Josephus,

Some people in the eighteen century (might have been the early nineteenth) believed fairies existed. They did not produce empirically convincing evidence so I accept that belief to be unfounded. Is that a belief on my part?

Atheism is not an ideology. Marxist-Leninism is that to which you are referring.

My opinions about parents and what they teach children are irrelevant. I asked you to read the posts to discover that the AFA, other secular groups and education bodies do not agree that State schools should be indoctrinating children with one particular religion. If you agree with such indoctrination, then we are at serious odds with each other.

Children should be exposed to the historical aspects of religion and their influences on civilisation. This should be taught by qualified teachers and not volunteer zealots of a particular religion. Children should be given all available information and not indoctrinated into any ideology. They should be informed that there is no evidence for any supernatural part of reality. If such children choose a religion when they mature, society should support that but not pay for it or let it interfere in an unrepresented way in politics. (All of this is in the thread you refuse to read)

(Continued next post)

(Continued from last post)

Actually, I like the idea that a choice for an extended life (not eternal life) would be obtainable. Unfortunately, no matter how hard one wishes for this, there is no evidence it is true. This has nothing whatsoever to so with not liking the idea of a particular god. Disliking a non-existent entity or the idea of a non-existent entity is rather stupid. It’s only the impact of that harmful notion that the AFA deals with.

Because you believe in the god of your indoctrination does not automatically mean I must have some personal issue. There is no evidence for your god or any of the other thousands of gods.

If you met me you would realise that the personal issues story (told to you by religious leaders about why some people are atheists) is a fabrication. And might I add that I’m very happy with my life and am over-the-moon delighted that I am an atheist. It is the best and most fantastic thing by far that has ever happened to me. Many atheists think that.

I shiver when I consider that I could have remained locked into someone else’s ideas for the only life I am ever going to have. My opinion is that if somehow one could review the life they lived after death (without there being an afterlife), I would be very depressed and despondent at having wasted the only available.

But, to each her/his own as long as it is not imposed on civilisation.

David

David,
You certainly have a childish view of how we as Christians view reality by continually associating our view of the origins of reality with faries. Indicates lack of intelligent research of others views.

You are not a leader of original intelligent research of all views but a follower of senior atheists views that like to belittle others faith. You are held by the emotion of atheism and not by a genuine tolerance of others alternate views of origins.

You began this thread as a myth and end it with faries. We have learned a lot about your level of thought.

Says David, "Some people in the eighteen century (might have been the early nineteenth) believed fairies existed. They did not produce empirically convincing evidence so I accept that belief to be unfounded. Is that a belief on my part"

Actually, the cosmos can get along without fairies, but the existence of the cosmos, life and all else cannot be ignored, and has to be accounted for.

For example, what specific VERIFIABLE scientific evidence do you have to establish that our dependendent dying universe, that cannot even sustain itself or prevent itself from running down towards heat death and maximum entropy(disorder), was able to actually bring "itself" into existence.

Here's the reality. Science is a million miles from establishing ANY of the multitude of ASSUMPTIONS on which your philosophical naturalism and materialism is founded. Meaning, at this point in time your entire godless naturalistic view of reality has no VERIFIABLE scientific basis, and is thus based entirely on "blind faith". In short, yor godless naturalistic worldview has its feet planted firmly in mid air.

So, David, all we need from you is real VERIFIABLE scientific evidence that the cosmos and all else is IN FACT solely the result of natural processes and causes alone. So, off you go. Let's see what you come up with.

Here's the good news! If you can answer this problem there is a big juicy Nobel Prize just waiting for you.

Secondly, the theory of evolution, that you so treasure, is not based on verifiable empirical science. Evolutionary theory is a HISTORICAL THEORY based on "subjective" ideological INTERPRETATIONS and ASSUMPTIONS as to what SUPPOSEDLY happened in the UNOBSERVED distant past. Which is why Dawkins repeatedly refers to creationists as "history deniers", and why the Nobel Committee does not recognise historical theories as prizeworthy science.

Here's your problem. There is no possible way of anyone ever using the Empirical& Scientific Method to establish that past historical evolutionary events happened one way, and not another way, or even whether the evolutionary continuum happened at ALL.

Moreover, creationist scientists are growing by the day and gaining traction. Eugene Scott's and others distortions of creationist views have been repeatedly discredited at creation. com. And those of us who have looked closely at the anti-creationist propaganda engaged in by Dawkins, Myers, Coyne, Eugene Scott and others have long ago realized that evolutionary theory has an evidential crisis. Which is precisely why the creation-evolution debate has been going on the over 150 years, and may well go on another 150 years. Simply because the evolutionary historical "interpretations" of past remains and relics are far from conclusive or persuasive, other than to the true believers

Josephus,

That’s an interesting take on the thread. I didn’t realise I had you so rattled.

It would do you well to look back at your own posts and try to work out that it is impossible for others to be convinced or indeed accept the deductions you have arrived at using the highly subjective jargon on which you depend.

You cannot just keep on making wild statement and blindly attacking the integrity of opponents because your range of arguments is limited or non-existent. To make that a little clearer, you have not put forward a cogent case or even attempted to do so.

You may believe you are the holder of some kind of supernatural truth but sophisticated discussion relies on ideas being presented and critiqued by others to arrive at a determination conducive to the facts presented. None of this appears in your methods.

You might be frustrated that the points you make whilst being believed by others who have been through a similar religious indoctrination process, they are not accepted by those that have escaped or never have experienced that blinkered way of thinking. These people require evidence and as much as you rebel against that idea, it is the best way to arrive at sensible conclusions. Some evidence is not there (yet) but jumping to the ‘god did it’ answer is unsatisfactory, particularly so as there are and have been many gods.

David