Respecting religion???
Discussion
SilverSixer said:
Your question, spurious and worthless though it was, was answered. Whether or not theists chuck their weight around on PH in particular is irrelevant to any real discussion on the subject. That they do, however, has been shown, whether you like it or not. That they throw their weight around in the real world is incontrovertible - the body count rises by the day, if not the hour.
So your question is ludicrous, but has at least been answered to the best possible extent. Now cough up your answer.
But so may non-theists on here are moaning and hand-wringing at supposed everyday religious people telling them what to do and how to live their lives, directing insult and sSo your question is ludicrous, but has at least been answered to the best possible extent. Now cough up your answer.
t at well-meaning religious people who mean no harm to them, and the end result is that the non-theist acting in this way is actually the problem not the average theist. Yes I bloody well know that some theists are carrying out seriously evil acts and it would be ideal if we talked about that, but it's quite clear that it doesn't seem very high on the list of points to discuss amongst some particularly negative people who seem to get a kick from being ttty for the sake of it.Einion Yrth said:
Blue Cat said:
Einion Yrth said:
Blue Cat said:
Actually I will call you on this because you have Albert Einstein on it and he was not an atheist, he wrote many times about the link between Religion & Science
A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." and I think that I made that point earlier in this thread and was jumped on for it, saying I was stupid!
On 22 March 1954 Einstein received a letter from Joseph Dispentiere, an Italian immigrant who had worked as an experimental machinist in New Jersey. Dispentiere had declared himself an atheist and was disappointed by a news report which had cast Einstein as conventionally religious. Einstein replied on 24 March 1954:A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." and I think that I made that point earlier in this thread and was jumped on for it, saying I was stupid!
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
Einstein said:
I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
Looks pretty close to atheism to me. Deism at worst."In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."
So in his own words, he requested that he wasn't used as an example of an Atheist
Edited by Blue Cat on Thursday 22 January 14:39
plasticpig said:
That graph is bks. Plenty of technological advancements were mad in the "dark ages". Historians don't actually use the term much anymore because it's so inaccurate.
You are missing the obvious sir. Why the hell would that fact get in the way of a good, old fashioned PH bust up! Most on here don't know what a fact is!ks. Plenty of technological advancements were mad in the "dark ages". Historians don't actually use the term much anymore because it's so inaccurate.Blue Cat said:
And let me quote back at you, he also clarified when asked about this
"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."
So in his own words, he requested that he wasn't used as an example of an Atheist
I'd probably prefer not to be used as an example of an atheist, although I don't believe in any god or gods. You however clearly stated that he was not an atheist; perhaps not but he certainly was not a theist, as I said, a deist at worst."In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."
So in his own words, he requested that he wasn't used as an example of an Atheist
Einion Yrth said:
Blue Cat said:
And let me quote back at you, he also clarified when asked about this
"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."
So in his own words, he requested that he wasn't used as an example of an Atheist
I'd probably prefer not to be used as an example of an atheist, although I don't believe in any god or gods. You however clearly stated that he was not an atheist; perhaps not but he certainly was not a theist, as I said, a deist at worst."In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."
So in his own words, he requested that he wasn't used as an example of an Atheist
The point is that it has been said many times on this thread that anyone who has a belief is feeble minded, stupid and uneducated.
I don't believe atheists are stupid, they just see the world in a different way and I respect that, but it is clear that respect doesn't run both ways and some on here appear to have some inner need to insult people who say they have a faith. Does it make them more superior?
Does being nasty about other people's beliefs and faiths make you a better person?
Edited by Blue Cat on Thursday 22 January 15:03
The problem with most religions is that they contain obvious lies. And once someone is willing to believe an obvious lie they will believe almost anything.
Fact is, there are some things that human beings don't understand. But simply making stuff up to full in the gaps is rubbish. The supernatural aspects are pure tosh.
Where religion does have relevance is as a human moral code. In other words, the bit which we can all (or most of us) simply agree upon without the need for magic spirits writing books. If an all-powerful god was writing books 2,000 years ago you'd think he'd have got himself an iPhone by now and sent us all a text message!
Beyond these points it's all just tribal nonsense. Does god really care what sort of hat you wear?
Fact is, there are some things that human beings don't understand. But simply making stuff up to full in the gaps is rubbish. The supernatural aspects are pure tosh.
Where religion does have relevance is as a human moral code. In other words, the bit which we can all (or most of us) simply agree upon without the need for magic spirits writing books. If an all-powerful god was writing books 2,000 years ago you'd think he'd have got himself an iPhone by now and sent us all a text message!
Beyond these points it's all just tribal nonsense. Does god really care what sort of hat you wear?
Blue Cat said:
Does being nasty about other people's beliefs and faiths make you a better person?
No. Neither does claiming special dispensation for having what many consider to be absurd ideas though. You have every right to believe in anything you like and I have every right to believe it's irrational nonsense and if you bring it up I have every right to tell you so.anonymous said:
[redacted]
You really do have an ego problem over this, don't you?I understand that a person's faith is often a core part of their self-identity, and to be told it is nonsense can be upsetting. However, there are several threads on this site alone already discussing the seriously evil acts carried out by some theists.
The purpose of this thread is to discuss whether religions and the religious are worthy of respect or not. It is a fact that most major Western religions are intolerant as part of the tenets of the religion. If people choose to ignore those tenets, it is likely because they are tolerant and understanding people who would have been good to others even if they had not been subjected to religion at an early age.
The problem with the average theist, is that despite their almost complete lack of following the tenets of their chosen religion, the fact they identify as religious gives legitimacy to the religion itself. If no one claimed to be Christian, or claimed to be Muslim, then the religions themselves would have less power. Instead, this legitimacy is used by others to lend support to their acts, even if those acts would not be supported by the 'average' theist.
I gave you an answer on the intolerance, and you still refuse to respond to any of the questions or points I have asked you, or to Winston's question. Instead you continue to throw insults and deflect.
Claudia Skies said:
The problem with most religions is that they contain obvious lies. And once someone is willing to believe an obvious lie they will believe almost anything.
Fact is, there are some things that human beings don't understand. But simply making stuff up to full in the gaps is rubbish. The supernatural aspects are pure tosh.
Where religion does have relevance is as a human moral code. In other words, the bit which we can all (or most of us) simply agree upon without the need for magic spirits writing books. If an all-powerful god was writing books 2,000 years ago you'd think he'd have got himself an iPhone by now and sent us all a text message!
Beyond these points it's all just tribal nonsense. Does god really care what sort of hat you wear?
Tribal nonsense goes far beyond religion, humans seem to feel a great desire to "belong" or "be part of"Fact is, there are some things that human beings don't understand. But simply making stuff up to full in the gaps is rubbish. The supernatural aspects are pure tosh.
Where religion does have relevance is as a human moral code. In other words, the bit which we can all (or most of us) simply agree upon without the need for magic spirits writing books. If an all-powerful god was writing books 2,000 years ago you'd think he'd have got himself an iPhone by now and sent us all a text message!
Beyond these points it's all just tribal nonsense. Does god really care what sort of hat you wear?
It goes from teenagers wanting the right trainers or Iphone right up to world conflicts over different ideology.
Blue Cat said:
I never claimed that he was a theist, I don't think that he was, however he could see how a God could fit within his science unlike people on here who claimed that it can't.
I called you on this earlier, but you seem to have missed my post.Einstein was clear that religion should not make claims to facts which fell under the sphere of science. He felt people who were arguing they were incompatible were missing the point that religion should cover thought and philosophy, and science should cover facts and reality. So they should not be incompatible as they covered different things.
Of course, he went on to point out that the claims in the Bible were stepping into the science realm and in that case should be considered to be wrong. Also advances in neuroscience since he made that statement have taken more of the realm of 'thought' into the sphere of science, leaving religion with very little left.
4
Einion Yrth said:
Blue Cat said:
Does being nasty about other people's beliefs and faiths make you a better person?
No. Neither does claiming special dispensation for having what many consider to be absurd ideas though. You have every right to believe in anything you like and I have every right to believe it's irrational nonsense and if you bring it up I have every right to tell you so.I am none of things, so yes you have every right to tell me that you think I am wrong and why you think I am wrong but the question was why do people feel the need to do it in such an deliberately insulting way.
Do you really think that is a good way to get people to see and consider a different point of view?
mattmurdock said:
Blue Cat said:
I never claimed that he was a theist, I don't think that he was, however he could see how a God could fit within his science unlike people on here who claimed that it can't.
I called you on this earlier, but you seem to have missed my post.Einstein was clear that religion should not make claims to facts which fell under the sphere of science. He felt people who were arguing they were incompatible were missing the point that religion should cover thought and philosophy, and science should cover facts and reality. So they should not be incompatible as they covered different things.
Of course, he went on to point out that the claims in the Bible were stepping into the science realm and in that case should be considered to be wrong. Also advances in neuroscience since he made that statement have taken more of the realm of 'thought' into the sphere of science, leaving religion with very little left.
I think Einstein sat more on the science side than the religion side but he didn't reject religion which was the point I was making.
I personally feel that people who make the outright statement that "there is no god" and we should look down on everyone who believes need to be challenged.
I have no problem with someone says "I don't believe in a god because I have no evidence and it does not fit in my world view, however I am prepared to say there is more to the world than we know and I am open minded enough to consider new possibilities."
It is the height of arrogance to believe that we know everything
Blue Cat said:
I am none of things, so yes you have every right to tell me that you think I am wrong and why you think I am wrong but the question was why do people feel the need to do it in such an deliberately insulting way.
No. The question was "should we respect religion"; all the rest has been getting off topic. The general position among many, or most, of the atheists who have posted is that we should respect peoples rights to believe anything they choose but that those beliefs themselves must be open to ridicule. If having your beliefs ridiculed offends you, then I'm sorry but as you are at liberty to ridicule anything that I may believe that right extends both ways.Blue Cat said:
Sorry there are about five different conversations going on here.
I think Einstein sat more on the science side than the religion side but he didn't reject religion which was the point I was making.
I personally feel that people who make the outright statement that "there is no god" and we should look down on everyone who believes need to be challenged.
I have no problem with someone says "I don't believe in a god because I have no evidence and it does not fit in my world view, however I am prepared to say there is more to the world than we know and I am open minded enough to consider new possibilities."
It is the height of arrogance to believe that we know everything
He didn't reject religion, but he did reject God and the Bible, as per my quote of his from an earlier post.I think Einstein sat more on the science side than the religion side but he didn't reject religion which was the point I was making.
I personally feel that people who make the outright statement that "there is no god" and we should look down on everyone who believes need to be challenged.
I have no problem with someone says "I don't believe in a god because I have no evidence and it does not fit in my world view, however I am prepared to say there is more to the world than we know and I am open minded enough to consider new possibilities."
It is the height of arrogance to believe that we know everything
I personally think it is the height of arrogance to believe that an all-powerful entity created the universe purely for us, and made us as his favored creatures, somehow more special than everything else.
I am always open minded to consider new possibilities, but that is clearly not what you meant by what you said, otherwise you would be open minded enough to consider that Odin is actually the correct God, or Vishnu, or Ra, or that the universe was birthed by a green spotted space sheep. Your open minded approach is anything but.
Do I think there is more for us to discover about the universe - yes I do.
Do I think that there could be some creator entity that kicked the universe into being - in all probability not, but I have no real evidence either way so I'm open to the possibility.
Do I think that everything we have discovered about the universe effectively rules out the existence of the personal, world interfering, bush burning God of the Bible - absolutely yes.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff