"There is no heaven; it's a fairy story"
Discussion
I have to say I often read this thread, go away, come back and read more.
I have tried to ponder out what my honest feelings are on this argument, as someone who was raised non-religous, became a 'true believer', lost it, became 'born again' then finally realised that they knew it was all nonsense all along and became an atheist.
So Atheists; I think I realise now that you have perhaps been treating mattnunn et al unfairly. In the same way that someone with a mental illness cannot be persuaded that 'they' aren't watching them, and should not be persecuted for believing so, you should not persecute true believers because they cling to theism as they cannot deal with the alternative:
"You mean, when I die that that is the end? I'm not going to meet mummy again? I'm not going to see Biffy again? (subject to which area of theism you believe, you may not meet 'Biffy' your dog anyway - see: "Protestantism and the free presbyterian - do animals go to heaven?") I'm not going to be me any more? You mean all this stuff I have collected - knowledge, memories, all that, will be gone? No. Sorry, that makes no sense! Impossible! Cannot be, sorry."
Despite the fact that people die every day, and every second of every day, it is hard to accept the World won't miss you when you're gone.
With a fundamental idea set which is so contradictory and illogical, there can only really be one reason why people cling to it so ferociously, and that is fear (I am not accounting for low-IQ here btw). I accept that powerful social conditioning can swamp ones true thoughts on a subject like this, but inevitably common sense prevails to those who genuinely want to know the answer. But, to those who just want reassurance from the unacceptable concept that they are merely an insignificant blip in the ether, there is no argument you can put forward they will accept.
For this reason, I do believe that I don't really want to see the theists being prodded by the atheist anymore (I know it's frustrating, Heretic, but what they believe doesn't hurt you or anyone else so why not let matt nun et al just go on feeling secure and happy?)
-R
PS I don't mean to be offensive to anyone here! Just trying to point out you will never end this thread amicably or in a satisfactory way!
I have tried to ponder out what my honest feelings are on this argument, as someone who was raised non-religous, became a 'true believer', lost it, became 'born again' then finally realised that they knew it was all nonsense all along and became an atheist.
So Atheists; I think I realise now that you have perhaps been treating mattnunn et al unfairly. In the same way that someone with a mental illness cannot be persuaded that 'they' aren't watching them, and should not be persecuted for believing so, you should not persecute true believers because they cling to theism as they cannot deal with the alternative:
"You mean, when I die that that is the end? I'm not going to meet mummy again? I'm not going to see Biffy again? (subject to which area of theism you believe, you may not meet 'Biffy' your dog anyway - see: "Protestantism and the free presbyterian - do animals go to heaven?") I'm not going to be me any more? You mean all this stuff I have collected - knowledge, memories, all that, will be gone? No. Sorry, that makes no sense! Impossible! Cannot be, sorry."
Despite the fact that people die every day, and every second of every day, it is hard to accept the World won't miss you when you're gone.
With a fundamental idea set which is so contradictory and illogical, there can only really be one reason why people cling to it so ferociously, and that is fear (I am not accounting for low-IQ here btw). I accept that powerful social conditioning can swamp ones true thoughts on a subject like this, but inevitably common sense prevails to those who genuinely want to know the answer. But, to those who just want reassurance from the unacceptable concept that they are merely an insignificant blip in the ether, there is no argument you can put forward they will accept.
For this reason, I do believe that I don't really want to see the theists being prodded by the atheist anymore (I know it's frustrating, Heretic, but what they believe doesn't hurt you or anyone else so why not let matt nun et al just go on feeling secure and happy?)
-R
PS I don't mean to be offensive to anyone here! Just trying to point out you will never end this thread amicably or in a satisfactory way!
carmonk said:
I'm more interested in the rabbits that chew their cud.
If the bible authors claim this, then they weren't too far off the mark. Rabbits do actually masticate their food twice, in order to break down the cellulose. The only difference between conventional cud-chewers and rabbits is that instead of regurgitating the cud the rabbit expels it from their arse and eats it again.Me, I want to know why god hates fig trees so much that Jesus forbade anyone from ever eating them. It couldn't possibly be in a fit of pique because he was hungry and the fig tree he spotted didn't happen to have any fruit on it, could it? Of course not. (Mark 11:12)
Gow3r said:
And on the last point, is that not a question of Faith?
This is what I absolutely don't get, having, it would seem, no facility whatsoever for faith.How, in the absence of compelling evidence, do you choose(?) what to have faith in?
Why the Bible rather than, say, the Mahabharata or any of many other sacred texts many of which have yarns far more ripping?
If they don't want to be prodded, then I would suggest avoiding this thread. As for religion being harmless, it depends what you are talking about I suppose. As I said earlier, Aunt Bessie going to her tea and biscuits social, with a bit of bingo in the mix, have at it. Utterly harmless. Genital mutilation, oppression of women, oppression of homosexuals, the forcing or religious doctrine upon others, irrational concepts in the science room, (by that I mean creationism/intelligent design, and not irrational numbers!). Religion affects people every day of their lives, be it in small quantities, or large, in the same way other irrationalities do, (although I have yet to hear of anyone kill because their notion of dowsing is different to someone else's, or that particular dilution of homeopathy is different to someone else's). It is pretty much the only irrationality that is given free reign to prejudice, oppress, and affect you, I and others who are in not so fortunate circumstances, without review.
Gaspode said:
carmonk said:
I'm more interested in the rabbits that chew their cud.
If the bible authors claim this, then they weren't too far off the mark. Rabbits do actually masticate their food twice, in order to break down the cellulose. The only difference between conventional cud-chewers and rabbits is that instead of regurgitating the cud the rabbit expels it from their arse and eats it again.
te because He failed to make(eth) them properly in the first place, and also He liketh them not," I would admit that's more honest.carmonk said:
Now if it had said "God commanded rabbits to eateth their own ste because He failed to make(eth) them properly in the first place, and also He liketh them not," I would admit that's more honest.
Which of course is one of the very many reasons why the Intelligent design theory is so full of holes.te because He failed to make(eth) them properly in the first place, and also He liketh them not," I would admit that's more honest.If biological mechanisms were the product of an intelligent designer, why are they so crap? Why is that rabbits have to eat their own poo? Why is it that manatees have such rubbish metabolism that they have to have an enormously thick layer of blubber, swim gently in warm shallow tropical seas, and eat constantly, just to stay alive? Who designed it so that human eyes stop being able to change their focus long before the owner of said eyes is ready to pop their clogs?
If the life that is on this planet is proof of god's handiwork, then why didn't he do a better job, FFS?
Have any of you guys read 'The Secret' which talks about the Law of Attraction? This to me explaines exactly how the world works, ie positive attracting positive and negative attracting negative and everybody being responsible for their own actions in life, ie the Law of Responsibility? I am not religious although there was a time years ago when I was but I had far too many questions in my head and things just didn't seem to add up to me. I believe that Jesus existed but I believe that he left behind a set of rules of common sense and if you follow them then by common sense and logic life will turn out fine and if you don't then you suffer the consequences by your own negative thinking and actions. I don't believe God controls anyone's life in any way (and there is certainly no Devil), but the belief in him can make a difference to people because the true believers tend to live positive lifes which by logic and common sense means they are going to have positive outcomes. I came across a book called 'Jesus Taught it Too' and it answers all the questions I ever asked myself. You can download it on a PDF online.
Gaspode said:
Which of course is one of the very many reasons why the Intelligent design theory is so full of holes.
If biological mechanisms were the product of an intelligent designer, why are they so crap? Why is that rabbits have to eat their own poo? Why is it that manatees have such rubbish metabolism that they have to have an enormously thick layer of blubber, swim gently in warm shallow tropical seas, and eat constantly, just to stay alive? Who designed it so that human eyes stop being able to change their focus long before the owner of said eyes is ready to pop their clogs?
If the life that is on this planet is proof of god's handiwork, then why didn't he do a better job, FFS?
Eyes are for some reason held up as the perfect creation 'thingy'. For various reasons they do not think it could have evolved, and therefore being created makes it perfect. There is a flaw in that thinking, however...If biological mechanisms were the product of an intelligent designer, why are they so crap? Why is that rabbits have to eat their own poo? Why is it that manatees have such rubbish metabolism that they have to have an enormously thick layer of blubber, swim gently in warm shallow tropical seas, and eat constantly, just to stay alive? Who designed it so that human eyes stop being able to change their focus long before the owner of said eyes is ready to pop their clogs?
If the life that is on this planet is proof of god's handiwork, then why didn't he do a better job, FFS?
The bacteria flagellum was an interesting angle by the ID brigade, however it got shot to shreds in the Dover trial in amusing circumstances.
Gaspode said:
carmonk said:
Now if it had said "God commanded rabbits to eateth their own ste because He failed to make(eth) them properly in the first place, and also He liketh them not," I would admit that's more honest.
Which of course is one of the very many reasons why the Intelligent design theory is so full of holes.te because He failed to make(eth) them properly in the first place, and also He liketh them not," I would admit that's more honest.If biological mechanisms were the product of an intelligent designer, why are they so crap? Why is that rabbits have to eat their own poo? Why is it that manatees have such rubbish metabolism that they have to have an enormously thick layer of blubber, swim gently in warm shallow tropical seas, and eat constantly, just to stay alive? Who designed it so that human eyes stop being able to change their focus long before the owner of said eyes is ready to pop their clogs?
If the life that is on this planet is proof of god's handiwork, then why didn't he do a better job, FFS?
Who created the creator? Sorry, it's utter nonsense. When you're dead, you're dead. The only afterlife, is if you've had children, and your genes have passed to the next generation. Incidentally, that is what I was told by our local vicar! The only time I've heard a religious person say anything sensible.
I was rather hoping there was a God, because I've got some rather searching questions for him. Like who did Kane & Abel breed with, or why did he do nothing when his "chosen people" were being murdered by the millions by the Nazis. He doesn't strike me as being a nice bloke anyway, but he was created by man, not the other way round.
I was rather hoping there was a God, because I've got some rather searching questions for him. Like who did Kane & Abel breed with, or why did he do nothing when his "chosen people" were being murdered by the millions by the Nazis. He doesn't strike me as being a nice bloke anyway, but he was created by man, not the other way round.
carmonk said:
CommanderJameson said:
Gow3r said:
And I dont need you to tell me to re-read the OT, as I believe the whole of the Bible is the word of God
Even the bits about not wearing mixed fibres and whether bats are birds?TheHeretic said:
Eyes are for some reason held up as the perfect creation 'thingy'. For various reasons they do not think it could have evolved, and therefore being created makes it perfect. There is a flaw in that thinking, however...
More telling is the way the individual nerves from the rods and cones point inwards into the eyeball where they bundle together into the optic nerve which then exits through the back of the eyeball. mattnunn said:
Theist = belief in God
Uhuh, so far so good...mattnunn said:
Atheist is the opposite, either belief in no god or disbelief in god, each is a belief. Have a look in a dictionary for the definition of the word, if you like.
Oops, and it was going so well.As an atheist I am not aware of any god or god-like supernatural entity I might reasonably believe in.
I am without god(s).
There is no active disbelief, just a complete absence of belief in any supernatural entities whatsoever.
fluffnik said:
mattnunn said:
Theist = belief in God
Uhuh, so far so good...mattnunn said:
Atheist is the opposite, either belief in no god or disbelief in god, each is a belief. Have a look in a dictionary for the definition of the word, if you like.
Oops, and it was going so well.As an atheist I am not aware of any god or god-like supernatural entity I might reasonably believe in.
I am without god(s).
There is no active disbelief, just a complete absence of belief in any supernatural entities whatsoever.
Gaspode said:
joe_90 said:
What channel is 'off' on a tv matt?
All the channels on my TV are off. What do you mean?Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff