Vicar attacked by Muslims

[ipaul]

Well that all made for interesting reading. I am athiest to the point where I think the world would generally be a better place without religion. I know it brings some good but I think it does more bad then good. I know most religious people are nice, friendly, full of morals and just want to support their god but these people provide a foundation for the extremists. If the extremists did not have a belief to act upon backed up by millions of other people, they wouldn't go round imposing their views in manners such as this and would be locked away with all the other lunatics in the asylum. But because they are acting on religious beliefs they are often just considered eccentric and not a threat.

 

George Bush Sr was once quoted saying "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." Now imagine if he had said that about a particular race of people i.e blacks. He would have been rightly accused of racism, called alot of mean things and not taken seriously and seen as a bit of a lunatic. But because he is accusing non believers of religion, it is not taken as seriously.

 

I agree with fish and the others about this story in that 'deprived conditions = fuel and religion = spark'. I think people are afraid to point fingers at over zealous religous people who are clearly not right in the head (if you will) and thus I think they get away unfairly with alot of things they should not. All religions. Oh and I agree the Daily Mail is terrible

[Mikey]

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

 

No, the bit which is bolded is more relevant. You claimed most people aren't religious with that statistic, I explained how you can be religious without going to church or attending any religious events. You clearly either misunderstood that statistic, or you purposely twisted it to go with your anti religious agenda.

[The fish]

No, the bit which is bolded is more relevant. You claimed most people aren't religious with that statistic, I explained how you can be religious without going to church or attending any religious events. You clearly either misunderstood that statistic, or you purposely twisted it to go with your anti religious agenda.

 

Even if the statistic is a straight 50:50 split, that still means 1/3 of the country aren't part of a religion, and I assume it's a lot higher, as many atheists and agnostics attend religious events (for example, my school enforces it).

[Mikey]

Well, I can only go from my own experience here, but most people I've ever known have believed in God and identified with a religion, yet never gone to church or anything like it. Either way, that statistic from the UN isn't exactly very clear, as it doesn't take in to account people who are religious, but who don't go to church. The one from the government's site is a lot more clear.

 

It doesn't matter though, these statistics can be easily manipulated by people with their own agenda, even at big organizations like the UN or the government. In other words, try not to put too much faith in statistics.

 

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

[The fish]

try not to put too much faith in statistics.

 

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

 

Random sidetrack: who else gets pissed off when someone says "57% of statistics are made up", because I certainly do, those damn smart-arse (and yet oh-so-wrong) fools!

[Rummy]

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.

 

This is why I have a problem with your current point, and attitude. It seems, like an overly zealous religious person might, you totally missed the question and thought you'd preach to me about science, and maybe assuming I don't already know about science. However, all you've done is confirm that science can't prove itself right and prove religion wrong.

My question was a short, clear question, asking WHY science can't prove it wrong, not asking HOW science can't prove it wrong.

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

[BlueStar]

Because science aknowledges unknowables, other possibilities, changes its views as new evidence comes to light and thus works in theories , while religion is dogmatic and falsly claims to work in absolute truths.

 

Also, you don't prove things untrue, you prove things true. The burden of proof is on the person maintaining God exists, not vice versa. Could you go to court and prove you're NOT a murderer? How could you prove to me there is not a 4 headed purple monkey somewhere in the world?

 

Religion operates outside the contraints of science and so it doesn't need to follow the rules. The theory that there's a god is not a theory at all because it's not testable. Unlike a scientific theory there's simply nothing to test because the people making the assertion cannot provide the evidence to check as it's a matter of faith, not coming to a decision based on evidence. If it was, relgion would be pretty shit.

[The fish]

My question was a short, clear question, asking WHY science can't prove it wrong, not asking HOW science can't prove it wrong.

 

Because it's logically a paradox - as Bluejay said, you can't prove there isn't a four-headed monkey in the world, nor can you prove that there isn't a moon made out of cheese somewhere in the universe. The best analagy, however, is Russel's teapot - let's say there is a teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars, but is too small reflect enough electromagnetic radiation to be seen from here - despite the lack of evidence for it, you can't prove it's not there, but that doesn't mean it exists. No replace "teapot" with "god", and you should see my point.

[Mikey]

You can't prove a universal negative basically.

[navarre]

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.

 

The Bible wasn't designed to be credible. It wasn't written as history book. It was primarily used to display morals, tell the life of Jesus, and to make people's views optimistic. The few historical references it does contain are generally accurate (enough).

 

And Charlie, are you a Christian?

[The fish]

The few historical references it does contain are generally accurate (enough).

 

And Charlie, are you a Christian?

 

He is, and I literally just loled.

 

For starters, Herod died in (I think) 6 BC, while Augustus never declared a census of the entire empire. One of Herod's successors, however, did one of just Judea. However, this was in 6 AD.

[navarre]

He is, and I literally just loled.

 

For starters, Herod died in (I think) 6 BC, while Augustus never declared a census of the entire empire. One of Herod's successors, however, did one of just Judea. However, this was in 6 AD.

 

 

Well, I did say enough. The Bible may have gotten a few dates wrong, but that's hardly going to change my view.

[The fish]

Well, I did say enough. The Bible may have gotten a few dates wrong, but that's hardly going to change my view.

 

So why, may I ask, do you believe it is true?

 

There is, however, a lot to suggest it is made up - the numerous incosistancies are a brilliant example of this, not to mention the fact that almost all the events that would be noticed by someone else (namely, any ancient civilization in the old testament and the Romans in the new testament) are not. Attempts to find the alleged "evidence that Jesus existed" have always, for me, at least, dug up nothing but evidence for early Christians.

 

It has so many flaws and errors, I'm really not sure why people think it is so, so good.

[navarre]

So why, may I ask, do you believe it is true?

 

There is, however, a lot to suggest it is made up - the numerous incosistancies are a brilliant example of this, not to mention the fact that almost all the events that would be noticed by someone else (namely, any ancient civilization in the old testament and the Romans in the new testament) are not. Attempts to find the alleged "evidence that Jesus existed" have always, for me, at least, dug up nothing but evidence for early Christians.

 

It has so many flaws and errors, I'm really not sure why people think it is so, so good.

 

I believe its true because the inconsistancies pose little relevance to my belief. Of course, I don't believe the Bible word for word. I'll only ever stop believing when they find conclusive evidence that God doesn't exist. Which is impossible.

[Happenstance]

I believe its true because the inconsistancies pose little relevance to my belief. Of course, I don't believe the Bible word for word. I'll only ever stop believing when they find conclusive evidence that God doesn't exist. Which is impossible.

 

Sorry, its already been proved:

 

[Dan_Dare]

 

Source: daily mail

 

you don't actually read that bullshit rag do you?

[The fish]

Of course, I don't believe the Bible word for word. I'll only ever stop believing when they find conclusive evidence that God doesn't exist. Which is impossible.

 

So, why do you believe in a god? Just because it can't be disproved (Russel's Teapot again!) doesn't mean it's there.

[Charlie]

How many of you atheists will be getting Easter Eggs on Sunday? I would think rather a lot...

[navarre]

So, why do you believe in a god? Just because it can't be disproved (Russel's Teapot again!) doesn't mean it's there.

 

 

It was part of my upbringing. Don't get the wrong idea, not all Christianity is enforced upon children. As I've said already, I've looked at both sides of the argument, and ultimately made my mind up myself. My life isn't easier because I'm a Christian- but it is certainly better.

[Happenstance]

I will, doesnt really bother me though. I like chocolate. I dont celebrate anything on the weekend but I dont mind other people celebrating.

[Slaggis]

How many of you atheists will be getting Easter Eggs on Sunday? I would think rather a lot...

 

And? I'm not celebrating some guy that may or may not have existed in ome from years ago. I'm just looking forward to a bit of chocolate. What's wrong with that?

[MoogleViper]

you don't actually read that bullshit rag do you?

 

No I don't read newspapers.

[Charlie]

And? I'm not celebrating some guy that may or may not have existed in ome from years ago. I'm just looking forward to a bit of chocolate. What's wrong with that?

 

You're slagging the Christian religion but yet still celebrate it's celebrations (Christmas and Easter). Don't you find that a bit ironic or hypocritical?

[The fish]

How many of you atheists will be getting Easter Eggs on Sunday? I would think rather a lot...

 

I won't, but I may go out an by one or two on the cheap on Tuesday - cheap chocolate, who's complaining?

 

You're slagging the Christian religion but yet still celebrate it's celebrations (Christmas and Easter). Don't you find that a bit ironic or hypocritical?

 

Both were stolen from Pagans, actually, but that's a different story.

 

It was part of my upbringing. Don't get the wrong idea, not all Christianity is enforced upon children. As I've said already, I've looked at both sides of the argument, and ultimately made my mind up myself. My life isn't easier because I'm a Christian- but it is certainly better.

 

Fair enough, good on ya mate.

 

By the way, kudos for that being a much better answer than most of the bullshit I've heard at my school, it's a genuine answer and a genuine reason.

[Slaggis]

You're slagging the Christian religion but yet still celebrate it's celebrations (Christmas and Easter). Don't you find that a bit ironic or hypocritical?

 

Slagging? Woah, hold on. Get your facts straight. I didn't slag it once in that post, so don't twist my words. I said "some guy that may or may not have existed", which is perfectly true.

 

Also, no I'm not. I don't celerbate Jesus at all. I get presents and give them at chirstmas. It's just evolved from a chirstian holiday into a commerical things. That doesn't make me hypocritical, it would do if I was going to church etc at christmas, but I don't. Also, Fish is right, google it.