Atheism thread

[LesJambes]

5 minutes ago, deesidejambo said:

How do you differentiate between a religion and a cult?

That's a hard question. First I think the two are not mutually exclusive. A religion could be a cult, but not necessarily, and a cult can be a religion also, but not necessarily. I'd say the distinction lies in attitude to it's followers. If followers aren't allowed to leave without significant consequences then it's a cult. Let's leave aside the threats of eternal hell and just deal with real life consequences. But even there it's a spectrum, from the simple cutting off ties that Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses are required to do to with those who leave, to the character assassination that Scientologists do, to the murder of apostates in some Muslim societies.

[@VladMagic]

2 minutes ago, deesidejambo said:

I think I'll form a new religion - Stellaism.   

 

Thou shalt only drink Stella

Thou shalt only eat crisps

And kebabs.

The odd pint of Belhaven is OK, as long as its followed by another Stella.

If thou is caught drinking Tennents thou can gtf.

 

Bow your head to the all mighty Bellhaven

Kneel before the scampi fry

 

 

[LesJambes]

9 minutes ago, VladMagic said:

There is only one god in this world and that is the Beer God.

 

 

Bacchus will be displeased!! ? ?

 

9 minutes ago, LesJambes said:

That list of things makes no sense

I'm sorry, that was very dismissive and insulting. I shouldn't have phrased it that way, nor did I mean it as such. What I should've said was I wasn't getting the common thread here, but that's probably on me.

 

2 minutes ago, deesidejambo said:

I think I'll form a new religion - Stellaism.   

 

Thou shalt only drink Stella

Thou shalt only eat crisps

And kebabs.

The odd pint of Belhaven is OK, as long as its followed by another Stella.

If thou is caught drinking Tennents thou can gtf.

Millerism is the religion of peace, and I'll kill anyone who says otherwise!

[@VladMagic]

I said on another thread last year about walking in front of a bus.

 

Stupidly hungover and confused about traffic on a 1 way road I literally walked in front of a bus. A split second early I would have gone under the wheels and I would almost certainly be dead.

 

Did God save me? Did he feck. Timing saved my ass that day nothing more nothing less. Timing. Now some people may take that as a sign from god and change their lives and become religious to some extent happy to have another go at life after being saved.

 

The reality is that it was a close call and pure luck saved me.

 

Nearly 4 o clock and beer

 

 

[deesidejambo]

Just now, LesJambes said:

That's a hard question. First I think the two are not mutually exclusive. A religion could be a cult, but not necessarily, and a cult can be a religion also, but not necessarily. I'd say the distinction lies in attitude to it's followers. If followers aren't allowed to leave without significant consequences then it's a cult. Let's leave aside the threats of eternal hell and just deal with real life consequences. But even there it's a spectrum, from the simple cutting off ties that Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses are required to do to with those who leave, to the character assassination that Scientologists do, to the murder of apostates in some Muslim societies.

Thanks.

 

I was thinking more about how they form and operate.

 

To me there is little difference between the two from a psychological perspective.

 

They are both groups of people with common worldviews.  Religion being a deity or Chi or something.  A cult being usually some charismatic leader who manages to persuade others to follow, like David Icke or Manson or that Waco guy, or Jesus (oops thats a religion).

 

But behaviourally its to me, tribal, as evidenced by the experiments on kids, the blue eyes brown eyes stuff, where you can tell someone what group they are, then they immediately take on the required persona, and more importantly, "hate" or at least distrust those not in their group.

 

Using an example, I've just created a new religion -Stellaism.   I've already got others to join me - presumably they think they're getting a free pint but still they have joined me- have I just started a cult or a religion?   

[deesidejambo]

6 minutes ago, LesJambes said:

Bacchus will be displeased!! ? ?

 

I'm sorry, that was very dismissive and insulting. I shouldn't have phrased it that way, nor did I mean it as such. What I should've said was I wasn't getting the common thread here, but that's probably on me.

 

Millerism is the religion of peace, and I'll kill anyone who says otherwise!

Stellaism is the only true religion.     Millerism is weak and unworthy.    I see a clash of civilisations coming.

[@VladMagic]

5 minutes ago, deesidejambo said:

Thanks.

 

I was thinking more about how they form and operate.

 

To me there is little difference between the two from a psychological perspective.

 

They are both groups of people with common worldviews.  Religion being a deity or Chi or something.  A cult being usually some charismatic leader who manages to persuade others to follow, like David Icke or Manson or that Waco guy, or Jesus (oops thats a religion).

 

But behaviourally its to me, tribal, as evidenced by the experiments on kids, the blue eyes brown eyes stuff, where you can tell someone what group they are, then they immediately take on the required persona, and more importantly, "hate" or at least distrust those not in their group.

 

Using an example, I've just created a new religion -Stellaism.   I've already got others to join me - presumably they think they're getting a free pint but still they have joined me- have I just started a cult or a religion?   

 

I am a disciple of Stellaism. We need 11 more

[deesidejambo]

2 minutes ago, VladMagic said:

 

I am a disciple of Stellaism. We need 11 more

Im on it.  We can form a crusade and pummel these evil Millerists to death and take all their crisps.

[LesJambes]

8 minutes ago, deesidejambo said:

Im on it.  We can form a crusade and pummel these evil Millerists to death and take all their crisps.

Unfortunately we're in the midst of a sectarian war, those heretical Miller Liteists must be destroyed first

[deesidejambo]

1 minute ago, LesJambes said:

Unfortunately we're in the midst of a sectarian war, those heretical Miller Liteists must be destroyed first

Allow us to join you - our Miller brothers, to extinguish the non-believers.  Then we'll get back to fighting each other.

 

We joke of course but the parallels are interesting between this and real religion.  Must watch Life of Brian again.

[LesJambes]

6 minutes ago, deesidejambo said:

Allow us to join you - our Miller brothers, to extinguish the non-believers.  Then we'll get back to fighting each other.

 

We joke of course but the parallels are interesting between this and real religion.  Must watch Life of Brian again.

Great film! That was probably influential in my rejection of religion too.

[deesidejambo]

14 minutes ago, LesJambes said:

Great film! That was probably influential in my rejection of religion too.

Good that you reject religion.

 

But remember, I suggest you are still "spiritual" in some part of your existence.       And to be absolutely clear, that does not mean you believe in deities!

 

Other than Miller of course...............

 

 

[Justin Z]

9 hours ago, Bigsmak said:

So .. back on topic.. 

 

What led the atheists on this thread to realise that they had been lied to by society and there is no God?

 

A simple, rhetorical question about the need for the existence of a god or gods. To quote Carl Sagan in a similar vein, “As science advances, there seems to be less and less for God to do. It's a big universe, of course, so He, She, or It, could be profitably employed in many places. But what has clearly been happening is that evolving before our eyes has been a God of the Gaps; that is, whatever it is we cannot explain lately is attributed to God. And then after a while, we explain it, and so that's no longer God's realm.”

 

This idea sparked a lot of other deep thinking for me. I started to wonder how many things I'd always taken as granted for true that I'd simply been told, and believed--not that those things had actually been shown to be true.

[deesidejambo]

While Im banging on about this, I'd like to try and address the points about "burden of proof".

 

If a god-botherer tries to convince me of the existence of a deity, or Chi, or whatever, it is simple  - prove it.     No argument there.

 

But many atheists, and some on this thread then say such lack of proof is therefore proof of non-existence.  This violates a basic tenet of justice "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

 

To use an example -

 

At the present time I happen to believe that the Salisbury poisoning was done by a Russian.      People will rightly ask me for evidence to prove that conclusively.  I cannot provide that, its just my "belief" at the moment.

 

Now an agnostic will conclude that my belief is not proven.    I'm fine with that.

 

But atheist logic as demonstrated in this thread would say because its not proven therefore its wrong, i.e. the poisoning was not done by a Russian.

 

This to me makes no sense.    In a binary yes/no issue, the burden of proof always lies with whoever makes the "claim".   If god-botherers claim there is a god - prove it.  If atheists claim there isnt -prove it.

 

Two sides of the same coin imo.

 

btw the above was an example - I have no clue who did the poisoning, and I dont believe in deities, other than Stella.

[Bigsmak]

So .. back on topic.. 

 

What led the atheists on this thread to realise that they had been lied to by society and there is no God? 

 

 

For me it was actually started by reading the Bible. Why would a good being (God) commit so many murders and torture people. Noah's Ark, the Egyptians, killing the first Born of non followers, the entire book of Job. Etc, etc .. none of it sat will with me and went against my morals. 

 

Then there was the whole, why do bad things happen to good people? And good things happen to bad people? 

 

I asked about these things to my priest (I was an alter boy, one of the non-abused ones) and couldn't get an answer... God works in mysterious ways, they would say. 

 

Basically I thought if there is a God, why was he such a dick and let bad things happen? Either he couldn't control things, or he wanted the bad things to happen.. (I'm sure many people have put forward the same argument a lot better than I have).. either way, I was out. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[deesidejambo]

Just now, Bigsmak said:

So .. back on topic.. 

 

What led the atheists on this thread to realise that they had been lied to by society and there is no God? 

 

 

For me it was actually started by reading the Bible. Why would a good being (God) commit so many murders and torture people. Noah's Ark, the Egyptians, killing the first Born of non followers, the entire book of Job. Etc, etc .. none of it sat will with me and went against my morals. 

 

Then there was the whole, why do bad things happen to good people? And good things happen to bad people? 

 

I asked about these things to my priest (I was an alter boy, one of the non-abused ones) and couldn't get an answer... God works in mysterious ways, they would say. 

 

Basically I thought if there is a God, why was he such a dick and let bad things happen? Either he couldn't control things, or he wanted the bad things to happen.. (I'm sure many people have put forward the same argument a lot better than I have).. either way, I was out. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Absolutely.     And if there is a god, how come there are 2999 other gods.

 

Maybe our god did his thing then ****ed off (in his flying saucer) to somewhere else in the universe to sort out a pagger.      i'd guess he got pissed-off with us bitching all the time.

[Ray Gin]

I don't remember there ever being a particular moment when I decided that I didn't believe in God. I don't think I ever really bought it, at least not since I was capable of thinking rationally for myself. It was a natural progression of doubt ever since learning that sometimes we got told a lot of crap as a child, such as the tooth fairy and Santa. The magic invisible planet building sky creature, the man who walked on water and came back to life, the talking snake, the old guy who managed to get carnivorous wild animals onto his boat...it all just sounded like more daft stories we were told as a kid.

Edited March 13, 2018 by Ray Gin

[LesJambes]

11 minutes ago, deesidejambo said:

While Im banging on about this, I'd like to try and address the points about "burden of proof".

 

If a god-botherer tries to convince me of the existence of a deity, or Chi, or whatever, it is simple  - prove it.     No argument there.

 

But many atheists, and some on this thread then say such lack of proof is therefore proof of non-existence.  This violates a basic tenet of justice "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

 

To use an example -

 

At the present time I happen to believe that the Salisbury poisoning was done by a Russian.      People will rightly ask me for evidence to prove that conclusively.  I cannot provide that, its just my "belief" at the moment.

 

Now an agnostic will conclude that my belief is not proven.    I'm fine with that.

 

But atheist logic as demonstrated in this thread would say because its not proven therefore its wrong, i.e. the poisoning was not done by a Russian.

 

This to me makes no sense.    In a binary yes/no issue, the burden of proof always lies with whoever makes the "claim".   If god-botherers claim there is a god - prove it.  If atheists claim there isnt -prove it.

 

Two sides of the same coin imo.

 

btw the above was an example - I have no clue who did the poisoning, and I dont believe in deities, other than Stella.

 

Yes I've come across that type, and I find it irritating. 'Absence of proof is proof of absence'. But in case you missed my earlier post on the subject, agnosticism and atheism are not distinct, for example I am an agnostic atheist. Gnosticism is knowledge, and theism is belief. Even Dawkins and Hitchens, the most "strident" atheists, were not gnostic atheists. Dawkins had a scale of belief and put himself at 6, de facto atheist but not 100% certain.

 

 

[deesidejambo]

Just now, LesJambes said:

 

Yes I've come across that type, and I find it irritating. 'Absence of proof is proof of absence'. But in case you missed my earlier post on the subject, agnosticism and atheism are not distinct, for example I am an agnostic atheist. Gnosticism is knowledge, and theism is belief. Even Dawkins and Hitchens, the most "strident" atheists, were not gnostic atheists. Dawkins had a scale of belief and put himself at 6, de facto atheist but not 100% certain.

 

 

 

True there is a spectrum, but those at either end of the spectrum are the ones I get narked about.  On both sides.

 

Millerism is dead.

[LesJambes]

1 minute ago, deesidejambo said:

 

True there is a spectrum, but those at either end of the spectrum are the ones I get narked about.  On both sides.

Well I agree there. I have argued with the gnostic theists too, and like I said they can be equally self righteous as gnostic theists.

 

Quote

Millerism is dead.

[deesidejambo]

9 minutes ago, LesJambes said:

Well I agree there. I have argued with the gnostic theists too, and like I said they can be equally self righteous as gnostic theists.

 

Christ knows what I am (non sequitur in there)

 

i don’t believe in deities or worship of cults etc but I do wonder if there is a dimension to existence as yet unexplained.

 

Until I find out - it’s Stella for me!!!!!

[ADAM]

4 hours ago, deesidejambo said:

Allow us to join you - our Miller brothers, to extinguish the non-believers.  Then we'll get back to fighting each other.

 

We joke of course but the parallels are interesting between this and real religion.  Must watch Life of Brian again.

Ah, the Life of Brian. Absolutely brilliant film.

Worryingly I don't think it could be made today. 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 13, 2018 by ADAM

[Justin Z]

1 hour ago, deesidejambo said:

This to me makes no sense.    In a binary yes/no issue, the burden of proof always lies with whoever makes the "claim".   If god-botherers claim there is a god - prove it.  If atheists claim there isnt -prove it.

 

Two sides of the same coin imo.

 

Mmm, I think this lacks some subtlety to be fair. Unless I'm misunderstanding you, I think you're doing the top here:

 

I consider myself an agnostic atheist. Yes, I don't know for certain there is no god, but that's in much the same way I don't know for certain there are no leprechauns, unicorns or fairies. I've weighed the evidence available and concluded it's extremely unlikely--I therefore lack a belief in a god or gods. I don't know and don't claim special knowledge, but the conclusion seems sound enough based on what I have available. That's also known as weak atheism (contrasting to strong atheism, a positive claim that no god exists)

 

Plus, while absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, it is a strong indicator, especially for something that ought to be as visible as an omnipotent creator being.

 

Edit: Also, the default is nonexistence for any sort of entity you can think of. The burden of proof is on those making the claim for the existence of gods or anything else.

 

 

Edited March 13, 2018 by Justin Z

[Justin Z]

Haha. LesJambes nailing it while I started my post while my flight was about to land and didn't finish it until an hour later. Oh well, good ideas bear repeating . . . or something

 

Edited March 13, 2018 by Justin Z

[deesidejambo]

29 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

Mmm, I think this lacks some subtlety to be fair. Unless I'm misunderstanding you, I think you're doing the top here:

 

I consider myself an agnostic atheist. Yes, I don't know for certain there is no god, but that's in much the same way I don't know for certain there are no leprechauns, unicorns or fairies. I've weighed the evidence available and concluded it's extremely unlikely--I therefore lack a belief in a god or gods. I don't know and don't claim special knowledge, but the conclusion seems sound enough based on what I have available. That's also known as weak atheism (contrasting to strong atheism, a positive claim that no god exists)

 

Plus, while absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, it is a strong indicator, especially for something that ought to be as visible as an omnipotent creator being.

 

Edit: Also, the default is nonexistence for any sort of entity you can think of. The burden of proof is on those making the claim for the existence of gods or anything else.

 

 

Agree that on a balance of probabilities the likelihood of 3000 deities is small which is why I don’t believe in them.

 

but my question  remains - how come whole civilizations and tribes create complete belief systems around them?   

 

Also things like Chi, Karma, ghosts and réincarnation.   Where did they come from?  Why do whole civilisations in this modern world of science still believe in them?

 

there must be a reason, and for people to describe those who believe in them a stupid or uneducated doesn’t answer the question imo

[Ulysses]

2 hours ago, deesidejambo said:

If god-botherers claim there is a god - prove it.  If atheists claim there isnt -prove it.

 

 

I have to beg to differ.

 

Atheists don't claim that there isn't.

 

There isn't, and the available evidence supports that position.

 

There is no direct evidence of the non-existence of gods, just as there is no direct evidence that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.

 

But there is a considerable body of indirect evidence for the non-existence of gods, just as there is a considerable body of indirect evidence that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.  There is also an absence of any evidence for the existence of gods, or for the existence of anything that can travel faster than the speed of light - other than in the imaginations of some people.

 

Therefore, if someone wants to "claim" that gods do not exist, they do not have to prove it, no more than a person who "claims" that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.

 

On the other hand, someone who claims that gods do exist, or someone who claims that something can travel faster than the speed of light, is making an extraordinary claim that has no evidence to support the claim and a body of evidence to counter the claim.  So they have something significant and difficult to prove.

 

The view that gods exist is not intellectually equivalent to the view that they don't, and the view that something can travel faster than the speed of light is not intellectually equivalent to the view than nothing can.

 

Unfortunately, some commentators tend to take competing values like the above and put them into a framework where they are considered equally valid, equally testable and equally worthy of intellectual acceptability or criticism.  But when they do that they are giving the same intellectual status to evidence-based research, calculation and analysis as they do to hearsay, storytelling, superstition and mythology.  It is equivalent to treating astronomy and astrology not only as sciences, but as branches of the same science.  But they aren't.

 

 

Edited March 13, 2018 by Ulysses

[Ulysses]

5 minutes ago, deesidejambo said:

there must be a reason....

 

Dawkins asked and answered this, and that's backed up by psychological and sociological research. 

[Justin Z]

5 minutes ago, deesidejambo said:

Agree that on a balance of probabilities the likelihood of 3000 deities is small which is why I don’t believe in them.

 

but my question  remains - how come whole civilizations and tribes create complete belief systems around them?   

 

Also things like Chi, Karma, ghosts and réincarnation.   Where did they come from?  Why do whole civilisations in this modern world of science still believe in them?

 

there must be a reason, and for people to describe those who believe in them a stupid or uneducated doesn’t answer the question imo

 

Humans have brains that see patterns--it's a vital survival trait that we do that. And for our ancestors in the wild, it was a lot less harmful to see spurious patterns than it was to miss a pattern, say the stripes of a tiger against the tundra grass, that might spell the difference between life and death.

 

Humans are predisposed, therefore, to seeing patterns that aren't there because that meant we were more likely to see the ones that were, and survive. More generally, in many ways we are horribly evolved for modern life and, more importantly, for the scientific method. We see patterns, relationships, and causes and effects that simply don't exist all the time. We have to be diligent to avoid thinking magically. It doesn't come naturally.

 

Ulysses just posted that Dawkins has asked and answered this. True. But for me, especially on a thread called "atheism", it's fun talking about this stuff. The "why" is really important! This is the core of it.

[LesJambes]

7 minutes ago, deesidejambo said:

Agree that on a balance of probabilities the likelihood of 3000 deities is small which is why I don’t believe in them.

 

but my question  remains - how come whole civilizations and tribes create complete belief systems around them?   

 

Also things like Chi, Karma, ghosts and réincarnation.   Where did they come from?  Why do whole civilisations in this modern world of science still believe in them?

 

there must be a reason, and for people to describe those who believe in them a stupid or uneducated doesn’t answer the question imo

 

There has been some interesting neurological research done on this, culminating in researchers being able to stimulate parts of the brain to artificially enduce 'religious' experiences. The parts of the brain associated with religion and spirituality also have some correlation to epilepsy.

[deesidejambo]

3 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

I have to beg to differ.

 

Atheists don't claim that there isn't.

 

There isn't, and the available evidence supports that position.

 

There is no direct evidence of the non-existence of gods, just as there is no direct evidence that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.

 

But there is a considerable body of indirect evidence for the non-existence of gods, just as there is a considerable body of indirect evidence that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.  There is also an absence of any evidence for the existence of gods, or for the existence of anything that can travel faster than the speed of light - other than in the imaginations of some people.

 

Therefore, if someone wants to "claim" that gods do not exist, they do not have to prove it, no more than a person who "claims" that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.

 

On the other hand, someone who claims that gods do exist, or someone who claims that something can travel faster than the speed of light, is making an extraordinary claim that has no evidence to support the claim and a body of evidence to counter the claim.  So they have something significant and difficult to prove.

 

The view that gods exist is not intellectually equivalent to the view that they don't, and the view that something can travel faster than the speed of light is not intellectually equivalent to the view than nothing can.

 

Unfortunately, some commentators tend to take competing values like the above and put them into a framework where they are considered equally valid, equally testable and equally worthy of intellectual acceptability or criticism.  But when they do that they are giving the same intellectual status to evidence-based research, calculation and analysis as they do to hearsay, storytelling, superstition and mythology.  It is equivalent to treating astronomy and astrology not only as sciences, but as branches of the same science.  But they aren't.

 

 

Of course it should be easier to prove something that’s more outlandish than something that isn’t.

 

thats why I don’t believe in deities.

 

however the underlying principle remains that absence of proof is not proof of absence and what annoys me is just saying god botherers need to prove their side only, and if they can’t then that’s proof of the opposite.  That is not correct.

 

 

[LesJambes]

4 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

Humans have brains that see patterns--it's a vital survival trait that we do that. And for our ancestors in the wild, it was a lot less harmful to see spurious patterns than it was to miss a pattern, say the stripes of a tiger against the tundra grass, that might spell the difference between life and death.

 

Humans are predisposed, therefore, to seeing patterns that aren't there because that meant we were more likely to see the ones that were, and survive. More generally, in many ways we are horribly evolved for modern life and, more importantly, for the scientific method. We see patterns, relationships, and causes and effects that simply don't exist all the time. We have to be diligent to avoid thinking magically. It doesn't come naturally.

 

Ulysses just posted that Dawkins has asked and answered this. True. But for me, especially on a thread called "atheism", it's fun talking about this stuff. The "why" is really important! This is the core of it.

But does that explain cloud jesus?! No I don't think so!

[Justin Z]

1 minute ago, LesJambes said:

But does that explain cloud jesus?! No I don't think so!

 

No, nor does it explain dog arse Jesus . . .

 

[deesidejambo]

Just now, Justin Z said:

 

No, nor does it explain dog arse Jesus . . .

 

Now I believe!

[LesJambes]

Just now, Justin Z said:

 

No, nor does it explain dog arse Jesus . . .

 

 

 

[jake]

6 hours ago, deesidejambo said:

I think I'll form a new religion - Stellaism.   

 

Thou shalt only drink Stella

Thou shalt only eat crisps

And kebabs.

The odd pint of Belhaven is OK, as long as its followed by another Stella.

If thou is caught drinking Tennents thou can gtf.

Can I join

[jake]

It's perhaps indicative that this thread has so many critical especially of Jesus a persona full of forgiveness and an example of new tolerant testament .

 

Yet the rape and murder of children draws little contempt of a religion which 

condones it .

Albeit white children.

 

 

Up is down.

 

No doubt in some minds I'm the racist not the crawling rapists of children whose skin colour and fekt up culture absolves them.

 

 

 

[deesidejambo]

4 minutes ago, jake said:

Can I join

Welcome brother Jake.   That’s three of us now so we are a real proper religion.

 

We can now claim charitable status and not pay duty on our Stella.

 

Other religions can gtf.

[LesJambes]

1 minute ago, jake said:

It's perhaps indicative that this thread has so many critical especially of Jesus a persona full of forgiveness and an example of new tolerant testament .

 

Yet the rape and murder of children draws little contempt of a religion which 

condones it .

Albeit white children.

 

 

Up is down.

 

No doubt in some minds I'm the racist not the crawling rapists of children whose skin colour and fekt up culture absolves them.

Calm down, the Jesus bit was just a joke. Most christians I know can take a joke, well some anyway. Nobody here seems to be defending Islam, and for the record **** Islam too. Now, do you condemn child abuse by Christians?

[Ulysses]

21 minutes ago, deesidejambo said:

however the underlying principle remains that absence of proof is not proof of absence and what annoys me is just saying god botherers need to prove their side only, and if they can’t then that’s proof of the opposite.  That is not correct.

 

That presupposes that there is either an absence of proof or a proof of absence for an atheist view of the world.  There is a presence of proof - not a proof that gods don't exist, but a set of solid analyses from the fields of psychology and sociology to show how they were likely to have been made up, and how once they were made up were passed on from generation to generation.  If you have substantial evidence that something was made up, and no evidence that it wasn't, that can't be dismissed as an absence of proof.  Believers sometimes play the "absence of proof/proof of absence" card as if it's a winner for them.  But it isn't, because they have to make up the bit about absence of proof. 

 

That's why the reasoned view has to be that there are no deities - not now and not ever in the past.  If someone can come along and show some evidence of existence they might be able to chip away at all the evidence of non-existence.  But they can't chip away at the evidence by making stuff up; that's not how it ever works.

[jake]

5 minutes ago, LesJambes said:

Calm down, the Jesus bit was just a joke. Most christians I know can take a joke, well some anyway. Nobody here seems to be defending Islam, and for the record **** Islam too. Now, do you condemn child abuse by Christians?

Yes.

And I'm sorry.

I condemn every evil.

My gripe is the selective prosecution of it.

 

[jake]

4 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

That presupposes that there is either an absence of proof or a proof of absence for an atheist view of the world.  There is a presence of proof - not a proof that gods don't exist, but a set of solid analyses from the fields of psychology and sociology to show how they were likely to have been made up, and how once they were made up were passed on from generation to generation.  If you have substantial evidence that something was made up, and no evidence that it wasn't, that can't be dismissed as an absence of proof.  Believers sometimes play the "absence of proof/proof of absence" card as if it's a winner for them.  But it isn't, because they have to make up the bit about absence of proof. 

 

That's why the reasoned view has to be that there are no deities - not now and not ever in the past.  If someone can come along and show some evidence of existence they might be able to chip away at all the evidence of non-existence.  But they can't chip away at the evidence by making stuff up; that's not how it ever works.

Surely the proof is the overwhelming feeling of faith.

Whatever your god maybe.

 

Are you atheist Uly or agnostic?

 

[LesJambes]

2 minutes ago, jake said:

Yes.

And I'm sorry.

I condemn every evil.

My gripe is the selective prosecution of it.

 

Well don't worry, I call out all religions when they do violent or oppressive things. And 99% of the time it's Islam, even more specifically wahhabi/ salafi Islam.

[deesidejambo]

2 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

That presupposes that there is either an absence of proof or a proof of absence for an atheist view of the world.  There is a presence of proof - not a proof that gods don't exist, but a set of solid analyses from the fields of psychology and sociology to show how they were likely to have been made up, and how once they were made up were passed on from generation to generation.  If you have substantial evidence that something was made up, and no evidence that it wasn't, that can't be dismissed as an absence of proof.  Believers sometimes play the "absence of proof/proof of absence" card as if it's a winner for them.  But it isn't, because they have to make up the bit about absence of proof. 

 

That's why the reasoned view has to be that there are no deities - not now and not ever in the past.  If someone can come along and show some evidence of existence they might be able to chip away at all the evidence of non-existence.  But they can't chip away at the evidence by making stuff up; that's not how it ever works.

Not sure I get you.

 

Thé Absence of proof flaw applies to either side of the argument and is equally wrong but imo it is more often used by atheists.

 

But I do take your point that commonly accepted science and principles are sufficient proof in many cases, such as your example of the speed of light.   Although there is one well-known poster on here who would challenge that!

 

dont get me wrong - I don’t believe in deities, all I’m saying is the atheist method of saying you need to prove it otherwise the opposite is true is a logic-bust

 

[jake]

Apoloies to 

Just now, LesJambes said:

Well don't worry, I call out all religions when they do violent or oppressive things. And 99% of the time it's Islam, even more specifically wahhabi/ salafi Islam.

I don't want to go there.

I don't want to make what has angered me and brought me down into an anti Islam thing.

I fear I have reflected that though.

 

[Ray Gin]

17 minutes ago, jake said:

It's perhaps indicative that this thread has so many critical especially of Jesus a persona full of forgiveness and an example of new tolerant testament .

 

Yet the rape and murder of children draws little contempt of a religion which 

condones it .

Albeit white children.

 

 

Up is down.

 

No doubt in some minds I'm the racist not the crawling rapists of children whose skin colour and fekt up culture absolves them.

 

 

 

 

We're particularly critical of Christianity as it is the one that we had thrust upon us when we were growing up, the one we know most about, and the one that is most prevalent in the UK. 

 

Let there be no confusion - Islam is even worse. At least Christians have chilled out a bit since the crusades. 

 

[LesJambes]

5 minutes ago, jake said:

Apoloies to 

I don't want to go there.

I don't want to make what has angered me and brought me down into an anti Islam thing.

I fear I have reflected that though.

There's nothing wrong with being anti Islam. Islam is an ideology, it's not bigoted to even hate an ideology. It only becomes bigoted if you hate every person that follows that ideology. I hate conservatism, but I don't hate all conservatives, I hate Fascism, but I don't condemn all Fascists. I just think they're wrong, and the same goes for Muslims. In short, attack the idea, not the person.

Edited March 13, 2018 by LesJambes

[Ulysses]

1 minute ago, jake said:

Surely the proof is the overwhelming feeling of faith.

 

As I said, there is a considerable body of evidence from the fields of psychology and sociology to show how gods were made up, and then passed from generation to generation. 

 

Think of it this way.  There are a lot of people out there who get to be both disappointed and surprised when they discover Santa is made up,  Yet Santa only appears on their radar screens for a short few weeks of the year.  Imagine that for some reason a generation of parents decided that Santa would be talked about all the time - with books and buildings and images and stories and rituals accessed by their children all the time - and never as much as a suggestion ANYWHERE that the story was being made up, and then that same pretence was passed down to the next generation of children and the one after that and some more after that.  In a few generations Santa would become "the way, the truth and the life".  There would be a minority along the way who wouldn't buy into Santa, or you might eventually get splinter groups who preferred Santa to have a different name or different coloured clothes - but fundamentally people would continue to believe in Santa because no-one would remind them to stop.

 

That's a simplified description of the psychological and cultural processes involved in making up gods and religions and passing them down the generations - but it sets it out pretty accurately for all that.

[deesidejambo]

3 minutes ago, LesJambes said:

There's nothing wrong with being anti Islam. Islam is an ideology, it's not bigoted to even hate an ideology. It only becomes bigoted if you hate every person that follows that ideology. I hate conservatism, but I don't hate all conservatives, I hate Fascism, but I don't condemn all Fascists. I just think they're wrong, and the same goes for Muslims. In short, attack the idea, not the person.

I may sound like a hippy, but don’t hate anything.    Argue against them and try to understand their reasons for their ideologies.  There are always reasons.  With an understanding of the reasons you can better argue against them.

 

One well-known poster on this site is full of hate for Tories.  It’s that hate that results in cognitive dissonance leading to defeat of his objectives.

[jake]

4 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

As I said, there is a considerable body of evidence from the fields of psychology and sociology to show how gods were made up, and then passed from generation to generation. 

 

Think of it this way.  There are a lot of people out there who get to be both disappointed and surprised when they discover Santa is made up,  Yet Santa only appears on their radar screens for a short few weeks of the year.  Imagine that for some reason a generation of parents decided that Santa would be talked about all the time - with books and buildings and images and stories and rituals accessed by their children all the time - and never as much as a suggestion ANYWHERE that the story was being made up, and then that same pretence was passed down to the next generation of children and the one after that and some more after that.  In a few generations Santa would become "the way, the truth and the life".  There would be a minority along the way who wouldn't buy into Santa, or you might eventually get splinter groups who preferred Santa to have a different name or different coloured clothes - but fundamentally people would continue to believe in Santa because no-one would remind them to stop.

 

That's a simplified description of the psychological and cultural processes involved in making up gods and religions and passing them down the generations - but it sets it out pretty accurately for all that.

Well put.

 

Still have not answered my question.

Athiest you are but agnostic?

 

 

[Ulysses]

9 minutes ago, deesidejambo said:

all I’m saying is the atheist method of saying you need to prove it otherwise the opposite is true is a logic-bust

 

And all I'm saying is that what you have described there is not the "atheist method".  Some people might use that line, but no atheist I know is saying prove it or it's not true.  What they are saying is that the evidence that it's not true is already there, and if someone wants to disprove that evidence they're gonna have to come up with something much more solid and convincing than they have so far.

 

I have heard believers say that atheists use the "prove it otherwise the opposite is true" logic - but they are making stuff up, which let's face it is something for which they have a track record.  I've also seen people who say they're atheists but who are actually just anti-religion slip into a similar line of argument.  I'm also surprised from time to time by atheists out there who don't actually realise how much solid evidence exists for their case rather than just against the viewpoint of believers.