shit out of people.

 

Anyway I don't believe in God.

More agnostic myself.

 

I just find the contempt a bit much.

 

For the record perhaps the most anti religious secular regime the USSR routinely killed people on the grounds of their belief.

And I'm pretty positive other secular governments have done so.

 

 

Edited March 12, 2018 by jake

[jake]

26 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

Really? I've not heard of any secular governments beheading believers.

By the way that quote was from Albert Einstein.

 

[deesidejambo]

28 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

Actually I have found the source. It was an article he wrote for the Wall Street Journal. You can read it in full below:

 

https://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2010/12/19/a-holiday-message-from-ricky-gervais-why-im-an-atheist/

Thanks. 

 

So presumably by doing all this he has intent to convert people from one way of thinking to another.   Which is exactly what lots of religious spuds do.

 

Hence my assertion that atheism and religion are two sides of the same coin.

 

Gervais is trying to control minds just like the Church .

 

Atheists are just as bad as religious nuts if they start to try and influence others, which is exactly what Gervais was doing.

 

i will tell Snorty there is a new religion on the scene - Gervaiseism.

[deesidejambo]

1 minute ago, deesidejambo said:

Thanks. 

 

So presumably by doing all this he has intent to convert people from one way of thinking to another.   Which is exactly what lots of religious spuds do.

 

Hence my assertion that atheism and religion are two sides of the same coin.

 

Gervais is trying to control minds just like the Church .

 

Atheists are just as bad as religious nuts if they start to try and influence others, which is exactly what Gervais was doing.

 

i will tell Snorty there is a new religion on the scene - Gervaiseism.

In fact call it Gervathiesm!

[jake]

It's worth pointing out that persecution of religious beliefs is on the rise.

And that Christians suffer this more than any other religion.

[deesidejambo]

3 minutes ago, jake said:

It's worth pointing out that persecution of religious beliefs is on the rise.

And that Christians suffer this more than any other religion.

It’s not persecution of beliefs, it’s natural human tribal behaviour in practice.  It will never change.

 

Blue eyes, brown etes.

 

Lord Of Flies etc etc

[Bridge of Djoum]

There is a God, just the one. Here's the proof he exists. As you can see he was most unmerciful to the less than fortunate members of our society.

 

Close thread.

 

Edited March 12, 2018 by New York Fleapit

[jake]

4 minutes ago, deesidejambo said:

It’s not persecution of beliefs, it’s natural human tribal behaviour in practice.  It will never change.

 

Blue eyes, brown etes.

 

Lord Of Flies etc etc

Sadly you may be right.

 

I hope not.

[jake]

4 minutes ago, New York Fleapit said:

There is a God, just the one. Here's the proof he exists. As you can see he was most unmerciful to the less than fortunate members of our society.

 

Close thread.

 

Resurrection please.

[Bindy Badgy]

30 minutes ago, jake said:

It's worth pointing out that persecution of religious beliefs is on the rise.

And that Christians suffer this more than any other religion.

 

Got a source for this and any of the other claims that you've made in the thread?

[Unknown user]

3 hours ago, deesidejambo said:

 

Gervais is wrong on the first count and weak on the second.  Using the fact he got a second in philosophy is weak argument on your part.  I got a first in psychology - do I win?

 

Firstly he claims that anyone who believes in a god excludes the 2999 other gods as being non-existent.  That is rubbish.  Of course there will be some who claim their god is the only true god etc but there are many others who accept that different deities and religions can co-exist.

 

So as an example - a deity is a spiritual concept in peoples minds.   If I want to I can create my own unique god right now - Snorty.   Snorty is my god and if I want to I can talk to Snorty or worship him/her.       But does my immediate creation of a personal god now mean the other 3000 disappear immediately?  No.    So Gervais is wrong - there is nothing to stop you, or me, or anyone else creating their own gods, even multiple gods - they are spiritual concepts created in peoples minds to satisfy needs, either Maslow or hope etc.

 

On the second count he fails to understand that for whatever reason, thousands of deities exist in populations credos.   If you go into darkest Borneo you will find tribes that have their own gods, created themselves.      Why did they do that?   Are they stupid?   What is the reason for them doing this?     If he, or indeed you, can explain why people all over the world need to have some sort of spiritual dimension instead of putting up smarmy memes then the discussion can proceed.   I'd like to see Gervais going into Borneo and glibly take the piss out of some of the tribes there - they also practice headhunting.

 

And as for religion - I have now created Snortyism.  All hail Snorty.   Will you join me?

 

 

 

 

You're being a patronising welt, the fact that someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they don't understand, no matter how distracting an argument you put forward. I'll waste no more time on you, everyone can see for themselves what's happened here. 

[jake]

26 minutes ago, Stokesy said:

 

Got a source for this and any of the other claims that you've made in the thread?

Yes.

And which other claims did you have in mind?

[jake]

2 minutes ago, Smithee said:

You're being a patronising welt, the fact that someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they don't understand, no matter how distracting an argument you put forward. I'll waste no more time on you, everyone can see for themselves what's happened here. 

?

[jake]

30 minutes ago, Stokesy said:

 

Got a source for this and any of the other claims that you've made in the thread?

https://www.google.co.uk/search?ei=XY2mWvzPMaLOgAa_sZ7oDg&q=pew+study+on+religious+persecution&oq=pew+research+on+religious+&gs_l=mobile-gws-serp.1.3.0j0i22i30l4.7844.21848..23129...1....280.4939.3j35j2..........1..mobile-gws-wiz-serp.....3..0i71j35i39j0i67j0i131j0i10.2ej402spv5I%3D 

 

 

Plenty here for you.

What's these other claims ?

Edited March 12, 2018 by jake