The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Evolutionary conundrums for believers > Comments

Evolutionary conundrums for believers : Comments

By Glen Coulton, published 23/1/2013

If God wanted hordes of us humans hanging out in heaven with him, why didn't he just put us there from the word go?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All
This excommunicable article is a sin against that old man the Lord our Saviour.

It should therefore such be shunned as the author should be. His Eminence Cardinal Pell take note.

I myself retain heaps of redeeming spiritual qualities which guarantee my place in Heaven. One is paying Indulgences in instalments ie. the Holey sack of collection.

On declining Church Attendance - its lack of old Hymns. In our WASP society middle age men (like moi) are banned from singing in pubic, unless we are drunk. The exception being in Church.

Problem is the Lord's Greatest Hits have been replaced by DIY lyrics and ditties by the congregation or the bloke up front, be he man, woman or trannie.

No longer All Things Bright and Beautiful.

Get it right God.

And I won't get started on original shin.

Pete
(hanging on to his own)
Posted by plantagenet, Wednesday, 23 January 2013 10:44:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Israelis classify the Palestinians as sub-humans and the rest of us as gentiles (which I gather is nearly as bad).

I strongly support the Palestinians so I guess I must be a sub-human and a gentile. And given that I am an atheist too, not much chance for me then when I die, eh?

But worse, I also believe that human evolution is being retarded by people who think that the current systems in place in our world are next to perfect and the worship of greed is next to Godliness. Such people are usually rich and live in MacMansions.

Life isn't simple, is it? Perhaps a nuclear war will make things clearer, give us a level playing field!
Posted by David G, Wednesday, 23 January 2013 11:51:20 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh dear, David G. This is a little embarrassing...

>>Such people are usually rich and live in MacMansions.<<

Ummm, how should I break this to you?

Rich people most definitely do not live in McMansions. Here is a selection of definitions for you to ponder...

Wikipedia says...

"McMansion is a pejorative for a type of large, new luxury house which is judged to be incongruous for its neighborhood. Alternately, a McMansion can be a large, new house in a sub-division of similarly large houses, which all seem mass produced and lacking distinguishing characteristics, as well as at variance with the traditional local architecture"

Don't like Wikipedia? Here's the Urban Dictionary for you...

"A large and pretentious house, typically of shoddy construction, typical of "upscale" suburban developments in the late 20th and early 21st centuries... nauseating large suburban homes that are built from cookie-cutters that seem to pop up everywhere like McDonald's restraunts."

Not a fan of the Urban Dictionary? Try The Age:

"'McMansion'? This nasty term describes the big, new houses out in suburbs with names like Caroline Springs and Kellyville. McMansions, their nickname suggests, are the McDonald's of housing - they're super-sized, American and mass produced."

Back on the topic of "Evolutionary conundrums for believers"

I consider that these sneering, ultra-cheap shots against people with religious beliefs reflect poorly on the writer. Sneering and taking ultra-cheap shots is not a sign of great intellect in my book. More like the weapons of choice of supercilious bullies.

I wonder why they bother, when the chances of actually having an impact on their presumed targets, religious believers, are precisely nil, thanks to their arrogant and condescending approach. More likely, then, they are simply showing off to their mates that they, too, can be sneering and take ultra-cheap shots.

Sad.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 23 January 2013 12:19:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,
I know the author of this article and he is no intellectual lightweight.

He and a group of his friends exchanged no less than four very pertinent letters with a Roman Catholic Church authority over the matter of child sexual abuse over about sixteen months from July 2011.

I assume that the author wrote this article because he believes that it is more sensible to point out the idiocy of some beliefs to the sheep rather than the shepherd.

If wasn't me that gave the derogatory designation "flock" to the followers of religion. As then Bishop Ratzinger said in 1979;
"The Christian believer is a simple person: bishops should protect the faith of their little people against the power of the intellectuals."
then Bishop Ratzinger in a sermon dated 31 December1979
Posted by Foyle, Wednesday, 23 January 2013 12:44:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ah, Pericluless, I have changed your pseudonym to something that better suits you and your meagre talents. I hope you don't mind.

To call yourself 'Pericles' is pretentious to say the least given that it means: "surrounded by glory". The real Pericles was a prominent and influential Greek statesman, orator, and general of Athens during the city's Golden Age. Pericles you are not!

Now, to your comment...sorry, I can find nothing in it that is worth discussing or debating.

Sorry.
Posted by David G, Wednesday, 23 January 2013 12:47:03 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Glen you've asked 'the' question for all 'god' believers...why all this? Human life and sin and sufferring...

First any answer must apply to all humans....so
http://myummah.co.za/site/2008/03/03/how-the-mongols-came-into-islam/
http://www.naqshbandi.org/library/angels/angels3.htm
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel+1&version=NKJV

First Ghengis becoming muslim(?), second arc angel Gabriel insructing Mohammed to effect the Koran, third of persian and jews god...the fundamental point is the same...all are 'humans'...beleive in soul, and every act in your daily moments has an effect on your soul....'an intelligent energy'...negatively and positively(king David and bathsheba and gods punishment as negative example), and the true religious books act to help one become aware of, understand and develop your soul...

To counter...soul is nonsense...so body nd mind only...so death ends 'you' completely...then issue of 'god' irrelwvant....just live and succeed...going by percentage, majority of people in the world believe in existence of god(follow a religion)...so their soul...which still doesnt prove the existence of soul...unless you were guided and protected like Daniel...so this leves a chunk of population whom dont believe Daniel actually happened in history....though history knows of persian king Darius...so maybe this group needs an 'soulful experience...moving on...

Now we know the effects of effort to succeed in wordly issues....all of us have to get money to live etc...genghis epitomizes this...his wordly success is rarely been matched...yet turns to his soul...

Whats the effect of efforts to succeed in 'soul' issues...here very few people actually know by experience...and me thinks the answer to first posed question lies here...

I need to ponder a while...

sam
Posted by Sam said, Wednesday, 23 January 2013 2:08:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Pericles: "I wonder why they bother, when the chances of actually having an impact on their presumed targets, religious believers, are precisely nil, thanks to their arrogant and condescending approach. More likely, then, they are simply showing off to their mates that they, too, can be sneering and take ultra-cheap shots."

THIS is why we bother:

"People professing to have no religion have moved past Anglicans to become the second-largest grouping after Catholics in the 2011 Census."

http://www.theage.com.au/national/godless-overtake-anglicans-as-hinduism-doubles-20120621-20pt0.html#ixzz2IlnPmvBj

When you're freeing people's minds, guess what? Pushy, snarky, New Atheist tactics actually work.
Posted by Jon J, Wednesday, 23 January 2013 2:33:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If it is the sort of thing that makes you feel happy, David G, then by all means be my guest.

>>Ah, Pericluless, I have changed your pseudonym to something that better suits you and your meagre talents. I hope you don't mind.<<

It does seem just a tad childish, though. But each to his own, I guess.

>>Now, to your comment...sorry, I can find nothing in it that is worth discussing or debating. Sorry.<<

Please don't apologize. You know the maxim - when you don't have anything to say, it is far better to say nothing at all.

That might take a little practice, but feel free to make a start any time you like.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 23 January 2013 4:20:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, how about that, Jon J

"People professing to have no religion have moved past Anglicans to become the second-largest grouping after Catholics in the 2011 Census."

But isn't there just the tiniest caveat to your triumphalism?

"The total Christian population is 13.2 million, or 61 per cent"

>>Pushy, snarky, New Atheist tactics actually work.<<

Of course, I forgot. New Atheism is the entire driving force behind the slow-but-inexorable move away from organized religion. Not better education and freer communications, as I had - wildly - imagined.

Congratulations
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 23 January 2013 4:29:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The belief that this ordered world came from a big bang is idiotic and totally irrational. Kindergarden observance confirms that. The evidence that the author seems to prat on about for evolution is still yet to be produced. People simply choose not to believe their Maker because they are filled with pride and are completely blind to their own adamic natures. The author uses the words 'We now know' To me it shows he knows very little. Creation is very observable unlike the fantasy of evolution.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 23 January 2013 5:57:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We should not confuse the practice of religion with the practice of faith. Any form of institution, organization of humans, irrespective of their intention, is susceptible to corruption. But faith, on the other hand, is personal, and is beyond any judgement of others.

We also should not confuse the abuse of religion with the practice of faith. Any persuasion of religious nature, even atheism, is susceptible to abuse. Yes, I know, not all atheists are bad guys, but there are a few of them do give the bad name to atheism, namely, Chairman Mao, Josef Stalin, Pol Pot, just to name a few. The same can be said about any religious organisation. So what is the point in taking cheap shot at anyone?

I have my faith, a faith given by God. It may seem ridiculous and insane to you; at the same time, I find atheism dishonest. But who am I to judge atheists? by the same token, who are you to judge my faith? Only when someone acts out of his faith and harms someone else, the law steps in to seek justice, and then it is an issue of action, not faith, not even religion, unless it incites unlawful behaviours.

People often take examples such as pedophile priests as evidence against religion in general. It is too simplistic and sometimes downright misleading. Those priests are criminals, not the representative of any religion.

I know not what kind of person the author is; however, I am afraid his article does not serve him favourably. All the ridicule he mustered against Christianity are age old stories with the sole aim of discrediting the faith, without any sincerity of learning and understanding, which make them little value for debate or response.
Posted by Peng, Wednesday, 23 January 2013 6:52:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(a) "We should not confuse the practice of religion with the practice of faith." But the major religions use these terms interchangeably. Catholics refer to people who desert the Catholic religion as having lost the faith and religious schools call themselves "faith-based". So who is confused?

(b) "I find atheism dishonest. But who am I to judge atheists?" You just did.

(c) "I know not what kind of person the author is; however, I am afraid his article does not serve him favourably." Correct. You, don't know what kind of person I am. Let me help. I am the kind of person who understands that anybody who presses incredible views on others bears the responsibility of proving them. Christians begin by asserting that there is a God who requires certain behaviours of us if we are to avoid certain unspeakable punishments. Non-believers say, "Hang on. Until you prove your basic assumption, the rest of what you say has no force. And remember, it's you who must prove your assumption. I don't have to prove any unlikely assertions because I did not make any. I certainly don't have to prove that you are wrong. But I do have the right, maybe even the responsibility, to point out flaws in your assumption, especially when you go the extra step of trying to force others to accept your own unproven beliefs."

(d) " … who are you to judge my faith?". Nobody is judging your faith, just your logic. You have responded by ignoring my challenge to the logic of your belief and, instead, attacking me for the kind of person I am. It would help if you, and Pericles, played the ball rather than the man.
Posted by GlenC, Wednesday, 23 January 2013 7:53:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles wrote:
"I consider that these sneering, ultra-cheap shots against people with religious beliefs reflect poorly on the writer."

Well, that's one way of pointing out why my question to believers was illogical. Another way would have been to explain where the logic failed. Perhaps in your next post?

"I consider that Sneering and taking ultra-cheap shots is not a sign of great intellect in my book. More like the weapons of choice of supercilious bullies."

As you have not claimed that the question was unworthy of being asked, perhaps you might explain, or better still demonstrate, how it could have been asked unsneeringly and without bullying. Perhaps you could also explain why asking people who press incredible beliefs to justify them is taking a cheap shot. What might be taking a cheap shot is pointing out that when you start an accusation with "I consider", it's a bit tautologous to end it with "in my book".

"I wonder why they bother, when the chances of actually having an impact on their presumed targets, religious believers, are precisely nil…"

Partly it's because, as the recent small flood of books by relieved ex-believers shows, there are many hoping for reassurance that it's alright to question the stories they were indoctrinated with as youngsters in their church, school and home
Posted by GlenC, Wednesday, 23 January 2013 8:21:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I enjoy reading articles like this but I do have a few thoughts:

1) It seems to me that a post like this helps reinforce those whose belief is shares, while those on the opposite side automatically claim it as "more athiest hatemail". I think most people, if they are susceptible to changing beliefs or views, are more likely to have that change hearing it from a friend or a trusted associate rather than an online blog, unless looking for that.

2) I think the problem with the writers assertion, although accurate, that the majority or average Christian religous beliefs can be summed up in those few contradictory points is that there might be some, even perhaps only one, religion or faith that believes differently or has a belief that isn't contradictory and could be classed as "The Truth". It is like saying that all Medical Science is a failure because in the end everyone dies anyway.

3) I know of many who believe in evolution yet will not accept and evolve with climate change rather they fight carbon poisoning and want us as a society to go backwards or stagnate

4) Evolution has the issue that no-one I have heard of (please correct if I am wrong) has witnessed or "was there" when some form of primate evolution occurred, whereas people have claimed to see God. One based on fact or seeing, the other based on theory or conclusion.

Thoughts?
Posted by RandomGuy, Wednesday, 23 January 2013 8:48:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hooray! Another tedious kick-sand-in-the-Christian-face atheist bully.

Your "conundrums" only exist if you presume a literalist biblical interpretation.
As usual, the atheist has (re)made God in his image, presuming if he, the atheist, is logical and literal, God and the Bible must be too.

“Everything, including human beings, was created by God according to his design.”

Really? The Bible says "design"?
And the “design” is fixed, static?

Cannot evolution be part of the design itself?
We don't know if the creatures "created" are the same that exist today.

“Human beings began with two first parents who, from the word go, looked as we look today.”

Actually, the intention was one man, Adam.
Eve was an afterthought.

Really? It says we looked simultaneously Negroid, Caucasoid *and* Mongoloid?
Cite the biblical *description* of these first humans.

“The first parents, and all their ancestors, had immortal souls. Lesser animals (sub-humans) don't.”

Really? It says that?
1 Corinthians 15:44 says anything with a natural body has a spiritual body.

Did God intend animals to have immortality, thought, free will?
If not, there's a different situation for animals and talk of souls, sin and heaven are irrelevant to them.

“[human] immortal souls would not have been able to access the eternity in heaven that God had intended them to enjoy”

He did? Or did that come later, after the plan was changed by the actions of Adam and Eve under free will?

He created *Eden* for Adam, not heaven.
All that other stuff wasn't mentioned until after the Fall.

“God decided that the way to redeem humans was to produce a son and have him crucified.”

Jesus wasn't manufactured *for* sacrifice. He already existed and consented.
Humans became sinful through free will, surely they must reverse this through free will.
Tick a box: Jesus, Yes or Jesus, No.
(BTW I have, for now, ticked the No box. Or more accurately, Don't Know).

“humans' right to an eternity in heaven was reinstated.”

Or gained.

“modern youngsters easily see holes in this account.”

And in your presumptuous, distorted presentation.
Posted by Shockadelic, Wednesday, 23 January 2013 9:05:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“why, if God wanted hordes [he initially created *one* man] of us humans hanging out in heaven [in Eden] with him, he didn't just put us there"

He wanted angels in heaven (and even they had free will, see "Satan, demons"), Man on Earth (one man, Adam).

“why he needed to put us through a testing process called "life" to find out if we were worthy of him.”

Worthy of “paradise”.

He didn't want a robot.
He wanted someone to love and be loved by.

“children he causes/allows to die before they've had a chance to use their free will.”

Were children part of the plan? Eve wasn't.

You're presuming God has the same standards for naive children and aware adults. The bible say this?
Is says God is just and forgiving. I'm sure kids get a bit more leeway.

“make everyone other than the original offenders responsible for a sin committed before they were even born.”

We pass on a physical legacy (e.g. deformities), why not a metaphysical one?

“humans did not begin with two first parents who looked like us from the word go.”

It says we were made in God's image, not our contemporary image.

“evolving slowly over millions of years from ancestors we now happily categorise as sub-human.”

We know of primate fossil specimens (often only a tooth or toe to speculate about).
Are they “us” or just extinct animals?

“a creature who was the first to evolve enough to be classified by God as truly human and provided with a soul”

Maybe that's another way of interpreting the “creation” of Adam.
Did God set the evolution ball rolling and one day, hmmm, that one shows remarkable promise?

“how will God explain to that creature that there is no point joining the search [for] its parents?”

I'm sure Adam was aware of this “origins”.

“how do you explain it to your children today?”

Children want theological analysis?
They just like the pretty pictures of arks and angels.

Reminder Memo for Knee-Jerkers: I'm not Christian, I just can't stand pathetic atheist bullies.
Posted by Shockadelic, Wednesday, 23 January 2013 9:20:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Randomguy wrote:
'Evolution has the issue that no-one I have heard of (please correct if I am wrong) has witnessed or "was there" when some form of primate evolution occurred, whereas people have claimed to see God. One based on fact or seeing, the other based on theory or conclusion.'

If you are not prepared to believe evidence of what happened millions of years ago unless you hear it from someone who was there at the time, you will have to reject everything we know about our pre-history.

If you are not prepared to accept accounts of what Jesus said unless you have the written assurance of an eye witness, then you will have to reject every statement attributed to him in the Bible.

If you think that sightings of God are factual, then what about John 1:18 which says, "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him"?
Posted by GlenC, Wednesday, 23 January 2013 9:24:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles. Your right on this one. "Modern" youngsters boned up on evolution disproving religion. Pity they do not Google BOTH sides.

Nominalist Catholics seem to think they do not cause evil in the world and everyone goes to Heaven. This is errant Catholic teaching from 1970s. Using Kantian Imperative, de Chardin and that baloney. Where is Thomistic philosophical and theological clarity of old? Never taught them. Reminds one of the Screwtape Letters.

How can it be fair play to make us responsible for other people's sins? You better hope its so, otherwise one might be in trouble oneself. Others put up with impacts of your sins, and bear suffering.

Sure we are not descended from two first parents? Heard of genetics or Mitochondrial Eve? (circa 1987) Religious have a strong scientific bone here. Even articles from 2013, for later relevance. How does later time factor make it more intelligent/truthful? Whig version of history? Ahh..1970s history curriculum.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7008/full/nature02842.html
http://io9.com/5878996/how-mitochondrial-eve-connected-all-humanity-and-rewrote-human-evolution
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mitoeve.html
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt109.html
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt100.html

Pooh-pooh intelligent design all you like, but first read the scientific articles of Michael Behe, Antony Flew and co.
http://www.discovery.org/p/31
http://www.amazon.com/Answering-New-Atheism-Dismantling-Dawkins/dp/1931018480

God did put first parents in a perfect place of happiness originally. Garden of Eden, wasn't it? Heaven on earth?

The first parents in causing Original Sin gave us the life testing. There is Love. It requires free-will. We're also a race, not a bunch of individuals. I am happy to claim I am a member of the human race. In the words of Captain Kirk "I need my pain", at least for now.

With God all knowing, He can easily understand the state of a unborn child and their worthiness for heaven, before use of free will. What person does not believe in concupscience in any case?

Catholic Theology and Philosophy is actually logical, rational, and extremely well thought out. I think the author has not studied it fully. One cannot find reconciliation in lawsuits. We all need to learn to forgive, and to find and accept forgiveness. That is Human.
Posted by aga, Wednesday, 23 January 2013 9:39:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
aga : "Pity they do not Google BOTH sides."

Both sides of what? One is faith one is science, entirely different things.

Intelligent design has no body of evidence nor a proven mechanism. It's faith, pure and simple, mitochondrial DNA not withstanding.
Posted by Luciferase, Thursday, 24 January 2013 12:27:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm one of those who can't see the logic in creating a entire universe just for the purpose of holding some sort of competition to see who gets to win the "Big Prize" at the end by second-guessing what a bunch of people assumed to be the case millennia ago.

God must be very lonely if He has to create his own friends and somewhat insecure if He needs constant reassurance through worship.

Then He says we're all automatically bad because some rib woman was tricked into eating a piece of fruit from a magical tree by a talking snake and the only way to get this fixed is to ceremonially eat His flesh, drink His blood and speak to Him telepathically so he will change His Divine Plan just for your own convenience.

And some dismiss the mere theory of evolution outright because they say it's nonsense.

Isn't it a bit arrogant to believe that of all the Gods over all the centuries, we have stumbled onto the real one and not only know what His plan is but even what He looks like? How convenient.

It's more likely that the human mind is simply incapable of conceiving whatever the truth may be.
Posted by wobbles, Thursday, 24 January 2013 12:52:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@RandomGuy: "1) It seems to me that a post like this helps reinforce those whose belief is shares, while those on the opposite side automatically claim it as "more athiest hatemail". I think most people, if they are susceptible to changing beliefs or views, are more likely to have that change hearing it from a friend or a trusted associate rather than an online blog, unless looking for that."

Well, we are changing views, and pretty rapidly, as the census data shows. But atheists don't want people to simply swap one received opinion for another; we want them to make a rational decision based on evidence. Part of that is calling out anyone who speaks or writes nonsense in public, and making it clear their views won't go unchallenged. And that applies to any kind of nonsense, not just religious nonsense.

I once suggested that the motto of the Existence of God forum on FRDB should be "Getting theists to shut up since 2003". It was -- slightly -- tongue-in-cheek, but it represents an important step forward; getting people to be embarrassed about admitting stupid beliefs in public.
Posted by Jon J, Thursday, 24 January 2013 6:45:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks aga. I think.

>>Pericles. Your right on this one. "Modern" youngsters boned up on evolution disproving religion. Pity they do not Google BOTH sides<<

Actually, the pity is that you have firmly grasped the wrong end of the stick, insofar as my observations are concerned.

Questioning the impact that people with sincerely-held beliefs have on others - for example, religious indoctrination that leads to unsocial behaviours, or scamming funds from government to support those beliefs - is fair game. On the other hand, holding the sincerely-held beliefs of other people up to ridicule, with no other agenda than to expose them as silly, is nothing more than bad manners.

Glen C defended the tone of his article with:

>>As you have not claimed that the question was unworthy of being asked, perhaps you might explain, or better still demonstrate, how it could have been asked unsneeringly and without bullying.<<

Perhaps, Glen C, if you cannot frame the question without a sneer, you should consider whether you might be asking the wrong question. As far as I can tell, your entire article led to the final line...

"And if you are a parent and a believer, how do you explain it to your children today?"

What did you consider to be the purpose of that question when you wrote it, other than to make the "parent and believer" feel really, really small, their beliefs having been smashed to smithereens on the pulpit of your superciliously-delivered logic?

I'm beginning to sympathize with Ricky Gervais, who in a recent New Statesman interview said:

"...there shouldn’t be a word for atheism: it shouldn’t exist, it’s ridiculous. If people didn’t keep making up supernatural deities, I wouldn’t have to deny they exist."

There is not a word that describes a non-belief in fairies, or the Easter Bunny. And there certainly isn't a movement of anti-fairy-believers, intent on wiping them from the face of the earth.

If atheism means anything, it is the right not to believe, without having militant soap-box orators claiming to speak on your behalf.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 24 January 2013 9:51:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The way evolutionist have to shut their eyes daily in order to repeat the mantra ('their is no god ') to themselves pitiful. Design and order stare them in the face daily. The pathetic fantasy of their origins story is simply more often than not just a poor excuse not to come under the authority of their Maker. While obvious design might not convince all of God the pathetic irrational attempts of evolution certainly prove a devil (known as the Liar). Any thinking person can see that.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 24 January 2013 10:08:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://lightomega.org/Ind/the-Sacred-and-Holy-Covenant.html

" The holy Covenant - God's promise of abundance and blessing to those whose relationship with the Divine remained one of purity, love, and an immersion in the principles of light and truth - defines the relationship between Creation and Creator. These principles create an arrangement of reciprocity and blessing through which all that is good and desirable can flow.  On the one hand, the blessings of abundance flow to the embodied life of souls on the earth, creating a sense of nurturance and of gift; on the other, the blessings of love, reverence, obedience, and devotion flow toward the One, the Creator of all."

I wrote earlie..." Whats the effect of efforts to succeed in 'soul' issues...here very few people actually know by experience...and me thinks the answer to first posed question lies here...I need to ponder a while...sam"

And my pondering got me to...I need more information on 'soul' ...and its a personal pursuit...that which cant be obtained from others or in scientific knowledge...as science has not gone here...nor from organized religions and their highly drilled army and its convincing words in unision...ive learned to politely firmly avoid...

I need more information of my soul, and it seems asking if it 'exists' immidiately defeats the quest...insteading acting in what nutures it and watching the effects on me....would lead me to answering one of the important questions here...does a guiding protecting educating covenant exist between god and I...

sam
Posted by Sam said, Thursday, 24 January 2013 11:45:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles, you wrote:

<Perhaps, Glen C, if you cannot frame the question without a sneer, you should consider whether you might be asking the wrong question. As far as I can tell, your entire article led to the final line...]>

You seem very pleased with your conclusion that I framed my question with a sneer but you've not demonstrated that I did. I never felt any need to sneer or any need to justify asking the question whose asking upsets you so much. Do you regard raising objections to firmly held beliefs as necessarily sneering or are they only sneering when the firmly held beliefs are religious?

And is there anything wrong with preceding a final question by establishing relevant premises? It's done quite often.

<What did you consider to be the purpose of that question when you wrote it, other than to make the "parent and believer" feel really, really small, their beliefs having been smashed to smithereens on the pulpit of your superciliously-delivered logic?>

The purpose of the question was to give people who are agonising over whether to reject the beliefs they were indoctrinated in one more reason for feeling that it's OK to do so. It was one attempt to counter the indoctrination such people have had visited upon them by religious proselytisers for centuries, and still do. Am I not allowed even one small word of encouragement to them?

And is the pertinence of a logical objection to be judged by whether you feel it was posed superciliously? You seem to be carefully avoiding engaging with whether the question was a good one. You seem more interested in finding fault with me than with it.

I notice, though, your prediction that my question will lead to "their beliefs having been smashed". Do you really think it was that good?

Continued…
Posted by GlenC, Thursday, 24 January 2013 12:59:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
aga,

<<Sure we are not descended from two first parents? Heard of genetics or Mitochondrial Eve?>>

Ever heard of Mitochondrial Adam? He lived about 90,000 years later than Mitochondrial Eve.

How does that fit into the “strong scientific bone” religion has?

The first female ancestor common to all mankind - that you’re actually thinking of - would probably have been a fish of some sort, but Mitochondrial Eve is just the most recent common matrilineal female ancestor. Our most recent common patrilineal male ancestor came so much later because males have historically been more promiscuous.

So how did God create Eve from the rib of someone he create 90,000 years later?

<<...first read the scientific articles of Michael Behe, Antony Flew and co.>>

Behe's 'irreducible complexity' has been debunked numerous times and Flew's blown-out-of-proportion conversion to Deism was basically a God of the Gaps fallacy.
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 24 January 2013 1:42:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
runner,
You stated, "The way evolutionist have to shut their eyes daily in order to repeat the mantra ('their is no god ') to themselves pitiful. Design and order stare them in the face daily".

No we don't. Most of us hold our heads up high and thank our forefathers of millions of years ago for their fortitude in a dangerous world.

What you cannot accept is that we live on a planet composed largely of the debris from the supernova collapse of an earlier sun. We orbit a star at 106,000 km per hour and that star, our sun, is only about 4.5billion years old in a universe 14.7 billion years old.

In the early 60's Robert Ardrey assembled 24 parallel lines of evidence showing that Australopithecus africanus was armed with weapons while hunting for his meat some 4 million years ago.

No one has ever managed to undermine the great majority of those lines of evidence. Australopithecines were the forerunners of the early Homo species and I for one am happy that they managed to pass on their genes.
Posted by Foyle, Thursday, 24 January 2013 2:51:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How is it possible, in 2013, that humans are still talking about a mythical being or beings called 'God'?

I mean, when we lived in caves and knew nothing, there was some excuse for believing in all manner of scary things like ghosts, gods and devils.

But for Pete's sake, why has it continued into an era where we have space travel and MacDonalds restaurants? Why in an era where we can create life and transplant hearts are people still believing in the equivalent of fairies at the bottom of the garden and Santa?

Quite obviously, humans are retarded. We are surrounded by reality but we can't grasp it or accept it. So the religious fraudsters continue to have a field day and always will it seems. Even when they molest our children people still flock to hear the duplicitious words from the pulpit or the equivalent thereof.

It's time to grow up, folks. We no longer have any excuse to, like children, cling to silly superstitions.

There is no 'god'. There is no life after death and singing hymns forever (how boring that would be)!

Embrace reality. Put 'god' in the trashcan. Make the most of what life is instead of deluding yourself about some mythical afterlife!

Let's make the most of the here and now, make it as pleasant as possible for each other.
Posted by David G, Thursday, 24 January 2013 4:08:35 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I find the idea of lots of Gods much more interesting just having one, that just seems a bit boring. If we are going to have souls it makes more sense in this enlighten age to recycle them.
Any way here is list of questions:-

Who created God ?

Why create such an impossible huge universe just for humans ? what happened to the KISS principle ?

What was the problem with dinosaurs ?

After being around for a few hundred million years they got knocked on the head. Humans have been around for maybe two or three million years or if we want to take the bible literally less than 10,000 years.

So what was the original plan ?
Posted by warmair, Thursday, 24 January 2013 4:50:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Warmair, man created God in his image. End of story. Thanks for your questions.

What most people forget is that this religious nonsense is not just an intellectual exercise because, currently, it is leading to a situation where one group of religious fanatics called Israeli Jews is pleading with another group of serial warmongers called Christian Americans to help them to drop nuclear weapons on an Islamic Nations called Iran.

So we seem to be perched on the edge of nuclear extinction all over mythical, anachronistic religious beliefs!

It is insane.
Posted by David G, Thursday, 24 January 2013 5:06:04 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foyle

you have been reading to many fairytales. Science is something that can observed, tried and tested. Unfortunately your nonsense is accepted by to many who could not be bothered to think. It is true that when you ignore the obvious to need to come up with a lot of mumbo jumbo to keep the funding.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 24 January 2013 6:27:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
wobbles "can't see the logic in creating a entire universe just for the purpose of holding some sort of competition to see who gets to win the "Big Prize"”

Isn't that exactly what evolution is?

“And some dismiss the mere theory of evolution outright because they say it's nonsense.”

Some dismiss the theory of divine creation, blah blah blah.

“Isn't it a bit arrogant to believe that of all the Gods over all the centuries, we have stumbled onto the real one”

...of all the scientific theories, blah blah blah.

Wobbles, you are same as those you accuse.

David G “why has it continued into an era where we have space travel and MacDonalds restaurants?”

Why has the modern industrial world produced Romanticism, Surrealism, Horror/Science Fiction/Fantasy?

Our clockwatching lives in concrete boxes make our soul/mind/heart *scream* “Get me out of here! This is not enough! Where has the magic gone?”

Why are God(s) so bad? Is that any worse than an obsession with zombies, mermaids or Jedi knights?

Rationalism is not enough for humans.
It's useful in practical endeavours like building a ship, but it won't give you a reason to *board* the ship.

That requires desire, dreams, hopes, fantasies!

“perched on the edge of nuclear extinction all over mythical, anachronistic religious beliefs!”

And? We were perched on the same edge due to political ideology too, the supposedly rational ideologies of capitalism and communism.

When people aren't fighting over Gods, it'll be something else.

warmair “Why create such an impossible huge universe just for humans?”

Who says? Does the Bible or any other scripture exclude or deny life elsewhere?

“What was the problem with dinosaurs? After being around for a few hundred million years they got knocked on the head”

It happens. So? This is somehow disproof of God/gods?
Did God/gods intend anything to be permanent?
Change is everpresent in the universe.
Posted by Shockadelic, Thursday, 24 January 2013 7:32:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Robert Putnam - prominent political scientist says God Believers are NICER people. Also author of "Bowling Alone".
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/gods-truth-believers-are-nicer-20110908-1jzrl.html

Play video
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (full movie)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/ Ben Stein's "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" is a movie about the freedom of speech suppression to which Intelligent Design proponents are being subjected to by…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5EPymcWp-g&NR=1&feature=endscreen

Shokadelic

I can't stand the atheist bigotted bullies either.

Aga

You're right.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I really am realising more and more how hateful, ugly and dodgy these people really are. A colleague recently brought this to my attention why there were so many bad smells in my workplace, ie corruption, narcissim, self promoters who are so ungenerous, fake and unfriendly. He said to me "you know most of the people in the department are Atheists".

These people just ain't got no soul!
Posted by Constance, Thursday, 24 January 2013 8:59:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
… continued

This continuation had to await the passage of 24 hours.

Pericles also wrote: <I'm beginning to sympathize with Ricky Gervais, who in a recent New Statesman interview said: "...there shouldn’t be a word for atheism: it shouldn’t exist, it’s ridiculous. If people didn’t keep making up supernatural deities, I wouldn’t have to deny they exist.">

Correct. But they do, and you apparently agree with Gervais (and the many before him who pointed out that speaking of "atheists" ought to be as unnecessary as speaking of "afairyists") that while people keep making up supernatural deities, it is necessary for others "to deny that they exist." So why did you get so upset with my little paper which just does what you now applaud Gervais for doing?

<If atheism means anything, it is the right not to believe, without having militant soap-box orators claiming to speak on your behalf.>

Perhaps you have an idiosyncratic understanding of atheism? Whatever, I can say that the many atheists I know would feel no need to mount soap boxes if those who believe the Christian story would keep their faith to themselves. It's when, through political pressure, they secure not only the approval of the government to engage in proselytizing but its material support by way of public funding, tax breaks and being granted exemptions from laws they find inconvenient, that the rest of us have not just a right, but a duty to cry, "Enough".

Constance wrote: <A colleague recently brought this (sic) to my attention why there were so many bad smells in my workplace … He said to me "you know most of the people in the department are Atheists".>

Do you have evidence to support this or are you happy just to spit out mindless, childish insults about the way atheists smell without bothering about their truth? And do you not see the implication of your admission that atheists are already a majority in workplaces like yours?
Posted by GlenC, Thursday, 24 January 2013 9:43:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ooo-errr. Three posts, just for li'l ol' me. Can I conclude that I touched a raw nerve somewhere, GlenC?

>>You seem very pleased with your conclusion that I framed my question with a sneer but you've not demonstrated that I did.<<

Expending so much energy on defending your tone of voice probably means that you now feel just the teensiest bit ashamed at the "how can anyone possibly believe in all that rot", cheap shot of an article that you wrote.

But then again, perhaps you don't. If this is the case, then it will take someone far cleverer than I to convince you.

>>So why did you get so upset with my little paper which just does what you now applaud Gervais for doing?<<

Again, if you cannot see the difference between Gervais' logical, inoffensive exposition of the use of the English language, and your "little paper', then it is clearly going to be beyond my capability to explain it to you.

So, you are on your own with that one, I'm afraid.

>>Do you have evidence to support this or are you happy just to spit out mindless, childish insults about the way atheists smell without bothering about their truth?<<

And with that, too.

Have a great, preferably non-bilious, weekend.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 25 January 2013 12:40:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
God was a good idea, and maybe still is: someone to thank when things go well, the crops have succeeded, and there will be food for the winter; a hunt went well, and there is food for all; seal or otter skins to trade for a knife, axe or cloth; a healthy mother and child: and, someone to beseech when the going is tough, or to blame for it.

When we are troubled now, who can we call upon for relief or a turnaround - Mother Julia? Family or neighbour perhaps? Or someone wise - a doctor, academic or philosopher?

We wouldn't necessarily send our thanks to God for a promotion, or for doing a good job on the barbecue, but perhaps when our house is still standing, unscathed, after a bushfire, or, when a loved-one recovers from a serious illness. We may send thoughts aloft to passed parents, in thanks for our being, or perhaps for inspiration or intercession in dealing with a problem; we may pray for those who have lost a loved-one, and for the lost. Can it help them, or us? Can it hurt - anyone?

A soul may be a sense of self, and of conscience, of caring; caring for the well-being of others, and of the planet, our home. We are not merely sentient, but also intellectual and passionate: draw, paint, laugh, cry, love, hate, empathize and possibly revere. We have a 'heart'. Elephants also appear to have a 'heart', but I doubt they think of God - but then, who knows?

In our individual isolation it is a comfort to have an invisible 'friend' - one who is supportive and understanding (for who knows us better than ourselves), but who is never vindictive or untrustworthy. (And may not be much help, of course.) Quiet introspection, and no harm done.
Posted by Saltpetre, Friday, 25 January 2013 4:36:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Cont'd):
As usual, some have sought to go too far: to make a big deal out of their 'special' relationship with the unknown and unknowable, for prominence, power, gratification - or sometimes, as a means to bring order to an unruly mob, to introduce law and order, and assurance of 'belonging'. The best of intentions, with righteous and worthwhile initial results, can unfortunately lead to detrimental consequences if or when 'authority' goes that one, overly-zealous step too far.

The 'idea' of God is not detrimental, of itself, and can be greatly beneficial - unless it is railroaded out of sheer personal, ethnic or cultural selfishness. No future but what we make; no excuses for going against our 'hearts'; no 'divine right' to act like savages, like mere 'animals'.

Israel/Palestine: Power, prominence, turf, survival (of culture, tribe) - or solely of religious intolerance? A mixed bag.

Our 'inner' God, our 'hearts', may eventually lead us to peace, tolerance and understanding; but too many 'outer' gods, with too many seemingly irreconcilable differences, are spoiling the soup. It is time to learn from our mistakes and our misconceptions, but killing, oppressing or condemning is no way to make friends or influence people.
Posted by Saltpetre, Friday, 25 January 2013 4:37:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles: <Can I conclude that I touched a raw nerve somewhere, GlenC?>

No, actually. Well, you could but you would be wrong.

Can I conclude that your refusal to substantiate your personal attacks on me other than by repeating them more loudly indicates that you have nothing substantial to say in defence of them?
Posted by GlenC, Friday, 25 January 2013 7:58:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GlenC “It's when, through political pressure, they secure not only the approval of the government to engage in proselytizing but its material support by way of public funding, tax breaks and being granted exemptions from laws they find inconvenient, that the rest of us have not just a right, but a duty to cry, "Enough".”

But you don't.
All the atheist articles I've seen abusively attack faith/religion itself, calling believers stupid or blaming religion for the crimes of those who happen to be religious (while downplaying or ignoring the stupid and criminal acts of the non-religious).

It's never just a questioning of tax status (I agree, *nobody* should be exempt) or school classes (I fail to see the issue with one-voluntary-period-a-week) or child abuse (that also happens in non-religious state care).

It's always, always bash-the-believer, bash-the-belief.

Can I conclude that your refusal to respond to any of my comments indicates that you have no genuine desire to debate the phoney “conundrums” you brought up?
Posted by Shockadelic, Saturday, 26 January 2013 2:49:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I give my vote for the best post so far on this subject to Saltpetre Page 6 last post and top of page 7.
Posted by warmair, Saturday, 26 January 2013 7:56:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Saltpetre: <We wouldn't necessarily send our thanks to God for a promotion, or for doing a good job on the barbecue, but perhaps when our house is still standing, unscathed, after a bushfire, or, when a loved-one recovers from a serious illness.>

And what do you send to God when your house is a burning rubble and your loved one dies?

<[W]e may pray for those who have lost a loved-one, and for the lost. Can it help them, or us? Can it hurt - anyone?>

For the most part, religious views and practices do not harm societies until the religions lobby governments to impose them on the population at large. Nobody denies the valuable contribution that most religions make to society (but Scientology?). But pressing praying on who those who believe that prayer achieves nothing and that praying is actually not a very intelligent use of time, as happens in parliaments and some councils, is presumptuously offensive. And praying can even hurt those who pray when they have to confront the potentially devastating reality that their prayer achieved nothing and they have been misled, which is a step of many on their road to disbelief.

<but killing, oppressing or condemning is no way to make friends or influence people>.

True, killing and oppressing are bad but when some get ideas that it's OK for them to kill and oppress, isn't condemning those ideas a good place to start? Indeed, isn't condemning them a responsibility that "good" people should embrace? And if religious organisations, especially Christian, Islamic and Judaean, argue for societies to adopt certain practices that are based on theological beliefs that are demonstrably incredible to all but the faithful, where else can the rest of us start other than to expose the flaws in those beliefs. It's not attacking people to expose the flaws in their beliefs, but religions regularly protest that it is.

And some who post to this site.
Posted by GlenC, Saturday, 26 January 2013 1:45:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shockadelic: <All the atheist articles I've seen abusively attack faith/religion itself, calling believers stupid or blaming religion for the crimes of those who happen to be religious (while downplaying or ignoring the stupid and criminal acts of the non-religious).>

If all the "atheist articles" you've seen abusively attack faith/religion, then maybe: (a) you choose very carefully what you don't want to read, or (b) you subscribe to the view that while questioning incredible beliefs of proselytizing organisations is just proper scepticism in action, when those organisations are religious it becomes something else akin to baby bashing.

If you were fair, you would admit that atheists do not blame religions for the crimes of the religious except when those crimes are committed to promote some religious objective, such as ridding the world of so-called witches, homosexuals, uppity educated women and girls, and theological dissenters.

I'm not sure why you thought it helpful to mention "stupid and criminal acts of the non-religious". They are just as irrelevant to this discussion as the run-of-the-mill stupid and criminal acts of the religious, unless they were committed by non-believers to give effect to some non-belief objective. That is why it is quite silly for believers to cite Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. They might have killed millions but it was for mainly political rather than atheistic reasons. They killed people who were in the way of their ambition whether or not they were religious.

Other than that, I'm sorry for not responding to your questions but I found them so all over the place and unconnected that the task was beyond the space allowed in a post — and my stamina.
Posted by GlenC, Saturday, 26 January 2013 2:02:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GlenC
"Do you have evidence to support this or are you happy just to spit out mindless, childish insults about the way atheists smell without bothering about their truth? And do you not see the implication of your admission that atheists are already a majority in workplaces like yours?" Tell me, what actually is their truth? I want to hear it.

The evidence is my experience at work in the public service while living in a Post Christian world. You should look up Rerum Novarum (a Pope Leo XIII Encyclical) - it's about social justice in the workplace. It is still relevant today. One of the duties of employers is "to respect the dignity of workers and not regard them as slaves". I've felt like a public slave. They only reward psychophants. There is so much dishonesty at my work going on.

"And do you not see the implication of your admission that atheists are already a majority in workplaces like yours?" What are you trying to say here? That I just have to live with it??

I've only recently realised that the people I have trusted over the years tend to be Christians or at least have Christian values. I've been in the wilderness for years and have only recently gone back to church for solace. I have been rehabilitating for about 20mths now after a hellish few years I had in the workplace. Now that I am recovered, I am contemplating a way out of my workplace oppression.
Posted by Constance, Saturday, 26 January 2013 9:29:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GlenC "(a) you choose very carefully what you don't want to read"

I'm referring to OLO articles and discussions, which unfortunately there seems to be a "new" one of this type every couple of days.
I force myself to read all of them.

"I'm sorry [No, you're not] for not responding to your questions but I found them so all over the place and unconnected that the task was beyond the space allowed in a post — and my stamina."

What a cop-out.
My responses are conveniently divided into bite-sized segments, just to make them easy to chew for little babies.

The bull-free interpretation: You know I'm not Christian, so you know I'm not going to follow their routine, and none of your usual bag of tricks will work on me.
Too hard, just ignore.
Posted by Shockadelic, Sunday, 27 January 2013 2:10:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Constance
<"Do you have evidence to support this or are you happy just to spit out mindless, childish insults about the way atheists smell without bothering about their truth?" Tell me, what actually is their truth? I want to hear it.>

When people make claims that something improbable exists (examples, fairies and gods) or that something implausible works for (example homeopathic "medicine" and prayer), the onus is always on them to prove their claim. The truth is that despite thousands of years of searching, no believer has produced a fairy or a god for us to look at or compelling circumstantial evidence that one exists, and nobody has proved that homeopathy or pray work. In fact, the best known modern controlled attempts to prove that intercessory prayer works found no evidence that it does.

Unlike many who value faith over evidence and who will never change their views, atheists would change their belief in a flash if evidence indicated they needed to. Fundamentalist typically won't budge from what they have decided is "truth", irrespective of the evidence.

I do know about Rerum Novarum. I spent 13 years being indoctrinated in Catholic schools. It makes sense.

<One of the duties of employers is "to respect the dignity of workers and not regard them as slaves". I've felt like a public slave. They only reward psychophants. There is so much dishonesty at my work going on.>

I totally sympathise and partly agree. It was like this for a time in my workplace except that it was the believers on top and religious sycophants who prospered.

Please understand that most atheists are not the slightest concerned about people holding religious beliefs unless they try to impose them on us or penalise us for not sharing them
Posted by GlenC, Sunday, 27 January 2013 11:04:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Constance (continued)
<"And do you not see the implication of your admission that atheists are already a majority in workplaces like yours?" What are you trying to say here? That I just have to live with it?>

No. Merely that the proportion of atheists in most western populations (even America!!) is growing.

<Now that I am recovered, I am contemplating a way out of my workplace oppression.>

If you are saying that becoming a believer has improved your health (and you are not hectoring non-believers to adopt your views) then I'm happy for you and hope that you continue to find the peace I'm been lucky enough to know since I threw off the yoke of my religious upbringing. And if you are not a religious proselytizer, then you are not a target of mine.
Posted by GlenC, Sunday, 27 January 2013 11:06:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GlenC,

It is so banal you guys are forever asking for evidence. Oh the poor fairies - how evil they are - right? Gods have been going around the world since Adam was a boy. I can never understand the obtuseness of all you fundies. It must just be the spiritual gene missing in your makeup, and you and they always end up picking on the poor fairies. Give them a break, will you. Oh can’t have them getting near the kiddies. Children hate them, don’t they? You fundies don’t seem to have any understanding of beauty, myths and human nature.

I worked for a Catholic organization for 5 yrs when I was a non- practicing RC. It was a particular cause (not prosyletizing) that I was attracted to. It was the most interesting and best job and best organization I ever worked for. I’m only looking back now. Hell, we even had an in-house band.

Well, my prayers were answered, and I did see signs. And I shan’t explain. I have a very open mind and my perception is pretty sharp. What are you looking for, apparitions? Life is full of subtleties. If your senses and mind are not open, you’ll never see anything.

Evelyn Waugh explained that his conversion followed his realisation that life was "unintelligible and unendurable without God".
/Cont...
Posted by Constance, Monday, 28 January 2013 8:39:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GlenC,
“I totally sympathise and partly agree. It was like this for a time in my workplace except that it was the believers on top and religious sycophants who prospered.” It didn’t happen to be a religious organization that you were working for, was it? Someone actually told me on Australia Day, that it was an disclosed policy in the public service that Catholics could never rise in the ranks, and she remembered one particular Catholic who was very popular among staff and wondered why he never got promoted. Is this because Catholicism has a very egalitarian ethos?

“Unlike many who value faith over evidence and who will never change their views, atheists would change their belief in a flash if evidence indicated they needed to. Fundamentalist typically won't budge from what they have decided is "truth", irrespective of the evidence” That’s because the those who value faith have seen the light – why would they change their view. That would be a pretty dumb thing to do.

Why is it they say the happiest people in the world are nuns. That was even mentioned in a talk on health we had recently at work. I’m pretty amazed it got through, actually. Lucky there weren’t any militant atheists around - they might have sued the department for proselytizing. The nuns were my feminist heroes. The first of the female careerists. Now I hate the word, careerist or carreer. Now it’s all changed. Having a vocation is much more noble.

So you were indoctrinated with Rerum Novarum, that made sense to you??

You still haven’t commented on the article on the political scientists research undertaken that Christians overall are nicer people??

Now don’t get paranoid, I’m not trying to convert you.
Posted by Constance, Monday, 28 January 2013 8:43:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Constance says, "If your senses and mind are not open, you’ll never see anything."

Believe what you want but your faith in the existence of "God", Constance, is not a testable hypothesis. Science is about reliance upon objective observation based on the five senses to provide indesputable support for, or falsification of, hypotheses.

Telling us that you have personally seen the light is not sufficient scientific support of your faith/hypothesis. All other observers must agree with you.

Evelyn Waugh's personal decision to believe is as persuasive in changing my outlook on faith as is your decision, Constance, but I am happy for you are/were both happy with it. Best wishes but stay out of the way of my natural rights.
Posted by Luciferase, Monday, 28 January 2013 9:59:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
With respect, I find myself having to defend Christianity, as it is generally practised in this day and age, as a very worthwhile, if not indispensable, organised religious movement (or aggregation of movements) at this point in human history. My reasoning is simple and straightforward, and that is as a counter-balance to the one major religious movement, in this much-troubled world of ours, which is currently presenting a real and visible hazard to world peace, as well as to the prospects of many of its own followers - and that is Islam, as practised and enforced by its 'Fundamentalist' protagonists and proponents. (Viz Egypt currently and the Islamic Brotherhood; the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Mali/Nigeria, and elsewhere, and ongoing Shia/Sunni rivalries and conflict.) (Perhaps also Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Sudan and Israel/Palestine.)

Before anyone gets too excited, I am Not suggesting overt, or even clandestine, religious conflict or war, which must be avoided at all costs. No, my proposition is that Christianity should actively work for a cooperative and conflict-free future.

What can Christianity do? It can work to press for more open and intensive international diplomacy, and more direct consultation with 'aggressor' movements and leadership, to identify and resolve grievances and causes of conflict; and to induce leaders of competing 'movements' (such as Shia and Sunni) to endeavour to reach a workable compromise, or at least respectful tolerance of each other.

Diplomacy alone would of course be insufficient to have much effect, and cooperation and material support (aid) by Western nations would be essential to any lasting resolution. In this respect, participation by the U.S. in particular would be of the utmost importance - as the U.S. appears to be seen as a major target of Islamic tensions and dissatisfaction.

Why Christianity? Because it can have a significant and telling voice. And, whereas Hindu, Buddhist and Chinese Leaders should also take an active part in these endeavours, in my view the Atheist 'movement' should stay well clear.
Posted by Saltpetre, Tuesday, 29 January 2013 4:44:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Saltpetre, given that the U.S. is supposedly a Christian nation and also the world's greatest warmonger, you might have difficulty convincing some folk that Christianity is the way to go!

In the Middle East we have Jews, Christians and Muslims at each other's throats, a familiar story!
Posted by David G, Tuesday, 29 January 2013 4:41:24 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree, Saltpetre, but probably not in the way you might expect.

>>[Christianity is] a counter-balance to the one major religious movement, in this much-troubled world of ours, which is currently presenting a real and visible hazard to world peace... in my view the Atheist 'movement' should stay well clear.<<

Apart for the moment from the obvious fact that there is no such thing as an Atheist movement, I find your underlying reasoning a little puzzling.

Would not an organized religion feel a greater threat from another organized religion, than from non-believers? It would appear - at least from the evidence on this thread - that Christians fear Muslims far more than atheists do. It is not much of a stretch to suggest, considering the practical mechanics of running and managing a set of believers, that the feeling would be mutual.

I doubt there were many atheists setting off on the Crusades, for example. Nor were there many atheists among the 9/11 crews.

If there ever is to be peace between the different religions on this planet, I would expect that it could only be brokered by atheists.

That's atheists, by the way. Not the "Atheist movement".
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 30 January 2013 7:20:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My reasoning, Pericles, is along the following lines:

These major religions have a lot in common, whereas they have little if anything in common with atheism - as a life philosophy or 'belief' system. Islam recognizes Jesus and Mary, both have a staunch belief in one true God, and there is a lot in common between the Christian Bible and the Holy Koran (Qur'an). Hence, there is a reasonable starting point for some bridge building, for comparing notes and discussing areas of agreement, difference, and disagreement. Scope for greater understanding.

Then there is the issue of how even moderate Muslims, let alone the more radical elements (read Taliban and the like), view Western decadence and perceived lack of modesty or of sound moral grounding. In this, the general Christian viewpoint would be not too dissimilar - virtue and humility being at the forefront of moral guidance. A starting point perhaps for a common vision of a better world - and for agreeing that there will always be dissenters and 'black sheep', but tolerance, within reasonable limits, is a virtue, and a moral imperative.

Then on the economic disparity front - which I feel is at the root of much dissatisfaction in the developing world - the U.S. is viewed as a principal 'hog', and as unacceptably aggressive in pursuing its planetary 'interests' (as well as being arguably untrue to its espoused Christian 'principles'). Hence, as both a majority Christian nation, as well as the most powerful and affluent, the U.S. would have to take a leading role in any cross-boundary dialogue aimed at achieving a stable and peaceful world - which would have to include universal religious tolerance, and conformity with Universal Human Rights. An ambitious but essential undertaking.

Dawkins and the Ayatollah? Not much future there, IMHO.
Posted by Saltpetre, Wednesday, 30 January 2013 6:45:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,

"I doubt there were many atheists setting off on the Crusades, for example. Nor were there many atheists among the 9/11 crews." What a ding bat statement. There would have been hardly any atheists around at time. The Crusades were there to defend Europe of Islamic re-invasion for goodness sake. Read some history will you.
Posted by Constance, Wednesday, 30 January 2013 9:59:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy