Finally, proof there is no God.

[///ajd]

JustAnotherLogin said:

Interesting.
I too consider myself an agnostic, but over the last decade the only attempts I have seen at conversion are:
- One visit from the JWs
- Countless browbeating from atheists on various forums.

I realise that some religionists are posting on this thread why they have their faith, but the thread was started in the name of atheism, and the most strident posters have IMHO been atheists. If religionists are to leave us alone, so should the more militant atheists.

The discussion just started around whether finding a scientific explanation of the origins of life would have theological implications. Asking wuestions is OK, not intended to be 'strident', though I take the point.

There is a growing frustration however with the level of death and suffering that continues in the name of religion today. The bombings in Pakistan and religiously motivated rape in India are two examples from last week alone.

There is an argument to say that religion is 'not leaving people alone', and protesting against it negative influences is not only OK, but morally obligatory. Evil thrives when good men do nothing. Etc.

[///ajd]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

It almost seems as though you think the "majority of religious PHers favour doing good to benefit themselves and others in this life" is a trait that you would not expect in the non-religious, or at least less prevalent.

In other words the suggestion is being religious makes it more likely that someone would "favour doing good to benefit themselves and others".

This appears to be a variation on the idea that religion is somehow needed to make you moral and a good person.

Such an idea is total nonsense, and an offensive slight to those who are not religious. It is no different to various offensive racist stereotypes.

I suspect this prejudice was installed at an early stage when you were being fitted with the red jumper; indeed this maybe a reason you feel proud to wear and talk about your red jumper - it makes you feel a better person than those without a jumper who are not in the shop.

[///ajd]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

VK - it was you that brought the poll up. If I jumped to the wrong conclusions, you can set the record straight with the following:

What was the point of the poll?

What were you trying to establish?

Would you expect a difference between the answers for religious and non-religious people?

Did you really expect anyone to answer the poll in anything other than a positive sense?

[///ajd]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

If I was fearful of your views, why would I ask you to express them? A bit of a logic fail there.

Look, I'm not interested in an argument, more a debate and understanding the reason for your views, even though I don't share them. I'm trying to understand your perspective.

If you can answer the questions above, you may dispel the view that you have currently created on here, that you feel religion itself makes you a better person, more likely to do good.

[///ajd]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Is this you confirming your belief that you think religion can make you a better person?

Can you explain in what way you think religion makes you a better person?

PS it isn't a corollary.

[///ajd]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I am discussing it.

In asking you the question we are discussing it.

It does of course bring some people comfort.

It may make some people better people, but this then begs the question - did they need religion to be better? Why did they need religion to do that? What was stopping them bettering themselves of their own free will?

[///ajd]

Deflect, avoid, etc.

Its like trying to discuss the glaring holes in the White (bog) Paper with a Scot Nationalist.

VK, if you don't want to explore the ideas and motivations, no one is forcing you.

The truth is you don't need religion to be good. Humans are inherently good (apart from the few bad ones).

It is true that humans in groups can achieve good things too (more than the sum of the parts), there is something in that, I'll grant you. But there is also a risk, as can been seen when groups chant about smiting the necks of infidels.

What did you mean earlier about believing in Jesus but not God? How does that work? Correct me if I'm putting the wrong words in your mouth, but that is how I read your post.

[///ajd]

ash73 said:

///ajd said:

Humans are inherently good (apart from the few bad ones).

Surprised you would say that tbh, I thought you would be an advocate of the selfish gene theory.

I am, to an extent, but the title of that book is somewhat misleading, by Dawkins own admission.

It also explores the inherent altruistic qualities of organisms too - which was my point that certainly applies to humans.

Edited by ///ajd on Wednesday 18th March 05:19

[///ajd]

mcdjl said:

So in short, we're fairly sure this new theory hasn't proved anything about god(s)?

It has proved (again) you can't sway or persuade some even with reasonably hard facts.

This is obviously not news, but it is still very interesting to observe what some may consider irrational denial from real people.

For me the subject has renewed interest following Hebdo and its implications for all religions.

[///ajd]

Troubleatmill said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Jinx said:

supertouring said:

But what about the stoning of gays or the burning in hell of those that dont follow the same beleifs.
As with most religionists, you pick and choose the nice bits and convenient ly ignore the bad.

The old testament is the "history" of the covenant between God and his chosen people (the Israelites) . The new testament is the "new" covenant between God and all people. Hell is not promised to unbelievers in the new covenant - nor is the stoning of those that have a sexual preference for their own sex.
What part is picking and choosing?

The bit where Jesus says in the NT, on several occasions and in a few different ways, that he is not in the business of overwriting the OT, and that the OT still stands as the word of god. That bit.

And racist Jesus - treating some poor woman worse than dirt. That bit too.
And racist Jesus saying that if you insult your mother and father - then you should be put to death. Then he goes on to slag his mother off.
etc etc

I'm waiting for someone of faith to defend racist Jesus. Or indeed his thoughts on being killed if you disagree with Mum and Dad.
Is there anyone whose faith is so strong.. that they can defend these actions.

So far... No takers.

Its amazing isn't it.

Do you think they read posts like those above, jam their fingers in their ears and sing "la la la" before pretending they never read it?

They clearly don't identify the statements with anything related to 'their' religion.

[///ajd]

ash73 said:

IainT said:

///ajd said:

ash73 said:

///ajd said:

Humans are inherently good (apart from the few bad ones).

Surprised you would say that tbh, I thought you would be an advocate of the selfish gene theory.

I am, to an extent, but the title of that book is somewhat misleading, by Dawkins own admission.

It also explores the inherent altruistic qualities of organisms too - which was my point that certainly applies to humans.

Indeed - sometimes altruism is the ultimate selfishness.

Yes, but what does it mean to say humans are inherently good? By what measure? Man's own measure of goodness; i.e. civility? It's a bit circular. Or does an atheist still believe in absolutes?

(One) biological explanation is summarised here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene#Altr...

That is not to say this is the only or right explanation, and it may be refined / changed by future science, but it seems likely this is on the right lines.

I think this is a fairly logical and simple explanation for humans inherent altruism, no? Does this not make sense to you, or seem plausible? If not, why not?

[///ajd]

Jinx said:

I used Christian as a "religion" to cover all "Jesus is the Messiah" based religions - sophistry will not add to this discussion.
Jesus said He was the Son of God. The holy trinity, much as western Catholicism holds dear to the concept, is a theoretical concept to explain Jesus "divinity" and not necessary for the Christian faith as a whole.
Your assertion of lots of Christ's with a couple merged together to form the theodicy of Constantine's holy empire has as much evidence for it as for a single Jesus - and as with all history is in the eye of the historian.
I assert that there is a fundamental difference between the OT and the NT - which whilst NT Jesus was careful not to be killed for heresy before He could spread his message (by being careful with his wording) the OT covenant was fulfilled and only the NT covenant applies (if you wish to live forever etc. )
All faith is individual - it doesn't become a problem until someone turns it into a religion.

Is there really a difference between faith and religion? I'm not sure I follow there is a distinction.

If you have faith that Jesus was real and the son of God etc., then you have (whether you want to admit it or not) signed up to a religion.

Why is the distinction important to you?

[///ajd]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Not sure I follow.

"A religion," writes Durkheim, "is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden—beliefs and practices which unite into a single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them."

If you have faith in certain beliefs - and those beliefs align with a certain religion - how are you not implicitly 'involved' in that religion?

[///ajd]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I don't see where he particularly draws a distinction between a set of beliefs (which I perhaps incorrectly equate to faith) and religion.

[///ajd]

Are you able to clarify VK?

[///ajd]

Burwood. Yes, just.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/str...

Libby Towell, a spokeswoman for the Christian Legal Centre, who represented Overd, said: “The judge is effectively censoring the Bible and saying that certain verses aren't fit for public consumption.”

Whilst the judegment does seem over the top, she fails to realise the judge has a rather valid point - bits of the bible that promote bigotry are unfit for public consumption - especially by kids in schools.

[///ajd]

Uh oh. More 'proof'.

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjo...