Atheism thread

[Watt-Zeefuik]

10 hours ago, Smithee said:

Sorry if you find it tiresome, but no one's making you read or post. 

I'm not blaming islam for anything and I'm not crediting islam with anything. I'm not dodging and weaving, I'm sticking to the topic of the thread - this is a thread about atheism, not whether muslims are good guys or not. In reality you're the one ducking and diving, trying to make the conversation about anything other then the uncomfortable truth.

 

You can say atheists miss the point, but the truth is that atheists stick to the point and don't get distracted by whatever you think you're proving.

 

So the thread is about atheism, but as we've repeatedly agreed, atheism is (roughly speaking) about "not being religious." And most of the content posted by atheists has been poking fun at or critiquing religion. I'm also quite happy to get into debating the modernist humanism that most contemporary Western atheists (in my experience) subscribe to but that's not what has been put forward.

 

9 hours ago, Ray Gin said:

Going back to the point above from our American friend:

 

The meme that I posted (I didn't make it) features comments from Islamic religious scholars making ridiculous claims based on some interpretation of what they read in the Quran. The Professor posted as a counter example is hardly comparable. She is not a religious scholar and the research she is doing is hardly a result of what she has read in the Quran. She is contributing despite her religion, not because of it. Unless of course you can find me some quotes in the Quran that encourage women to research microbiology. Admittedly I haven't read it.

 

I note she actually moved to a secular country to carry out her studies.

 

In what ways is England a more secular country than Malaysia? Malaysia constitutionally guarantees freedom of religion, while England has an official state religion with the Queen as the head of the church and positions of political power given to Anglican clergy.

6 hours ago, Ray Gin said:

 

Are they indeed? Which passages in the Quran in particular are they taking this inspiration for scientific research from? I'd be interested in reading them.

 

If it does indeed encourage such a thing then it's got one-up over Christianity.

 

 

You mean the Christianity that based on the principles of the religions founded monastic schools all over its territory that evolved into universities, the greatest contemporary engine for advancing science? The Christianity that founded the vast majority of the UK's most prominent universities and a fair few of the US's? The Christianity that inspired and paid for an Augustinian priest to go out in his garden and fuss around with pea plants and found modern genetics out of it?

 

I can't speak as directly to Islam, but I have a friend and colleague in my program who is a devout Shia Muslim who wears the hijab and also identifies as feminist, and she's doing really great research about new towns and slum upgrading in the Arabic world. And I happen to know that she sees her religious practice as very much of a piece with her scholarship.

 

It's complicated but the very easy answer to why is that Islam, like Reformed Christianity, puts an enormous emphasis on literacy, scholarly study of texts, criticism, and generation of knowledge from that study. It turns out that if you develop those skills, it helps you be pretty good at a lot of other things too.

 

Isaac Newton had an absolute obsession in his scholarship that he devoted more time to than anything else -- studying Solomon's original temple and determining its exact dimensions and architecture. He did calculus and physics on the side. (yes, I'm absolutely serious.)

[Ray Gin]

15 minutes ago, Ugly American said:

 

So the thread is about atheism, but as we've repeatedly agreed, atheism is (roughly speaking) about "not being religious." And most of the content posted by atheists has been poking fun at or critiquing religion. I'm also quite happy to get into debating the modernist humanism that most contemporary Western atheists (in my experience) subscribe to but that's not what has been put forward.

 

 

In what ways is England a more secular country than Malaysia? Malaysia constitutionally guarantees freedom of religion, while England has an official state religion with the Queen as the head of the church and positions of political power given to Anglican clergy.

 

You mean the Christianity that based on the principles of the religions founded monastic schools all over its territory that evolved into universities, the greatest contemporary engine for advancing science? The Christianity that founded the vast majority of the UK's most prominent universities and a fair few of the US's? The Christianity that inspired and paid for an Augustinian priest to go out in his garden and fuss around with pea plants and found modern genetics out of it?

 

I can't speak as directly to Islam, but I have a friend and colleague in my program who is a devout Shia Muslim who wears the hijab and also identifies as feminist, and she's doing really great research about new towns and slum upgrading in the Arabic world. And I happen to know that she sees her religious practice as very much of a piece with her scholarship.

 

It's complicated but the very easy answer to why is that Islam, like Reformed Christianity, puts an enormous emphasis on literacy, scholarly study of texts, criticism, and generation of knowledge from that study. It turns out that if you develop those skills, it helps you be pretty good at a lot of other things too.

 

Isaac Newton had an absolute obsession in his scholarship that he devoted more time to than anything else -- studying Solomon's original temple and determining its exact dimensions and architecture. He did calculus and physics on the side. (yes, I'm absolutely serious.)

 

I mean the Christianity that arrested and imprisoned Galileo for the "heresy" of discovering that the earth wasn't at the centre of the Universe and in fact rotated around the sun. 

[Ulysses]

15 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

I mean the Christianity that arrested and imprisoned Galileo for the "heresy" of discovering that the earth wasn't at the centre of the Universe and in fact rotated around the sun. 

 

But why do we let the believers dominate the agenda?

 

It's their fantasy.  Let them get on with it.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

10 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

I mean the Christianity that arrested and imprisoned Galileo for the "heresy" of discovering that the earth wasn't at the centre of the Universe and in fact rotated around the sun. 

 

I never said it was an uncomplicated history, but it bears mentioning that Galileo was imprisoned mostly because he got so annoyed about arguing with the Pope's toadies that he wrote a vicious satire that portrayed very thinly veiled caricatures of them as a bunch of dunces.

 

And yes, it's the same Christianity that at the time of the Scopes Trial motivated William Jennings Bryant to try to forbid the teaching of evolution in schools, interestingly for a completely different (and in my mind more forgivable) theological reason than that currently offered by creationists.

 

Also the same Christianity that Darwin was ready to enter as a priest before he got the journey on the Beagle and the same Christianity that supported Aquinas' and Kepler's astronomies.

 

Complicated.

[Norm]

I've tried to stay away from this thread and haven't bothered reading it but I'm bored and there's nothing else in the shed that appeals to me. 

 

Is this basically a circle jerk for atheists to say how much smarter we are than theists and how dumb they must be,  and why they're the bane of human civilization? Basically, is this just a god squad bashing thread? 

[LesJambes]

52 minutes ago, Normthebarman said:

I've tried to stay away from this thread and haven't bothered reading it but I'm bored and there's nothing else in the shed that appeals to me. 

 

Is this basically a circle jerk for atheists to say how much smarter we are than theists and how dumb they must be,  and why they're the bane of human civilization? Basically, is this just a god squad bashing thread? 

Pretty much, probably best if you just skip this one.

[ADAM]

10 hours ago, XB52 said:

I get a hatred of the things that have been carried out in the name of religion but don't get the seeming hatred or at least ridicule of those who are religious. I am a Christian and that is my belief. I have many friends who are agnostic atheist/Christians/Muslims and I know quite a few of the same who are nuggets. I don't preach to anyone about faith and I don't expect to be preached to about sky fairies. 

You as an individual might not 'preach' but the Christian Church does - big time. 

Below is a post I submitted earlier in this thread listing some of the privileges and influence the church has in the UK.

When we have a secular society I'll stop challenging religion.

 

Post:

"For literally centuries religion has exerted a control over society and demended an unquestioning deference to it's views and  theology.

 

That deference and influence still exists today in the UK due to religion being granted huge legal privileges across many areas of society (see examples of privileges below).

 

Fortunately these privileges/influences are now being vigoriously challenged by various non-religious, secularists and democratic groups/individuals and that's what the religious are reacting against.

 

It's the religoius that are 'militants', demanding privileges and legal rights to influence society.

 

List of examples of religoius privilege:

Enforced religious observance in all state schools.

Access of evangelical religious groups in state schools like Scripture Union (see their website for real dogma!).

An official state religion (Church of England) with the unelected Head of State as its leader.

26 unelected Bishops in the House of Lords.

Unelected, with full voting rights, 3 religious representatives on all Scottish local authority education committees.

Enforced prayer at the start of Local Council meetings and at Westminster.

Religious exemptions from UK equality laws.

The refusal of the state to recognise the non-religious (such as the Humanist Society in England) at certain state events e.g. Remembrance Day at the Cenotaph or to conduct marriages.

The ongoing battle in Skye with the religious on the local authority refusing to open the council run sports centre on Sundays despite strong local support to do so.

 

The list of religous privilege allowing them to enforce their views and influence on all sectors of society goes on and on."

 

[XB52]

11 hours ago, Normthebarman said:

I've tried to stay away from this thread and haven't bothered reading it but I'm bored and there's nothing else in the shed that appeals to me. 

 

Is this basically a circle jerk for atheists to say how much smarter we are than theists and how dumb they must be,  and why they're the bane of human civilization? Basically, is this just a god squad bashing thread? 

Yes, let's all laugh at Christians

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

I've never laughed at a Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc. 

 

I have sympathy they are that weak that they need an emotional crutch, though. 

Edited March 20, 2018 by Joey J J Jr Shabadoo

[Norm]

1 minute ago, Joey J J Jr Shabadoo said:

I've never laughed at a Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc. 

 

I have sympathy they are that week that they need an emotional crutch, though. 

I don't know a single person who doesn't have an emotional crutch, whether it be drink, drugs, gym, religion or football. Hell, some even use all 5 of them. 

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

1 minute ago, Normthebarman said:

I don't know a single person who doesn't have an emotional crutch, whether it be drink, drugs, gym, religion or football. Hell, some even use all 5 of them. 

I know plenty of people that have no need for an emotional crutch. Plenty of them enjoy alcohol, etc too. 

[Unknown user]

12 hours ago, Normthebarman said:

I've tried to stay away from this thread and haven't bothered reading it but I'm bored and there's nothing else in the shed that appeals to me. 

 

Is this basically a circle jerk for atheists to say how much smarter we are than theists and how dumb they must be,  and why they're the bane of human civilization? Basically, is this just a god squad bashing thread? 

Well thanks for coming on and letting us know how much smarter than that you are

[Norm]

2 minutes ago, Smithee said:

Well thanks for coming on and letting us know how much smarter than that you are

Heh! I just don't see why we have to bash religious folk while discussing it. I've never had a religious person mock me for my atheism. They're always quite happy for me to have my beliefs and they theirs. 

[Norm]

54 minutes ago, Joey J J Jr Shabadoo said:

I know plenty of people that have no need for an emotional crutch. Plenty of them enjoy alcohol, etc too. 

They've never, after a particularly shitty day/week or having had some bad news, went "**** this, I'm off to the pub/gym/going to get wasted."? 

[Unknown user]

17 minutes ago, Normthebarman said:

Heh! I just don't see why we have to bash religious folk while discussing it. I've never had a religious person mock me for my atheism. They're always quite happy for me to have my beliefs and they theirs. 

Although people are getting defensive (understandable I suppose when their faith system is being attacked) there isn't much mocking of the religious as far as I can see. There's plenty of getting ripped into religions, but that's quite another story altogether of course, and par for the course in an atheism thread. 

 

FWIW there's people attacking atheism on this thread too, not to mention a whole "homosexuality is sin" spiel, which was probably the most offensive thing on here so far IMO, but there you go, that's debating sensitive subjects for you!

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

25 minutes ago, Normthebarman said:

They've never, after a particularly shitty day/week or having had some bad news, went "**** this, I'm off to the pub/gym/going to get wasted."? 

No. Not everyone. 

[Norm]

10 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

 

FWIW there's people attacking atheism on this thread too, not to mention a whole "homosexuality is sin" spiel, which was probably the most offensive thing on here so far IMO, but there you go, that's debating sensitive subjects for you!

Oooft. Yeah, that kind of stuff doesn't help them although in fairness, I've met a fair few homophobic atheists too 

[Norm]

12 minutes ago, Joey J J Jr Shabadoo said:

No. Not everyone. 

That's an impressive act of self control. I'd be inclined to believe that people who don't have an emotional crutch are pretty much in the minority though. The world can be a shitty place. I'm not going to begrudge someone something that helps them get through it, as long as that doesn't involve screwing others over. 

Edited March 20, 2018 by Normthebarman

[Norm]

12 hours ago, ADAM said:

You as an individual might not 'preach' but the Christian Church does - big time. 

Below is a post I submitted earlier in this thread listing some of the privileges and influence the church has in the UK.

When we have a secular society I'll stop challenging religion.

 

Post:

"For literally centuries religion has exerted a control over society and demended an unquestioning deference to it's views and  theology.

 

That deference and influence still exists today in the UK due to religion being granted huge legal privileges across many areas of society (see examples of privileges below).

 

Fortunately these privileges/influences are now being vigoriously challenged by various non-religious, secularists and democratic groups/individuals and that's what the religious are reacting against.

 

It's the religoius that are 'militants', demanding privileges and legal rights to influence society.

 

List of examples of religoius privilege:

Enforced religious observance in all state schools.

Access of evangelical religious groups in state schools like Scripture Union (see their website for real dogma!).

An official state religion (Church of England) with the unelected Head of State as its leader.

26 unelected Bishops in the House of Lords.

Unelected, with full voting rights, 3 religious representatives on all Scottish local authority education committees.

Enforced prayer at the start of Local Council meetings and at Westminster.

Religious exemptions from UK equality laws.

The refusal of the state to recognise the non-religious (such as the Humanist Society in England) at certain state events e.g. Remembrance Day at the Cenotaph or to conduct marriages.

The ongoing battle in Skye with the religious on the local authority refusing to open the council run sports centre on Sundays despite strong local support to do so.

 

The list of religous privilege allowing them to enforce their views and influence on all sectors of society goes on and on."

 

I agree religious institutions should be kept separate from the state. If religious leaders want to be involved in politics, they should put themselves up for election. 

[Ray Gin]

They should pay taxes too.

 

 

 

[Unknown user]

6 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

They should pay taxes too

Absolutely they should, it's farcical that they don't in the 21st century.

The Christian church today likes to portray itself as a victim, when in truth it's a relic of an age long gone, desperately trying to hold on to it's ill deserved privilege and position.

 

Digressing a bit but I was thinking about an earlier post - isn't it ironic that religion IS a choice while homosexuality isn't, yet group A is largely all over group B for their sinful "choice"!

[LesJambes]

4 hours ago, Smithee said:

Well thanks for coming on and letting us know how much smarter than that you are

Humanitarian of the year award?  ? Or since we're in 2018, just give him the decade?

 

4 hours ago, Normthebarman said:

Heh! I just don't see why we have to bash religious folk while discussing it. I've never had a religious person mock me for my atheism. They're always quite happy for me to have my beliefs and they theirs. 

So your personal experience should dictate how everyone else behaves? Lolno. Atheists are routinely murdered in many theocratic countries, and you're worried about feewings?  As I said this is probably not the thread for you.

[Unknown user]

1 hour ago, LesJambes said:

Humanitarian of the year award?  ? Or since we're in 2018, just give him the decade?

 

So your personal experience should dictate how everyone else behaves? Lolno. Atheists are routinely murdered in many theocratic countries, and you're worried about feewings?  As I said this is probably not the thread for you.

Opinion noted, not really for you to say though is it?

[LesJambes]

3 minutes ago, Smithee said:

Opinion noted, not really for you to say though is it?

That wasn't aimed at you, if you thought that. And I only said that because the guy said in the first post that he didn't want any part of this if it disrespected religions, to paraphrase. If he doesn't like people mocking religion, he probably won't enjoy this thread because that has been part of it. I'm not saying it's up to me, just advising it may not suit his sensibilities if that's the case.

[ADAM]

7 hours ago, XB52 said:

Yes, let's all laugh at Christians

It's not about laughing at individual Christians, it's about challenging the actual beliefs.

No ideology, belief system or philosophy should be above criticism, including being mocked or satirised.

Why should religion be exempt?

[LesJambes]

11 minutes ago, ADAM said:

It's not about laughing at individual Christians, it's about challenging the actual beliefs.

No ideology, belief system or philosophy should be above criticism, including being mocked or satirised.

Why should religion be exempt?

Agree with this 100%. The irony is theists reserve the right to say atheists are satan worshippers, doomed to hell, immoral etc. Not to mention the things they say about other religions. This idea that we should 'respect religion' often seems to be applied inconsistently.

[John Findlay]

On Sunday, March 11, 2018 at 00:11, Ray Gin said:

 

But who they are praying to doesn't.

 

There's nothing there to hear their prayers. There are, however, many people would can read posts on a forum.

In your belief they don't. In their belief they do. No one can say who is in the right here. It's a peroyal thing to someone to believe or not. I personally don't not believe but, I won't mock those that do. It's mine and their choice.

[Ray Gin]

15 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

In your belief they don't. In their belief they do. No one can say who is in the right here. It's a peroyal thing to someone to believe or not. I personally don't not believe but, I won't mock those that do. It's mine and their choice.

 

Would you mock one of your grown adult mates if you were in the pub and they suddenly introduced you to their imaginary friend? In your belief their imaginary friend doesn't exist, in their belief they do. 

 

 

 

[John Findlay]

1 minute ago, Ray Gin said:

 

Would you mock one of your grown adult mates if you were in the pub and they suddenly introduced you to their imaginary friend? In your belief their imaginary friend doesn't exist, in their belief they do. 

 

 

 

No.

[Ray Gin]

Just now, John Findlay said:

No.

 

You'd either mock them or urge them to seek psychiatric help, be honest.

 

[John Findlay]

4 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

You'd either mock them or urge them to seek psychiatric help, be honest.

 

I was being honest.

[Ray Gin]

1 minute ago, John Findlay said:

I was being honest.

 

So how are you claiming you'd react? You'd just be "oh hello <insert name of imaginary friend> hows it going" and play along like it was the most normal thing in the world?

 

You'd think, "ah well the friend might really be there, we can't know if he is or he isn't'?

Edited March 20, 2018 by Ray Gin

[John Findlay]

2 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

So how are you claiming you'd react? You'd just be "oh hello <insert name of imaginary friend> hows it going" and play along like it was the most normal thing in the world?

 

You'd think, "ah well the friend might really be there, we can't know if he is or he isn't'?

I would play along. In the same way you do when a child does the samething. It's not difficult.

[Ray Gin]

3 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

I would play along. In the same way you do when a child does the samething. It's not difficult.

 

So you would 

 

And you wouldn't be at all concerned about their mental well-being? You'd think that the imaginary friend could be there, no one can say for certain any different?

 

Edited March 20, 2018 by Ray Gin

[Unknown user]

1 hour ago, LesJambes said:

That wasn't aimed at you, if you thought that. And I only said that because the guy said in the first post that he didn't want any part of this if it disrespected religions, to paraphrase. If he doesn't like people mocking religion, he probably won't enjoy this thread because that has been part of it. I'm not saying it's up to me, just advising it may not suit his sensibilities if that's the case.

I know it wasn't for me, I should have kept out really, I just don't really like that patter myself. But yeah, as I say, not for me to say either

[Norm]

Just back from a mates house after a few beers etc. To use a religious comparison, he's a devout atheist whilst I'm more moderate. Basically, he's anti-religion whilst I'm more let them do what they want. 

 

We were talking about this and we both agreed that whilst it's not required in the modern day, religion was probably a necessity at the beginning of man kind. That humans as a species needed a belief in some kind of higher power at the beginning of our journey. 

 

I'll leave that one there and go sleep before the hangover kicks in. 

[Sidelight]

 

[Ray Gin]

James Tour, The chemist who doesn't understand evolution

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

I see no benefit to mankind from religion. The god squad can make as many spurious claims they want. 

[Sidelight]

1 minute ago, Ray Gin said:

James Tour, The chemist who doesn't understand evolution

From a scientific and technical perspective I have no idea how life on earth originated.

I would be very pleased if you could explain the mechanisms and origins of the information required to make life a reality.

[Sidelight]

2 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

James Tour, The chemist who doesn't understand evolution

Who does?

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

2 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

James Tour, The chemist who doesn't understand evolution

An excellent post. Easy to see how he was hoodwinked by his priest/reverend/imam/rabbi or some other pervert. 

[Sidelight]

3 minutes ago, Joey J J Jr Shabadoo said:

An excellent post. Easy to see how he was hoodwinked by his priest/reverend/imam/rabbi or some other pervert. 

From a scientific and technical perspective I have no idea how life on earth originated.

I would be very pleased if you could explain the mechanisms and origins of the information required to make life a reality.

[Ray Gin]

6 minutes ago, alfajambo said:

From a scientific and technical perspective I have no idea how life on earth originated.

I would be very pleased if you could explain the mechanisms and origins of the information required to make life a reality.

 

We're still working on that.

 

We do however know that life evolved.

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

2 minutes ago, alfajambo said:

From a scientific and technical perspective I have no idea how life on earth originated.

I would be very pleased if you could explain the mechanisms and origins of the information required to make life a reality.

As has already been pointed, evolution has lead us to a point where scientists are trying to mimic this. 

 

However, I know there is no god, so I can rule that nonsense out. 

[Sidelight]

12 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

We're still working on that.

 

We do however know that life evolved.

Are you talking about adaption or the notion of Darwinian Evolution?

[Ray Gin]

Both.

[Sidelight]

11 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

Both.

That’s good. Now please explain to me the mechanism for change. For the latter.

The model of chemistry for changes?

Edited March 21, 2018 by alfajambo

[Ray Gin]

Are you denying that species have random mutations?

[deesidejambo]

34 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

 

We do however know that life evolved.

How do you explain Neil Lennon then?