10 Questions for Atheists / Angry Agnostics

[psyche101]

4 hours ago, Carlos Allende said:

Gentlemen. I'm not going to criticize anyone for being off-topic, because I'm an off-topicky kinda guy myself, but at the same time, I created this post purely to give atheists (and uppity agnostics) a chance to show empathy with religious people, to show they at least understand their predicament and thought-processes --a dynamic I think is traditionally extremely lacking is these discussions.

I don't think the thought processes are hard to determine. Religiosity is no big secret and many are quite outspoken in their views. Doesn't leave all that much guesswork. 

Empathy is an interesting avenue that you touched on there. How would you see that applied in this situation? Whilst you lost me there with your direction, I can't help but wonder what you had in mind there. 

Quote

I think it's _very_ telling that the whole thing has descended into naysaying and obscure scientific discussion.

I don't find that unusual myself. It's not uncommon when religious people insist their beliefs are facts. 

Quote

I don't think there's anyone who's posted here who isn't an authority on the irrationality of religion.

What about religious opponents? Many will turn a blind eye to massive discrepancies to irrationally support faith based ideas. 

Quote

What you _should_ be focused on is the opportunity to be magnanimous.

How so? 

Quote

And I appreciate your position totally. In exactly the way argumentative atheists are triggered by the irrational concept of religion, I myself, as a communist, am triggered by the irrational concept of capitalism. Yet I know that, as things stand, a desk-bound bureaucrat or a pointless middle-manager --just like someone who's religious-- will never understand my logic. The best I can hope for is to relate to them as conscious human beings, on a dialectical level.  It costs nothing, it brings valuable intel, and it might just give you some super-subtle, emotional wedge which you can insidiously pry apart. 

I think people are already like that or not. Conversing with religiously orientated people here, we have rational posters where and atheist and theist can walk away from a discussion agreeing to disagree on an amicable level, then you have the irrational religious people who simply refuse information that contradicts their world view and insist blindly religion is that way, and we have the people who claim esoteric knowledge from a spiritual view  who go off the deep end claiming everyone to be against them. Bigoted views, deliberate ignorance and respectful faith all rear heads here, and they seem more to reflect the person than the information being discussed. 

Quote

Take the Robert Powell stare-out question, which I get the impression lot of you think is frivilous or silly. The correct answer, I'm pretty sure, is "Hell yes I'll do it". If you put in front of me one of my most hated capitalists (say, Sir Philip Green or Sir James Dyson) and gave me the opportunity to stare them out, right down into their soul, obviously I'd do it. If it was an arm-wrestle and I had arms made of bone-china, I'd still do it. If it was a chess match,  I'd learn chess especially, even though I probably don't have a tenth of the brain power required. Society will never be logical. Spirit is everything. In my opinion, it's only even a 'civilization' in name only.  

PS, this is what Robert Powell as Jesus looks like. I _don't_ think I could take him in a stare-out, but then, I'm not an atheist.

 

I'm not following. 

What's the relevance of this? 

[freetoroam]

On 04/09/2018 at 8:11 PM, Carlos Allende said:

1)      Prioritise the following around which is the biggest threat to civilisation:

·         Religion

·         Global Warming / natural disaster

·         Capitalism

·         General immorality

·         War

·         Disease

·         Other

global warming/natural disaster which would lead to diseases among the living and creating a war for survival

2)      You’re walking in the middle of nowhere, alone except for an anonymous old man walking a few paces in front. He’s stricken by a heart attack, and falls to the pavement in front of you, apparently dying. In his delirious state, he sees you as an angel, and desperately asks you to absolve his sins. He refuses to change the subject, or hear the truth. Do you play along, and absolve him? Do you ask what the sins consist of? Do you ignore him?

i am not religious and would not lie to a dying man,  if he has sins then the god he believes can take care of him, i will phone the ambulance...which would have to be done if he lives or dies.

3)      Which inspirational / profound book would you choose to leave in hotel rooms in lieu of the Gideon’s Bible?

the menu for the restuarant 

4)       Which would be more likely to convince you of the reality of God or the afterlife –scientific proof ---or having a days-long dream which is indistinguishable from reality, in which you’re reunited with your dead loved ones?

a visit from god to the world he allegedly made.

5)      Your missus / boyfriend wants to get married in a church. Problem?

there would be no marriage.

6)      How do you explain to a small child that there’s no God or afterlife, without their permanently associating you with bad news?

if someone elses child...it is not my call to tell them if their parents have already indoctrinated them at a such a young age....what parent would tell their small child about an afterlife? Thats sick.

7)      Are you sure you’re not claiming to be an atheist simply out of the satisfaction that comes from being contrarian? Please confirm you’re not automatically inclined to be contrarian by avowing your love for the following universally loved things:

·         Chocolate

·         Elvis

·         Star Wars

·         The internet

·         Puppy dogs

do not love any of them...like and enjoy some, but not love, i love my family and my dogs, none of the above will fall into the same category

8)      The Vatican employs Robert Powell to reprise his role as Jesus of Nazareth, blue contact lenses and all. Do you agree to a stare-out contest with him? If you win, Catholicism will be disbanded across the world. However, if _he_ wins, you will be required to kneel and kiss the Pope’s hand in front of all the world’s media.

a stare out with an actor? If thats the best they can, catholism should be disbanded just for that cheap trick. 

9)      What’s your favourite secular motto that you think religious people will relate to?

nature and evolution are real....can not argue with that.

10)     You’re a rozzer, in hot pursuit of a scuzzball who’s robbed a charity collection tin. He flees inside a church and hides somewhere in the eerie grey shadows. As you conduct your search, do you remove your hat as a mark of respect to the church?   

i have not gone in there to pray or light a candle. Respect for a church is not to go in there with stolen goods.

 

 

Edited September 10, 2018 by freetoroam

[Habitat]

2 hours ago, freetoroam said:

4)       Which would be more likely to convince you of the reality of God or the afterlife –scientific proof ---or having a days-long dream which is indistinguishable from reality, in which you’re reunited with your dead loved ones?

a visit from god to the world he allegedly made.

And what would convince you, in that instance ? You really think you are up to being a "God judge", then ? By that reckoning, I am starting to think, you, yourself, must be God ! LOL

[freetoroam]

1 minute ago, Habitat said:

And what would convince you, in that instance ? You really think you are up to being a "God judge", then ? By that reckoning, I am starting to think, you, yourself, must be God ! LOL

It is not a case of convincing me, it is about a god showing up somehow and convincing the whole world.

As a non believer, if i dreamt about having a visit from a god, i would not wake up believing, i would wake up knowing  i dreamt it, then carry on with the rest of my day as a non believer. 

 

[Habitat]

10 minutes ago, freetoroam said:

It is not a case of convincing me, it is about a god showing up somehow and convincing the whole world.

As a non believer, if i dreamt about having a visit from a god, i would not wake up believing, i would wake up knowing  i dreamt it, then carry on with the rest of my day as a non believer. 

 

Forget about others, what would convince you ? If you can't conceive of what a convincing demo would be, how can you possibly take a position on the proposition, at all ?

Edited September 11, 2018 by Habitat

[GlitterRose]

On 9/4/2018 at 12:38 PM, danydandan said:

What the feck is an angry Agnostic?

Clearly, you have never seen the South Park Agnostic episode.

[XenoFish]

[GlitterRose]

I guess you'd have to still call me agnostic, but I'm pretty far over on the continuum. I'm a hopeful agnostic.

I just can't be certain, ya know. I'm not angry about it, though.

That said...

1)      Prioritise the following around which is the biggest threat to civilisation:

·         Religion

·         Global Warming / natural disaster

·         Capitalism

·         General immorality

·         War

·         Disease

·         Other

I have to put global warming first because it's global

Then disease and natural disaster because they don't discriminate

But I have to put war and religion on about the same level because a lot of the time people go to war over religion

Then I guess capitalism and general immorality are on about the same footing.

2)      You’re walking in the middle of nowhere, alone except for an anonymous old man walking a few paces in front. He’s stricken by a heart attack, and falls to the pavement in front of you, apparently dying. In his delirious state, he sees you as an angel, and desperately asks you to absolve his sins. He refuses to change the subject, or hear the truth. Do you play along, and absolve him? Do you ask what the sins consist of? Do you ignore him?

I call 911 and try to keep him alive. In between breaths, I absolve his sins.

3)      Which inspirational / profound book would you choose to leave in hotel rooms in lieu of the Gideon’s Bible?

That's tough. I guess I don't really know. Maybe Gnostic Gospels just because most people don't even know they exist.

4)       Which would be more likely to convince you of the reality of God or the afterlife –scientific proof ---or having a days-long dream which is indistinguishable from reality, in which you’re reunited with your dead loved ones?

I don't think you can prove God or the afterlife, scientifically...and I'd probably just figure I was hallucinating. So neither. I have, however, had that jolt during prayer that some people say is the Holy Spirit. Obviously, I don't know for certain what it was, but it's interesting.

5)      Your missus / boyfriend wants to get married in a church. Problem?

That one wouldn't happen. If we did get married, he'd be the one with the church issue. He could possibly be talked into a UU ceremony...that's providing I could be talked into marriage. Lol. 

6)      How do you explain to a small child that there’s no God or afterlife, without their permanently associating you with bad news?

You don't. You say some people think this and some people believe that...what do you think? 

7)      Are you sure you’re not claiming to be an atheist simply out of the satisfaction that comes from being contrarian? Please confirm you’re not automatically inclined to be contrarian by avowing your love for the following universally loved things:

·         Chocolate

·         Elvis

·         Star Wars

·         The internet

·         Puppy dogs

I love all those things, but I also recognize their impermanence. The chocolate will be gone and I'll have to get more, and then that will be gone. Elvis is dead, although I can still hear his music...he won't be singing anything new. I could still watch Star Wars, but it'll never be like the first time. The internet will probably be around way after I'm gone, and I won't see all the cool new stuff on it. Puppy dogs...well...I wish they lasted longer. It's a tragedy when they go. 

8)      The Vatican employs Robert Powell to reprise his role as Jesus of Nazareth, blue contact lenses and all. Do you agree to a stare-out contest with him? If you win, Catholicism will be disbanded across the world. However, if _he_ wins, you will be required to kneel and kiss the Pope’s hand in front of all the world’s media.

I wouldn't take the bet because I'm a blinker and I would never ever bow down to the Pope. 

9)      What’s your favourite secular motto that you think religious people will relate to?

Imagination is more important than knowledge.--Albert Einstein

10)     You’re a rozzer, in hot pursuit of a scuzzball who’s robbed a charity collection tin. He flees inside a church and hides somewhere in the eerie grey shadows. As you conduct your search, do you remove your hat as a mark of respect to the church? 

My hat already fell off while I was chasing the robber.   

 

 

Edited September 11, 2018 by GlitterRose

[Rlyeh]

13 hours ago, Carlos Allende said:

Didn't realize I _was_ thinking that. In fact, my instinct is to assume that _most_ people start off in life inclined to religion. It's just like watching a sci-fi film, and you don't even need to _try_ and suspend your disbelief. The question is, which do you care about more, the scientific indications that God isn't real (kudos), the personal experience that your childhood dog died just for no reason and you'll never see him again (even bigger kudos), or the low-hanging fruit that's picked by Richard Dawkins (minimal-to-zero kudos, in my opinion). Surely you've got to suspect your theist foils will be scanning you for these ideas whenever you get locked in the anti-religion argument, and it's necessary to engage them on universal terms?

I'm not sure what you're rambling about anymore.

[+joc]

13 hours ago, GlitterRose said:

I guess you'd have to still call me agnostic, but I'm pretty far over on the continuum. I'm a hopeful agnostic.

I just can't be certain, ya know. I'm not angry about it, though.

That said...

1)      Prioritise the following around which is the biggest threat to civilisation:

·         Religion

·         Global Warming / natural disaster

·         Capitalism

·         General immorality

·         War

·         Disease

·         Other

I have to put global warming first because it's global

Then disease and natural disaster because they don't discriminate

But I have to put war and religion on about the same level because a lot of the time people go to war over religion

Then I guess capitalism and general immorality are on about the same footing.

2)      You’re walking in the middle of nowhere, alone except for an anonymous old man walking a few paces in front. He’s stricken by a heart attack, and falls to the pavement in front of you, apparently dying. In his delirious state, he sees you as an angel, and desperately asks you to absolve his sins. He refuses to change the subject, or hear the truth. Do you play along, and absolve him? Do you ask what the sins consist of? Do you ignore him?

I call 911 and try to keep him alive. In between breaths, I absolve his sins.

3)      Which inspirational / profound book would you choose to leave in hotel rooms in lieu of the Gideon’s Bible?

That's tough. I guess I don't really know. Maybe Gnostic Gospels just because most people don't even know they exist.

4)       Which would be more likely to convince you of the reality of God or the afterlife –scientific proof ---or having a days-long dream which is indistinguishable from reality, in which you’re reunited with your dead loved ones?

I don't think you can prove God or the afterlife, scientifically...and I'd probably just figure I was hallucinating. So neither. I have, however, had that jolt during prayer that some people say is the Holy Spirit. Obviously, I don't know for certain what it was, but it's interesting.

5)      Your missus / boyfriend wants to get married in a church. Problem?

That one wouldn't happen. If we did get married, he'd be the one with the church issue. He could possibly be talked into a UU ceremony...that's providing I could be talked into marriage. Lol. 

6)      How do you explain to a small child that there’s no God or afterlife, without their permanently associating you with bad news?

You don't. You say some people think this and some people believe that...what do you think? 

7)      Are you sure you’re not claiming to be an atheist simply out of the satisfaction that comes from being contrarian? Please confirm you’re not automatically inclined to be contrarian by avowing your love for the following universally loved things:

·         Chocolate

·         Elvis

·         Star Wars

·         The internet

·         Puppy dogs

I love all those things, but I also recognize their impermanence. The chocolate will be gone and I'll have to get more, and then that will be gone. Elvis is dead, although I can still hear his music...he won't be singing anything new. I could still watch Star Wars, but it'll never be like the first time. The internet will probably be around way after I'm gone, and I won't see all the cool new stuff on it. Puppy dogs...well...I wish they lasted longer. It's a tragedy when they go. 

8)      The Vatican employs Robert Powell to reprise his role as Jesus of Nazareth, blue contact lenses and all. Do you agree to a stare-out contest with him? If you win, Catholicism will be disbanded across the world. However, if _he_ wins, you will be required to kneel and kiss the Pope’s hand in front of all the world’s media.

I wouldn't take the bet because I'm a blinker and I would never ever bow down to the Pope. 

9)      What’s your favourite secular motto that you think religious people will relate to?

Imagination is more important than knowledge.--Albert Einstein

10)     You’re a rozzer, in hot pursuit of a scuzzball who’s robbed a charity collection tin. He flees inside a church and hides somewhere in the eerie grey shadows. As you conduct your search, do you remove your hat as a mark of respect to the church? 

My hat already fell off while I was chasing the robber.   

 

 

Global warming isn't a threat...doesn't exist..it is a confirmed HOAX.

WAR...greatest threat! Hands down.

[danydandan]

15 minutes ago, joc said:

Global warming isn't a threat...doesn't exist..it is a confirmed HOAX.

WAR...greatest threat! Hands down.

Are you stating that man induced climate change isn't a real thing? Or are you saying specifically global warming isn't real?

I think a virus like Ebola, that mutates regularly is more of a threat.

[Carlos Allende]

14 hours ago, GlitterRose said:

Gnostic Gospels

Cool answers, GR. The Gnostic Gospels as in the Nag Hammadi? Interesting choice, and I guess they _are_ inspirational in a dark kind of way. I always interpreted them as a bleaker version of the New Testament, and when I read Tobias Churton's book about their discovery and impact on the traditional Christians ...it's like the disciples via a Philip K Dick novel.   

In regard to how I'd tell my kid there was no God (_if_ I was an atheist), I guess you're right in making sure they get a balanced choice of options, but beyond that ..first and foremost, I'd tell them not to get too emotional about it, at least not to start with. You need to give God (small g? big G?) a fighting chance to prove Himself, on your worst day, on the worst day after that, and then the worst day after that, and so on. Kids are too sensitive nowadays, in my opinion.

[Carlos Allende]

1 hour ago, joc said:

Global warming isn't a threat...doesn't exist..it is a confirmed HOAX.

 

[Carlos Allende]

19 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Empathy is an interesting avenue that you touched on there. How would you see that applied in this situation? Whilst you lost me there with your direction, I can't help but wonder what you had in mind there. 

 

19 hours ago, psyche101 said:

I don't find that unusual myself. It's not uncommon when religious people insist their beliefs are facts. 

Quote

I don't think there's anyone who's posted here who isn't an authority on the irrationality of religion.

What about religious opponents? Many will turn a blind eye to massive discrepancies to irrationally support faith based ideas. 

Quote

What you _should_ be focused on is the opportunity to be magnanimous.

How so? 

At a risk of forcing my point, and appearing uncool, my thinking is this. I _honestly_ don't understand what motivates atheists and quarrelsome agnostics to engage in arguments with religious zealots. None of us live in Islamic countries where religion is _genuinely_ oppressive. I know that some people have trouble with Jehovah's Witnesses, getting abused by priests, getting an abortion in Ireland, etc --but at the same time, surely what you should really be worried about in those circumstances is that the human mind has no inherent, a-priori instinct that tells them they're being subjugated. If they did, I think we'd see a negligible outcome in religious communities, but overnight, we _would_ see mounds of gore on every street corner that had once been County Council middle-managers, rich property speculators, stockbrokers, etc. 

Now, I can appreciate that debating the existence or non-existence of God is the most satisfying topic you can get (in my case, apart from Swindon Town's quest to get back up into League 1), but not if your only aim is to develop a consensus of opinion. Surely a greater satisfaction is in finding the common ground you have with the zealots? Getting inside their psychology? Everyone responds to subtle insinuations, one way or another. They're extremely unlikely to respond to logical debate. I might be wrong. 

[GlitterRose]

6 hours ago, Carlos Allende said:

Cool answers, GR. The Gnostic Gospels as in the Nag Hammadi? Interesting choice, and I guess they _are_ inspirational in a dark kind of way. I always interpreted them as a bleaker version of the New Testament, and when I read Tobias Churton's book about their discovery and impact on the traditional Christians ...it's like the disciples via a Philip K Dick novel.   

In regard to how I'd tell my kid there was no God (_if_ I was an atheist), I guess you're right in making sure they get a balanced choice of options, but beyond that ..first and foremost, I'd tell them not to get too emotional about it, at least not to start with. You need to give God (small g? big G?) a fighting chance to prove Himself, on your worst day, on the worst day after that, and then the worst day after that, and so on. Kids are too sensitive nowadays, in my opinion.

To me, blood atonement is pretty bleak, and Gnostic Gospels don't have that. They don't really differ that much on Earthly stuff, though. Mainstream Christians who aren't prosperity or dominionist really aren't supposed to be too into Earthly things, either. Their kingdom is not supposed to be here, or at least not until their Messiah comes and fixes stuff. 

Gnostics aren't really looking for a Messiah to fix stuff here. The point seems to be to connect with the divine, hopefully reunite with it later...and not have to come back here. 

I wouldn't put the Nag Hammadi stuff out there to try and convert anyone. It would be more like...hey, this stuff exists that people may not know about. Most people already know about the typical bible. 

The texts are kinda dry, but I had to go with texts. There are way cooler lectures by Stephan Hoeller I would have chosen if I could have. There's a really nifty one about Jung's Seven Sermons to the Dead. 

As much as people claim they know, atheists can only say they don't have (and probably won't find) scientific evidence to prove God. So I don't see why they would need to insist to their children that God or an afterlife doesn't exist. They could just say because there is no scientific evidence, they don't think it exists...and leave it at that. I don't think they should discourage interest or curiosity in belief systems, though. If they push too hard, they'll end up with a Pentecostal snake dancer who speaks in tongues.

[docyabut2]

On ‎9‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 3:02 AM, psyche101 said:

We are born with basic genetic instincts as survival traits. The stories in that article are just that, stories. Anecdotes with a spin on them to entice the reader. 

What if the souls go to other planets, there are billions billions  and the memories still go on that is evidence.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-558271/Can-really-transplant-human-soul.html

Edited September 12, 2018 by docyabut2

[Bendy Demon]

1)      Prioritise the following around which is the biggest threat to civilisation:

·         Religion

·         Global Warming / natural disaster

·         Capitalism

·         General immorality

·         War

·         Disease

·         Other

 

War, Disease, Capitalism, Other, General Immorality, Religion

2)      You’re walking in the middle of nowhere, alone except for an anonymous old man walking a few paces in front. He’s stricken by a heart attack, and falls to the pavement in front of you, apparently dying. In his delirious state, he sees you as an angel, and desperately asks you to absolve his sins. He refuses to change the subject, or hear the truth. Do you play along, and absolve him? Do you ask what the sins consist of? Do you ignore him?

 

I'd ask why he feels he needs his actions to be absolved.

 

3)      Which inspirational / profound book would you choose to leave in hotel rooms in lieu of the Gideon’s Bible?

A history book

4)       Which would be more likely to convince you of the reality of God or the afterlife –scientific proof ---or having a days-long dream which is indistinguishable from reality, in which you’re reunited with your dead loved ones?

Actual, hard-core proof. Not anecdotes.

5)      Your missus / boyfriend wants to get married in a church. Problem?

No.

6)      How do you explain to a small child that there’s no God or afterlife, without their permanently associating you with bad news?

I'd tell them that many claim to hold a monopoly on the "truth" when in fact, no one knows.

7)      Are you sure you’re not claiming to be an atheist simply out of the satisfaction that comes from being contrarian? Please confirm you’re not automatically inclined to be contrarian by avowing your love for the following universally loved things:

·         Chocolate

·         Elvis

·         Star Wars

·         The internet

·         Puppy dogs

 

I don't love Elvis or Star Wars nor any of the irrelevant things you've listed. I might like certain things but I fail to see your point in this.

8)      The Vatican employs Robert Powell to reprise his role as Jesus of Nazareth, blue contact lenses and all. Do you agree to a stare-out contest with him? If you win, Catholicism will be disbanded across the world. However, if _he_ wins, you will be required to kneel and kiss the Pope’s hand in front of all the world’s media.

Sorry, I don't know what you're talking about here.

9)      What’s your favourite secular motto that you think religious people will relate to?

...umm...what?

10)     You’re a rozzer, in hot pursuit of a scuzzball who’s robbed a charity collection tin. He flees inside a church and hides somewhere in the eerie grey shadows. As you conduct your search, do you remove your hat as a mark of respect to the church?   

....rozzer?

 

P.S: I only answered this cuz' I was bored and stuff.

Edited September 12, 2018 by Inky Bendy

[Jodie.Lynne]

On ‎9‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 3:11 PM, Carlos Allende said:

  But I’ve always thought, atheists are far too impersonal. Anyone can be an atheist: all you’ve got to do is naysay, apply basic logic and reasoning. And this is fine, if all you want to do is give heavy-handed religious doctrine a kicking. But in regard to building bridges and rooting out human solidarity, it’s a stinker. There’s a reason Sartre had to tack ‘Existentialism and Human Emotions’ onto ‘Being and Nothingness’.

Ya know, I can understand why there is a need for a "protected" forum, where folks can state their beliefs without being subjected to the scrutiny of rational thinking, I really get it.

 

But when someone who openly claims to "love a good fight" and posts aggressive dialogues under that protection, it stinks of hypocrisy. If I were to make a post in this forum that said "Religion X is the stoopid", I would expect it to be moved to the S Vs S forum,  However, we have an individual who has set up a sniper's nest in a hospital, in the hopes that the opposition is too moral to nuke his butt.

This entire thread should be brought out into the open, where opponents to the author's viewpoint can respond in kind.

[+joc]

9 hours ago, danydandan said:

Are you stating that man induced climate change isn't a real thing? Or are you saying specifically global warming isn't real?

I think a virus like Ebola, that mutates regularly is more of a threat.

Global Warming is a leftist catch phrase.  Manmade global warming is a hoax. The Earth goes through heating and cooling cycles...ice age etc.

[GlitterRose]

8 minutes ago, joc said:

Global Warming is a leftist catch phrase.  Manmade global warming is a hoax. The Earth goes through heating and cooling cycles...ice age etc.

My goodness, you guys need to join Derailers Anonymous. Lol.

 

[Likely Guy]

As a devout Apatheist honestly, that if they proved God's existence tomorrow (with science), I would not live my next day any differently.

Edit: But to tell you the truth, I'm more afraid at what religious groups would do with that. And I have no problem with religion... they are mostly really nice people those that adhere to it. I've just always been against "group think" as far as religion goes, in the end run. I give thanks in my own small way, every day.

 

 

Edited September 12, 2018 by Likely Guy

[psyche101]

8 hours ago, Carlos Allende said:

 

At a risk of forcing my point, and appearing uncool, my thinking is this. I _honestly_ don't understand what motivates atheists and quarrelsome agnostics to engage in arguments with religious zealots. None of us live in Islamic countries where religion is _genuinely_ oppressive. I know that some people have trouble with Jehovah's Witnesses, getting abused by priests, getting an abortion in Ireland, etc --but at the same time, surely what you should really be worried about in those circumstances is that the human mind has no inherent, a-priori instinct that tells them they're being subjugated. If they did, I think we'd see a negligible outcome in religious communities, but overnight, we _would_ see mounds of gore on every street corner that had once been County Council middle-managers, rich property speculators, stockbrokers, etc. 

Now, I can appreciate that debating the existence or non-existence of God is the most satisfying topic you can get (in my case, apart from Swindon Town's quest to get back up into League 1), but not if your only aim is to develop a consensus of opinion. Surely a greater satisfaction is in finding the common ground you have with the zealots? Getting inside their psychology? Everyone responds to subtle insinuations, one way or another. They're extremely unlikely to respond to logical debate. I might be wrong. 

But it's not about consensus or social discourse. I don't care if some people wish to choose a religious path. It's about the assault on logic, knowledge and common sense. Those propagating the BS as if fact are the people who are generating the human divide. Some people have spent 80+ years as devout followers. I don't want to see their bubble burst in the last years of their lives, nothing is achieved on a realistic global scale and all it would create is torment for those who made that life investment. The issue is taken up with those that go on the offensive, attaching atheists and atheism, and of course those who would suppress real knowledge to proselytise religious ideologies. As an atheist, I can get along well with some religious people, others not so much. As such, I find every interaction different, and as such requiring a different approach. 

[psyche101]

3 hours ago, docyabut2 said:

What if the souls go to other planets, there are billions billions  and the memories still go on that is evidence.

Any that are habitable will most likely already have life on them like this planet. What of those alleged souls? 

3 hours ago, docyabut2 said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-558271/Can-really-transplant-human-soul.html

Are you sure you understand that article? Despite the provocative title, it's pondering the idea of memories being stored all over the body, not just in the brain, which actually defies the classical notion of a soul. Its just a fluff piece of journalism. 

[danydandan]

4 hours ago, joc said:

Global Warming is a leftist catch phrase.  Manmade global warming is a hoax. The Earth goes through heating and cooling cycles...ice age etc.

I understand that, I thought the stage of the cycle we are in has been shown to be hotter by one degree F? I also understand that there is a vast increase in CO2 and this is our fault and the increase in temperature can be attributed to the increase in CO2.

But I know feck all about it.

[+joc]

4 hours ago, danydandan said:

I understand that, I thought the stage of the cycle we are in has been shown to be hotter by one degree F? I also understand that there is a vast increase in CO2 and this is our fault and the increase in temperature can be attributed to the increase in CO2.

But I know feck all about it.

The data cannot be trusted...

 

 

Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate.

 

 

 

 

Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

Regarding scientific transparency, a defining characteristic of science is the open sharing of scientific data, theories and procedures so that independent parties, and especially skeptics of a particular theory or hypothesis, can replicate and validate asserted experiments or observations. Emails between Climategate scientists, however, show a concerted effort to hide rather than disseminate underlying evidence and procedures.

 

 

 

“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,”writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a newly released email.

 

“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones writes in another newly released email. “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”