Vicar attacked by Muslims

[navarre]

Buddhism isn't a religion, it's a way of life.

 

Old ideas aren't always valid - look at the beginning of the bible: that ideas there have been debunked a million times. Look at Newton's law of gravitation: it's wrong! Any "proof" for god or gods has been shown to be unscientific ramblings.

 

1) That's your opinion.

 

2) I understand that old ideas aren't always valid. But that wasn't the point I was trying to get across.

[Charlie]

If a belief cannot be defended, why should it be respected?

 

You can't prove that there isn't a God, so does that mean your beliefs aren't to be respected?

[The fish]

You can't prove that there isn't a God, so does that mean your beliefs aren't to be respected?

 

You can't really prove negatives, so it is irrelevant - think Russel's Teapot.

[Rummy]

That's clearly his point, why can't your precious science help you to prove itself right and religion wrong? Scientists are not the purest and most logical of people either, it's not hard to make a study show what you want it to one way or another.

I think some people put too much faith in science, just as much as religious people sometimes put too much faith into their religion. What sort of good scientist will get anywhere with closedminded and narrow views?

[The fish]

That's clearly his point, why can't your precious science help you to prove itself right and religion wrong?

 

Ok, let's play science: Evidence for god? People believe he, she, or it exists.

This immediately brings into mind Russel's Teapot - basically, there is a teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars, but is too small to be detected. However, I think it is there.

 

The case of the teapot, or the invisible pink unicorn, or the flying spaghetti monster (blessed be his noodley appendage) nicely illustrates that just the belief in it being there doesn't mean it exists.

 

All science is formed on what evidence supports something initially. You can't request science to prove a negative, only come up with a superior theory - that's not how science works. How it does work, however, is by reason, evidence, and logic, if which god flies in the face of - there is no need to be a god, there is only evidence of personal experience, and these two allow you to logically conclude that god or gods is/are a delusion at best, and a complete fabrication by power-hungry bastards at worst. I'm inclined to see it as a bit of both.

[Jonnas]

I live in a religious country and I don't get assaulted in the streets by Catholics trying to force me their faith. Jehovah witnesses yes, but who cares about them.

 

That's because most of our country is just catholics and atheists. I have never met a Portuguese jew, for example.

 

And those Jehova's witnesses...Thankfully, they never stop by my house, but I've met some of them on the street, handing fliers. I take them, anyway, because I need something for my fireplace.

[MoogleViper]

You can't fully prove or disprove anything. Nothing we "know" we can be certain of. Not even our names or existence. Science is what we think is most likely.

[Shino]

That's because most of our country is just catholics and atheists. I have never met a Portuguese jew, for example.

 

That's because we kicked that scum out of here!

 

And those Jehova's witnesses...Thankfully, they never stop by my house, but I've met some of them on the street, handing fliers. I take them, anyway, because I need something for my fireplace.

 

I take them, because I respect them as people with a faith. Who am I to judge them.

[Jonnas]

I take them, because I respect them as people with a faith. Who am I to judge them.

 

Well, I don't judge them either. I just ignore them.

[MoogleViper]

That's because we kicked that scum out of here!

 

 

 

I take them, because I respect them as people with a faith. Who am I to judge them.

 

They shouldn't impose their views on us.

[Charlie]

They shouldn't impose their views on us.

 

So why are you trying to impose your non-beliefs on us?

[MoogleViper]

So why are you trying to impose your non-beliefs on us?

 

Well this is a discussion thread. It's meant for discussing. The town centre isn't meant for converting people. I don't go in the middle of the market square and shout, "So has anybody got anything interesting for me?"

[ReZourceman]

Basically people who believe in god are kidding themselves.

 

That is effectively it in a nut shell.

 

 

 

 

 

*Waits*

[Mikey]

Let's keep this short: I think that people are irrational if they believe in something there is next to no evidence for, which, well, makes sense. Also, belief in a god or not is a choice. Race is not.

 

 

 

No it's not, the UK is secularist.

 

No it isn't, mate. As much as I'd love it to be, we are still a Christian nation.

[The fish]

No it isn't, mate. As much as I'd love it to be, we are still a Christian nation.

 

Yes it bloody well is, over 40% of the population don't believe in god, and what's left is mainly Christian, although is by no means the majority.

[Charlie]

Yes it bloody well is, over 40% of the population don't believe in god, and what's left is mainly Christian, although is by no means the majority.

 

Nope, 70% of people in the 2001 Census declared themselves as White Christian.

 

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=1086&Pos=2&ColRank=1&Rank=326

[The fish]

Nope, 70% of people in the 2001 Census declared themselves as White Christian.

 

Right one this time:

 

UN research says "two-thirds do not claim membership of a religion" (point 25), from Feb 7th this year.

[Demuwan]

If religion was rational, could be proven and was based on sound evidence it would be science.

[BlueStar]

I think "identify as" includes a lot of people who simply put "protestant" or whatever on surveys just because they were christened, probably don't know the first thing about what sets their religion apart from others and never set foot in church except to be married and buried.

[Mikey]

I'm gonna go with Charlie's link. Wikipedia backs him up on it too I think, although Wiki isn't exactly a great source.

[The fish]

I'm gonna go with Charlie's link. Wikipedia backs him up on it too I think, although Wiki isn't exactly a great source.

 

Err...

 

Mine is from the UN.

Mine is also from Wikipeida - look up "religion in the UK", it's the second source link.

Mine is more recent, in fact, very, very recent.

[Mikey]

A United Nations report claims that in 2007 "two-thirds ... either did not claim membership of a religion or said that they never attended a religious service".

 

You don't have to go to church to be religious. My mum is a proud catholic, yet never goes to church. My dad believes is a Christian too, yet doesn't go to church. In fact, all of my family believe in God and are either Christians or Catholics, yet never go to church. I'm the only atheist in my entire family. Now, I'm not going to claim my family is proof of the over all population, but it goes to show that a lot of people can be religious without going to church.

 

In other words, don't twist those statistics.

 

Here's another link.

 

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=954

 

Same site as Charlie's, but different page I think.

[S.C.G]

Religion = fail

 

that is all...

[The fish]

A United Nations report claims that in 2007 "two-thirds ... either did not claim membership of a religion or said that they never attended a religious service".

 

Odd how the bit not in bold is more relevant to the discussion at hand, but suit yourself...

[Paj!]

Basically, I know it shouldn't annoy me, but it does in that way where it's like someone really stupid can't answer a question in class and you just want to slap them across the face cause it's obvious what the answer is.

 

Also that the Bible isn't even credible.