The Religion Thread

[Alty]

It's interesting how quickly (PC brah) progressives turned on atheists the moment they applied the same standards to Islam that they had been to Christianity for years prior. It's almost as if for them, the narrative and the target is more important than what's true.

"Sam Harris is literally a fascist".

 

[Jockney]

Just to expand on this...

I think the idea that I'm trying to convey, albeit rather clumsily, is that we seem to apply a different standard when it comes to religious belief. Do we need to have embraced and rejected certain political philosophies before we can opine on them (to stand against facism do you need to have once been a fascist)? Why do we appear to be less comfortable when it comes to subjecting religious belief to the same kind of scrunity that we have no trouble applying to other ideas and concepts? Religious institutions still enjoy a privileged position in society, still wield a great deal of power and influence, still propagate some thoroughly unpleasant views which adversely affect the lives of those that are irreligious. Wanting to challenge the source of those views doesn't, to my mind, seem at all churlish or unreasonable. Nor does concluding that blind faith in an omniscient deity is a pretty irrational and intellectually weak position to assume. Sort of fear you can't really say that without being regarded as being some sort of smug New Atheist wanker though (meaning it may be time for me to give this thread a wide berth)...

The Max comment was partially tongue-in-cheek, but I do think a lot of the guff on this thread (and other arguments like this) comes from a wilful misunderstanding of what the other side actually believes. This thread is dominated by atheists or non-religious folk, so the perspective of someone who has experience of both sides would at least make the debate a little more interesting.

 

[monksy345]

This is also a good thread to share this in:

Watch and listen all the way through. I still quote the lyrics during some form of debate on a weekly basis

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[Captain Scumbag]

That's exactly the same conclusion I get to and you're the first person I've come across who I have found agree with me. I generally identify as atheist, mainly because I see 10 weaknesses in organised religion for every 1 strength.

The "a" prefix in "atheism" means "without" and the "theism" part (derived from the Greek "theos") means "belief in god(s)". So, on the most literal understanding, atheism is merely to be without belief in god(s). On this view, the competing pros and cons of organised religion don't have much relevance.

I mean, there's no contradiction in thinking (a) Christianity is a force for good in the world, and (b) Christianity is a load of fictitious guff. Similarly, there's no contradiction in believing in the existence of god(s) while despising organised religion. One can have religious faith and yet despise certain manifestations of that faith.

I'm not about to say I dont have to have faith to be an atheist. There are plenty of things we don't understand and never will and to not believe a higher-being caused these things requires faith.

Atheism is probably best understood as an absence of belief in deities (see the above point about the word's etymology). It's not absolute epistemic certainty in their non-existence. That might sound like clever dick hair-splitting and sophistry of the worst kind, but there is a difference and it's important to acknowledge.

If the central atheist claim were "deities can't possibly exist", then proponents could be expected to fully explain their reasons, justify their metaphysical assumptions, etc. But atheism isn't a scientific theory seeking to explain how the universe really is. It doesn't have that confidence. It's a label people slap on themselves to signify that they are non-religious and/or don't believe in deities.

An atheist doesn't have to commit fully to physical/materialist metaphysic. They don't have to uncritically accept (or even claim to understand) the Big Bang Theory, Hubble's law or any of that. Their position is basically one of scepticism. The mere absence of belief is sufficient. The reasons for that absence are largely irrelevant, at least from a definitional point of view.

If your intended point was that atheists tend to uncritically accept a lot of science without (a) understanding it, and/or (b) questioning the metaphysical presuppositions underpinning it, that's fair enough. A lot of atheists are guilty of that sort of credulous scienticism. But, again, that's rather extraneous from a definitional point of view.

 

[silkyman]

These questions have been explored for centuries in an analytical and measured fashion and are really interesting. You should give 'em a read sometime.

But at the heart of them lies the 'supernatural deity' concept, which is where the issue really lies. If there's no logical reason for one to exsist, then the rest of it is all an aside really. Whether or not someone has opined that God (which one, by the way?) spent the countless millennia learning how to play top notch thrash metal or not doesn't effect his actual existence.

 

[blade1889]

The "a" prefix in "atheism" means "without" and the "theism" part (derived from the Greek "theos") means "belief in god(s)". So, on the most literal understanding, atheism is merely to be without belief in god(s). On this view, the competing pros and cons of organised religion don't have much relevance.

I mean, there's no contradiction in thinking (a) Christianity is a force for good in the world, and (b) Christianity is a load of fictitious guff. Similarly, there's no contradiction in believing in the existence of god(s) while despising organised religion. One can have religious faith and yet despise certain manifestations of that faith.


Atheism is probably best understood as an absence of belief in deities (see the above point about the word's etymology). It's not absolute epistemological certainty in their non-existence. That might sound like clever dick hair-splitting and sophistry of the worst kind, but there is a difference and it's important to acknowledge.

If the central atheist claim were "deities can't possibly exist", then proponents could be expected to fully explain their reasons, justify their metaphysical assumptions, etc. But atheism isn't a scientific theory seeking to explain how the universe really is. It doesn't have that confidence. It's a label people slap on themselves to signify that they are non-religious and/or don't believe in deities.

An atheist doesn't have to commit fully to physical/materialist metaphysic. They don't have to uncritically accept (or even claim to understand) the Big Bang Theory, Hubble's law or any of that. Their position is basically one of scepticism. The mere absence of belief is sufficient. The reasons for that absence are largely irrelevant, at least from a definitional point of view.

If your intended point was that atheists tend to uncritically accept a lot of science without (a) understanding it, and/or (b) questioning the metaphysical presuppositions underpinning it, that's fair enough. A lot of theists are guilty of that sort of credulous scienticism. But, again, that's rather extraneous from a definitional point of view.

My point is in relation to Ian & Silkymans debate. Not entirely sure how that goes against what you're saying. My argument is that we cant categorically deny that there isn't a deity. I dont believe there is but that still requires an element of 'faith' (not faith in a god just faith in general) as it cant be proven as fact.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

^
It comes back to the point I made earlier. An absence of belief in X is not the same as absolute epistemic certainty that X doesn't exist. Western philosophy makes a category distinction between belief and knowledge, and atheism needs to be understood, first and foremost, within that conceptual framework.

I might believe that a troupe of tuxedoed musical badgers reside in my garden. Let's call this belief badgerism, and let's say those who don't share the belief are proponents of abadgerism. You might spend a day in my garden, find no evidence of musical badgers and decide you don't share my belief. You pitch your tent firmly in the abadgerist camp. That's reasonable enough, but do you know with absolutely certainty they're not there? Have you conclusively proven they're not there? How would you go about conclusively proving their non-existence?

That's the sort of absurd and impossible demand that is put on atheists, and it all stems from a failure to realise that the defining characteristic of atheism is an absence of belief. It's not a claim to definitely know X, Y or Z doesn't exist. The basic atheist position is not "I know with complete certainty that deities don't exist". The basic position is something like "I don't find the arguments for theism very convincing; therefore, I'm not going to adopt a theist worldview".

Atheism is a form of scepticism. Those who mischaracterise it as a faith are making a category error.

 

[blade1889]

Hmmm..ok I kinda get you. Feel like that debates more for Ian and his light bulb argument than myself!?

I dunno...maybe my flaw is in trying to understand things instead of just saying 'nah, not true'. I find it weird that you can rule something out without having an alternative and that alternative is not 100% certain and therefore requires an element of faith which was what I was trying to get at, even if lazily/incorrectly worded.

I don't know if I'm using different definitions to faith as yourself as I'm not intending it to be made in the religious sense and wouldn't have ever said atheism is a faith but a belief not based on proof...which is one definition of faith, right?

My head hurts and feel like I'm being stupid here but never mind

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

I think even calling atheism a form of scepticism is an overstatement. A person with no concept of deities, without having rejected the idea, would still be an atheist by definition.

 

[silkyman]

My point is in relation to Ian & Silkymans debate. Not entirely sure how that goes against what you're saying. My argument is that we cant categorically deny that there isn't a deity. I dont believe there is but that still requires an element of 'faith' (not faith in a god just faith in general) as it cant be proven as fact.

This is pretty much where I came in. It does take an element of faith, yes, agreed. But I stumbled upon 'God of the Gaps' concept in my own thoughts.

I've said it earlier but where once, the Romans believed there was a god behind everything from love to volcanos. We now know the chemical and geological processes that cause, well, pretty much everything. So the bits we don't know (yet) are where God is. Every breakthrough in research is another place God can't hide and he's not been found yet.

When the only way you can explain the world is 'God' then people will believe in God. But when you can explain the universe without a deity, why would there be one?

What logic is there to that vastly complex extra layer? Especially when you take all of the inconsistencies, fractures, agendas and contradictions in worldwide religion into account.

 

[blade1889]

This is pretty much where I came in. It does take an element of faith, yes, agreed. But I stumbled upon 'God of the Gaps' concept in my own thoughts.

I've said it earlier but where once, the Romans believed there was a god behind everything from love to volcanos. We now know the chemical and geological processes that cause, well, pretty much everything. So the bits we don't know (yet) are where God is. Every breakthrough in research is another place God can't hide and he's not been found yet.

When the only way you can explain the world is 'God' then people will believe in God. But when you can explain the universe without a deity, why would there be one?

What logic is there to that vastly complex extra layer? Especially when you take all of the inconsistencies, fractures, agendas and contradictions in worldwide religion into account.

Oh aye, I'm not disagreeing with you. Made a similar comment about God being used an answer to the otherwise unanswerable myself earlier.

Kinda wish there were more christians on here cos its an interesting debate and seems quite one-sided on here

 

[HertsWolf]

^
Atheism is a form of scepticism. Those who mischaracterise it as a faith are making a category error.

Haven't you just defined agnosticism rather than atheism?

 

[HertsWolf]

Two books make for very interesting reading: Dawkins 'The God Delusion' and Armstrong's 'The Case for God'. Both present their case eloquently and with clarity. Dawkins associates faith with mindless (and ignorant) credulity and seems to suggest that if you simply disprove the evolutionary process, you destroy all possibility of a God. Yet he ignores the role of story-telling, of mythos and logos in the formation of faith and spirit down the ages. Dawkins and Hitchens tend to treat fundamentalist religion as the mainstream - but its not. It's a little like portraying violent football hooligans as the norm, and using them as an example for why football should be banned.

It is quite amusing to see so many people "blindly believing" what Dawkins, Hitchins or Monod have written in the modern era, in criticising those with faith for "blindly believing" in religion. For much of the last 2,000 years, organised religion has provided a sense of community and belonging at a local level that has been replaced by different types of belonging and community in the last 50 years.

fwiw, I think there will be a return to organised religion in the coming 100 years as fractured and fragmented communities are faced with socio-political crises that are too complex to be fixed....global pollution, overpopulation, war, famine, poverty, end of oil....

 

[HertsWolf]

the Romans believed there was a god behind everything from love to volcanos. We now know the chemical and geological processes that cause, well, pretty much everything. So the bits we don't know (yet) are where God is. Every breakthrough in research is another place God can't hide and he's not been found yet.
When the only way you can explain the world is 'God' then people will believe in God. But when you can explain the universe without a deity, why would there be one?

I disagree, although I like the analogy. It has been said that God is where words "aren't", rather than where the sciences "aren't".
Steiner said "What lies beyond man's word is eloquent of God" and it's been suggested that music (and other forms of art) often elicits responses and emotions that just cannot be expressed in words. So maybe it's not gaps in science that matter, but gaps in expression, language and rationale.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

I would actually say that Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens etc. bend over backwards to distinguish fundamentalist religion with mainstream religion, they just accept that fundamentalism is not some sort of aberrant form of the religion, it's actually the religion in it's truest form, it's fundamental form.

Haven't you just defined agnosticism rather than atheism?

Agnosticism isn't the acceptance that we don't know, it's the belief that we can't know. You can be an atheist or a deist and still be an agnostic. In fact I would say that most atheists are agnostic atheists.

fwiw, I think there will be a return to organised religion in the coming 100 years as fractured and fragmented communities are faced with socio-political crises that are too complex to be fixed....global pollution, overpopulation, war, famine, poverty, end of oil....

I think so too actually. The weakening of Western culture by puritanical progressive social etiquettes is leaving a power vacuum that religion is bound to fill. Let's just hope it's some kind of malleable non-literal neo-paganism and not one of the more barbaric revealed-truth monotheisms of the Middle East.

 

[HertsWolf]

Agnosticism isn't the acceptance that we don't know, it's the belief that we can't know. You can be an atheist or a deist and still be an agnostic. In fact I would say that most atheists are agnostic atheists.

Actually my question still stands and you didn't answer it. An atheist is a disbeliever; an agnostic is a doubter, a sceptic (or whatever) for the reason that the deity cannot be proved or disproved. I would suggest that most atheists certainly are not agnostic as they believe it can be proved that there is no deity.

 

[HertsWolf]

I was about to say:

Science disproves religion.

How?

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Actually my question still stands and you didn't answer it. An atheist is a disbeliever; an agnostic is a doubter, a sceptic (or whatever) for the reason that the deity cannot be proved or disproved. I would suggest that most atheists certainly are not agnostic as they believe it can be proved that there is no deity.

In my experience the vast majority of atheists don't believe that you can prove there is no God, and Dawkins, Hitch, Harris etc. would certainly be among them.

 

[HertsWolf]

Interesting to see where this thread started and why......

For the first time in my life, I am going to admit to people that I am a Christian: I don't need to tell people close to me as they know, and I have no desire to foist my beliefs, values or vices upon others. But this is a thread that started by asking about the religious backgrounds of people here.

After a C of E upbringing, I became Catholic by marriage (because that's how it works) and then on getting divorced I decided that I was happier being Anglican after all (because that's how it works). I go to church most Sundays, not because I am good and charitable and that, but because I'm not. I'm a bit of a miserable, sarcastic git with a shedload of vices and occasional road rage. Most of the saints started off as unpleasant bastards and were transformed at some stage. With a bit of luck, I am going to have a 'Road to Wolverhampton' moment and we will end up with a St Hertswolf Day on the 9th May each year.

I'm bemused in this thread by the seeming certainty of some that science proves there is no God, but also by the belief that God is some bearded bloke "up there" pulling levers and mixing up chemicals to build a geological era or wreak meteorological havoc on some county in Oklahoma. In reality, for many, God is transcendental, beyond what's measurable, beyond what's understandable.

Much of the Old Testament creates a story by which people of those times would understand their difficult world in their own times. However, the New Testament speaks more about peace, compassion, social justice, trust, forgiveness and faith. These are all good enough themes and values for me. And for many others. For those who are caught up with why Adam and Eve had belly-buttons, who Cain and Abel married, the clothing laws of Leviticus or getting two of every animal into a boat the size of a cross-Channel ferry, try to see it all as building a story of faith and belief for people 1,500 years ago.

Organised religion has definitely been a big cause of conflict and violence down the ages. Currently, most churches (and to a degree mosques too) struggle because they are trying to keep everyone happy: the older traditionalists and those who are younger, more energetic, more challenging. It's a little like trying to create a TV programme that appeals to everyone from your 95 year old great-gran to your 4 year old nephew: it's difficult. For me the church provides a community of those with broadly similar views and broadly similar faith. Many despair at the bitter, divisive nature of conservative (usually elderly male) theologians with such huge responsibilities yet with such little understanding of the real world.
In any religion, in any group, in any community there will be elements you do not agree with, there will be people you think are complete dicks (this is a technical, theological term) and there will probably be parts that you may not like, but tolerance and faith in the common values should be sufficient to hold the different parts together.

I can't prove there is a God, but I don't really need to for my own purposes. I really don't care what you are, or whether you believe in a God or in any other thing. I'm really not bothered. Actually, these kinds of threads are quite difficult for me, because disagreeing with anti-theist positions would seem to make you some kind of evangelist. And I'm not. I've already seen terms like "god botherer" used. I suspect there are others lurking also who actually do have faith, do believe and feel that there's quite a lot of misrepresentation in this thread.

Faith is an individual thing, but I suspect it is heavily influenced by what is fashionable and what is not. For most people under the age of 25 or so, being Christian is something to be mocked. It's a pity.

 

[blade1889]

Herts...

What/who do you think God is? I'm not sure reading your post if you see God as a creator or some kind of supernatural (for want of a better word) guiding force, or both? Some kind of subconscious spirit within us all that is a force for good? Can we not teach the good that the New Testament also speaks about without religion?

And I think you're probably right that being Christian is unfashionable. Not sure about the outward mocking of christians by people in my age group, a mocking of some of the ideas for sure but not necessarily the idea of people believing there is a god.

 

[Alty]

Interesting to see where this thread started and why......

For the first time in my life, I am going to admit to people that I am a Christian: I don't need to tell people close to me as they know, and I have no desire to foist my beliefs, values or vices upon others. But this is a thread that started by asking about the religious backgrounds of people here.

After a C of E upbringing, I became Catholic by marriage (because that's how it works) and then on getting divorced I decided that I was happier being Anglican after all (because that's how it works). I go to church most Sundays, not because I am good and charitable and that, but because I'm not. I'm a bit of a miserable, sarcastic git with a shedload of vices and occasional road rage. Most of the saints started off as unpleasant bastards and were transformed at some stage. With a bit of luck, I am going to have a 'Road to Wolverhampton' moment and we will end up with a St Hertswolf Day on the 9th May each year.

I'm bemused in this thread by the seeming certainty of some that science proves there is no God, but also by the belief that God is some bearded bloke "up there" pulling levers and mixing up chemicals to build a geological era or wreak meteorological havoc on some county in Oklahoma. In reality, for many, God is transcendental, beyond what's measurable, beyond what's understandable.

Much of the Old Testament creates a story by which people of those times would understand their difficult world in their own times. However, the New Testament speaks more about peace, compassion, social justice, trust, forgiveness and faith. These are all good enough themes and values for me. And for many others. For those who are caught up with why Adam and Eve had belly-buttons, who Cain and Abel married, the clothing laws of Leviticus or getting two of every animal into a boat the size of a cross-Channel ferry, try to see it all as building a story of faith and belief for people 1,500 years ago.

Organised religion has definitely been a big cause of conflict and violence down the ages. Currently, most churches (and to a degree mosques too) struggle because they are trying to keep everyone happy: the older traditionalists and those who are younger, more energetic, more challenging. It's a little like trying to create a TV programme that appeals to everyone from your 95 year old great-gran to your 4 year old nephew: it's difficult. For me the church provides a community of those with broadly similar views and broadly similar faith. Many despair at the bitter, divisive nature of conservative (usually elderly male) theologians with such huge responsibilities yet with such little understanding of the real world.
In any religion, in any group, in any community there will be elements you do not agree with, there will be people you think are complete dicks (this is a technical, theological term) and there will probably be parts that you may not like, but tolerance and faith in the common values should be sufficient to hold the different parts together.

I can't prove there is a God, but I don't really need to for my own purposes. I really don't care what you are, or whether you believe in a God or in any other thing. I'm really not bothered. Actually, these kinds of threads are quite difficult for me, because disagreeing with anti-theist positions would seem to make you some kind of evangelist. And I'm not. I've already seen terms like "god botherer" used. I suspect there are others lurking also who actually do have faith, do believe and feel that there's quite a lot of misrepresentation in this thread.

Faith is an individual thing, but I suspect it is heavily influenced by what is fashionable and what is not. For most people under the age of 25 or so, being Christian is something to be mocked. It's a pity.

I kind of get the idea that living your life according to Jesus' principles is a noble thing to do, that the Church has done some good things and that you enjoy being one of the flock...but what I struggle with is the leap that's required from all that to actually accepting the idea that Jesus was the son of God and that he performed those miracles and that we are heading to heaven or hell. I mean...really?

 

[HertsWolf]

I kind of get the idea that living your life according to Jesus' principles is a noble thing to do, that the Church has done some good things and that you enjoy being one of the flock...but what I struggle with is the leap that's required from all that to actually accepting the idea that Jesus was the son of God and that he performed those miracles and that we are heading to heaven or hell. I mean...really?

People believe in a lot of things. Maybe accept the 'noble thing to do' bit and see where it leads? What has anyone got to lose?
As an adult, I was drawn to the social justice and compassion (except of course to Birmingham City fans and people who sell filter coffee as 'a flat white') and that developed into quite a strong - and unexpected - sense of real community. And it's more than just 'enjoying being one of the flock', to be honest.

There's a lot of stuff that neither I nor most others can even begin to explain....why does God allow disasters, why does God allow evil, why does God allow caravans and motorhomes to be owned by elderly people who struggle with control of a small hatchback? But I have never felt the need to completely understand things before I can use them. I manage to enjoy iTunes, TVs and relationships without having much of a clue about how or why they work.

 

[silkyman]

I kind of get the idea that living your life according to Jesus' principles is a noble thing to do, that the Church has done some good things and that you enjoy being one of the flock...but what I struggle with is the leap that's required from all that to actually accepting the idea that Jesus was the son of God and that he performed those miracles and that we are heading to heaven or hell. I mean...really?

If he was just a philosopher and people followed 'Jesusism' then I agree, it would be easier to understand.

 

[HertsWolf]

If he was just a philosopher and people followed 'Jesusism' then I agree, it would be easier to understand.

There's quite a few Christian groups who are like that....Google the Taize or Iona communities.

 

[silkyman]

I'll have a look.

Meanwhile, apologies for it all being fragmented, but it's easier than replying to one long thing.

he ignores the role of story-telling, of mythos and logos in the formation of faith and spirit down the ages. Dawkins and Hitchens tend to treat fundamentalist religion as the mainstream - but its not. It's a little like portraying violent football hooligans as the norm, and using them as an example for why football should be banned.....

What does storytelling and myths have to do with whether something actually exists? I agree that you can't judge all religion by it's most fundamentalist elements, but from an atheist position, those people are committing atrocities in the name of something that we not only think doesn't exist, but that it couldn't possibly. It's always going to be the easy target.

It is quite amusing to see so many people "blindly believing" what Dawkins, Hitchins or Monod have written in the modern era, in criticising those with faith for "blindly believing" in religion. For much of the last 2,000 years, organised religion has provided a sense of community and belonging at a local level that has been replaced by different types of belonging and community in the last 50 years.

As has been discussed further up. If you want to believe the bible, you pretty much HAVE to believe it 'blindly' because the text hasn't changed for 500 years, and is based on copy in another language four times as old. People might' blindly believe' the science in The God Delusion etc, but they don't have to, as there are other sources of information, other researchers, other texts on the same subject, written before, after and at the same time. All 'supporting' texts are based on that one.

fwiw, I think there will be a return to organised religion in the coming 100 years as fractured and fragmented communities are faced with socio-political crises that are too complex to be fixed....global pollution, overpopulation, war, famine, poverty, end of oil....

And to be honest, that would be fucking awful. Like the prequel to the latest Mad Max film.

 

[silkyman]

People believe in a lot of things. Maybe accept the 'noble thing to do' bit and see where it leads? What has anyone got to lose?

To be honest, I think most atheists still DO 'do the noble thing'. Not being a believer doesn't make you someone who immediately stops being a nice person. the 10 commandments are a reasonably decent starting point, and I think most religions have similar rules and as a basis of society, 'treat others how you would like to be treated' works pretty well. But you don't need religion for that.

 

[Dave-Vale]

I'm quite surprised by you being a religious man, Hertswolf.

I think I explained my comments regarding science disproving the idea of religion on the last page. I can see science and it can be explained rationally, whereas the idea of an omniscient presence guiding everything that everybody does is far too irrational for me. I'm not saying there is 100% not a god, or some kind of presence that helped us get to where we are today but I don't know it as fact so I don't believe it. If there is a god then it certainly isn't a benevolent being.

I do believe Jesus existed, but he wasn't the son of god; he was probably a genius/mentally ill man who created his own back story which was likely to have been very exaggerated after his death and it wouldn't surprise me if it was for financial gain. Jesus was a capitalist .

The main 4 gospels were written 50-100 years after Jesus lived and were edited at the Council of Nicea by Constantine. There are a lot of other 'lost gospels' which tell the same/similar story of Jesus but these didn't fit the description that Christianity wanted for the son of god so they were left by the way side.

My main issue with modern religion is that it's done far too much to stop us becoming more advanced than we are. Imagine where we'd be had Christianity not persecuted the vast majority of the greatest minds the world has ever had? It's also played a major hand in far too many wars/conflicts.

 

[silkyman]

After a C of E upbringing, I became Catholic by marriage (because that's how it works) and then on getting divorced I decided that I was happier being Anglican after all (because that's how it works). I go to church most Sundays, not because I am good and charitable and that, but because I'm not. I'm a bit of a miserable, sarcastic git with a shedload of vices and occasional road rage. Most of the saints started off as unpleasant bastards and were transformed at some stage. With a bit of luck, I am going to have a 'Road to Wolverhampton' moment and we will end up with a St Hertswolf Day on the 9th May each year.

But doesn't that strike you as odd? The religions split hundreds of years ago and people (still) kill each other for being one or the other. How can one god have different ways to believe in him, and how can it be possible to jump from one to another purely based on who you fell in and out of love with. Which one is right. Because they can't all be. (again this is something else I've talked about higher up, and is all part of my own decision to not only not believe, but to be mildly confused by people who do.) And this is only looking at modern Christianity, which only covers a fraction of the population over a fraction of recorded, and unrecorded human history.

I'm bemused in this thread by the seeming certainty of some that science proves there is no God, but also by the belief that God is some bearded bloke "up there" pulling levers and mixing up chemicals to build a geological era or wreak meteorological havoc on some county in Oklahoma. In reality, for many, God is transcendental, beyond what's measurable, beyond what's understandable.

Which is why science and religion will probably never 'work things out' because no matter how little the idea of a god makes any logical sense, he can always hide there. (But if he didn't create the universe, or the earth, or people, or hurricanes or lego, then what is he for, and why would he be there?)

Much of the Old Testament creates a story by which people of those times would understand their difficult world in their own times. However, the New Testament speaks more about peace, compassion, social justice, trust, forgiveness and faith. These are all good enough themes and values for me. And for many others. For those who are caught up with why Adam and Eve had belly-buttons, who Cain and Abel married, the clothing laws of Leviticus or getting two of every animal into a boat the size of a cross-Channel ferry, try to see it all as building a story of faith and belief for people 1,500 years ago.

Repeating myself again, but religion and science stemmed from the same place. The desire to understand the world. The bits about compassion and justice came later, and there is no reason why the two NEED to be linked, other than the idea of Jesus being the Son of God giving him a level of authority above anything else at that time.

I can't prove there is a God, but I don't really need to for my own purposes. I really don't care what you are, or whether you believe in a God or in any other thing. I'm really not bothered. Actually, these kinds of threads are quite difficult for me, because disagreeing with anti-theist positions would seem to make you some kind of evangelist. And I'm not. I've already seen terms like "god botherer" used. I suspect there are others lurking also who actually do have faith, do believe and feel that there's quite a lot of misrepresentation in this thread.

Faith is an individual thing, but I suspect it is heavily influenced by what is fashionable and what is not. For most people under the age of 25 or so, being Christian is something to be mocked. It's a pity.

I can see the point about not wanting to be seen as an evangelist, because I don't want to come across as a 'smug atheist' because I honestly don't believe that it makes me in any way superior. (there are plenty of people on both sides who do, mind) I just think that because I was never pushed into it. Never had it drilled into me (insert catholic priest joke here) that it was easier for the 'Science' argument to push the 'Religion' one out in my mind. I can't begin to imagine how hard it might be for someone who has been indoctrinated from birth into believing something to even start to think critically about it.

At least this thread hasn't just descended into 'Where are the half cow half fish, and what's the use of a half evolved eye' levels.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

You can't disprove God with science as such but you can disprove many of the fundamental tenets that certain religions rely on. The idea of free will, for example, has pretty much been debunked by neuroscience at this point.

 

[HertsWolf]

What does storytelling and myths have to do with whether something actually exists?

It has nothing to do with it at all. I was using the concept of historical mythos (to explain things 1,500 years ago to people) and contemporary logos (to explain scientific rationale to a much more educated world). So disproving God (or Christianity) based upon ancient stories and interpretations is unfairly handicapping the religious side of the argument.

I agree that you can't judge all religion by it's most fundamentalist elements, but from an atheist position, those people are committing atrocities in the name of something that we not only think doesn't exist, but that it couldn't possibly. It's always going to be the easy target.

Don't disagree with that. But there are men and women of peace in all religions, and always have been. Will our 21st Century world be primarily remembered for an endless cycle of conflicts, for the degradation of our planet by our activities or for the technological advances we are making? Or all three. History books have tended to remind us more of the bad than the good. As does contemporary media.
As has been pointed out earlier, religion has fought viciously and almost endlessly to stop scientific progress. That's a sad reflection on religion but historical morals, ethics, values and beliefs are always seem to be abhorrent or questionable to future generations. Many of my own ancestors, and not too distant in the past, were likely to be racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, narrow-minded and bigots: they were products of their time. It doesn't make me disinherit or abandon my own roots or heritage. They were different and often sad and inglorious times.

As has been discussed further up. If you want to believe the bible, you pretty much HAVE to believe it 'blindly' because the text hasn't changed for 500 years, and is based on copy in another language four times as old.

I disagree. You don't have to blindly believe everything you read anywhere for any reason. Surely the question is not about the importance of believing the Bible. It's just a guide and a handbook. It's like having the user manual for Mac OSX 10 Cheetah (issued around 2001). It's an old manual to something that has evolved dramatically since then. Many of the basics and core elements are the same but the Cheetah manual looks very dated. It's probably not a great analogy.

People might' blindly believe' the science in The God Delusion etc, but they don't have to, as there are other sources of information, other researchers, other texts on the same subject, written before, after and at the same time. All 'supporting' texts are based on that one.

That's actually largely my point. They can read plenty of others, hundreds of good authors, but very, very few actually do. They can half quote Dawkins or others, and that was the context of blindly following something. They take the literal nature of a 1,500 year old system manual and compare it with scientific rationale. And while all (or most) supporting texts are based on that one text, that one original was a collection of even older documents written second, third, fourth hand.
I predict that the Bible will be around long after Dawkins is sitting on a fluffy cloud in heaven with a huge expression of surprise on his face next to Jaques Monod.

And to be honest, that would be fucking awful. Like the prequel to the latest Mad Max film.

Not necessarily, although I share some of the concern. If modern religion focuses more on social justice, compassion, welfare, peace, etc then maybe it would be a good thing. But it's a big 'if'.