Do you believe in God?

[TenEightyOne]

Yup.

I thought Lynching was actually an act of hanging by the neck? At least as a form of punishment in the US.

EDIT: I stand corrected, before you correct me. Often it's a "hanging" but not exclusively

 

[Liquid]

This was my favourite comic from this week's Eye.

It reminded me of something I brought up a while back; in approximately the 10th centruy, before the Middle East became theocratised it was the centre of the civilised and scientific world in a sort of neo-Athenian society of peoples from all backgrounds whilst Europe was still wrestling with the Dark Ages and Christianity taking a big hold and genocide of subscribers to older, native pagan beliefs at the cost of thousands and thousands of lives.

Then it flipped. The Middle East started taking religion too seriously and begun the entrenchment of what we have today, and Europe started slowly releasing its focus on religion and the ages of scientific discovery began.

 

[TenEightyOne]

This is initially painted as an anti-creationist story, but there's more to it than that.

A student is reported as "being arrested for killing a dinosaur in a class assignment" (presumably figuratively). In fact he wrote (on a separate occasion) that he "bought a gun to take care of business".

Strange one...

 

[Omnis]

Then it flipped. The Middle East started taking religion too seriously and begun the entrenchment of what we have today, and Europe started slowly releasing its focus on religion and the ages of scientific discovery began.

It is not that they take religion too seriously. The problem exists as a hyperstress on the divine will. This is an extreme version of theological voluntarism.

Pope Benedict spoke on this at Regensburg.

Christianity is associated with the logos or the divine word, and identifies God with reason. The religion appeals to reason (first letter of John: God is love and reason come together). Islam places the divine will so far above reason that it is almost impossible to appeal to reason in the defense against extremism. Islam would hold that 2+2=9 if God willed it. Christians have also done terrible things under a voluntary strain.



Today it's radical Islam. Violence is the simplest tool by which that "will" is run roughshod over the people, against what would be otherwise reasoned as good and righteous. And thus the use of violence is out of step with God defined as logos and love.

 

[GBO Possum]

In response to the video-taped beheading of James Foley by ISIS, President Obama said,

"No just God would stand for what they did yesterday, and for what they do every single day."​

From which I conclude (based on the complete lack of response to this brutality from any deity) that it is the President's opinion:-

• Either there are one or more gods, and they are all unjust, OR
• There are no gods

 

[TenEightyOne]

In response to the video-taped beheading of James Foley by ISIS, President Obama said,

"No just God would stand for what they did yesterday, and for what they do every single day."​

From which I conclude (based on the complete lack of response to this brutality from any deity) that it is the President's opinion:-

• Either there are one or more gods, and they are all unjust, OR
• There are no gods

He doesn't exclude the Christian God or say that the Muslamical God is different, only that no just God would stand for it.

I'd say his opinion (inclusive of your own thoughts) is;

• Either there are one or more gods, and they are all unjust, OR
• There are no gods... OR
  
• We are under the same God and Islamuslamicals are reading him all wrong

I'm atheist so personally I think they're all quite mad.

 

[GBO Possum]

@TenEightyOne, my point is that no god, just or unjust, monotheistic or polytheistic, is opposing ISIS or their actions.

The President points out that a "just god" should not stand for what ISIS did. It appears that all gods are, by their inaction, supporting ISIS, or all gods don't exist.

Another example of a reason why I do not believe in any god or gods.

 

[Imari]

It appears that all gods are, by their inaction, supporting ISIS, or all gods don't exist.

Back that coach up there, partner.

Are you supporting child slavery, blood diamonds, third world poverty, or any other number of terrible things that happen in the world by your inaction regarding them? I hardly think so, there's a limited amount of hours in the day and you're only one person, you'd drive yourself mad trying to worry about all the things wrong with the world.

While the Christian God and others of the same lineage are generally presented as omniscient, and omnipotent, it's not true that all gods are presented as such. There is a lot of room for just gods to exist, both ones that have been described and ones that have not, and still have all sorts of unjust things happen in the world.

 

[LeMansAid]

Ah, the old "if God exists, then why............?" Isn't that attitude reserved for fanatics that just want to mindlessly defend their position by being as rigid in their thinking as their equal opposite religious nutters?

If God is real, God could be outside of time. Try processing thoughts on inaction with that as a factor.

 

[BHRxRacer]

Not tolerate the beliefs of others. Is that what you think atheists do?

It's what I've been seeing on the internet for over 10 years. OMG HAHAHA HE BELIEVES IN A GAWD WHAT A NARROW MINDED IGNORANT AHOLE.

Obviously there's respectable atheists, I didn't say all of them are like that did I?

 

[Scaff]

It's what I've been seeing on the internet for over 10 years. OMG HAHAHA HE BELIEVES IN A GAWD WHAT A NARROW MINDED IGNORANT AHOLE.

Obviously there's respectable atheists, I didn't say all of them are like that did I?

The implication in your posts were most certainly on those lines, so basically yes you did imply that all atheists are like that.

If that was not what you intended to say then I would politely suggest that you be more careful with how you word such generalizations in future, particularly given that you seem to be continuing that same generalisation.

 

[mistersafeway]

It's what I've been seeing on the internet for over 10 years. OMG HAHAHA HE BELIEVES IN A GAWD WHAT A NARROW MINDED IGNORANT AHOLE.

Obviously there's respectable atheists, I didn't say all of them are like that did I?

Religious people do the same thing, as do other people on many issues, it's often a symptom of being insecure in their beliefs. The rest of us only think it, at most.

 

[BHRxRacer]

The implication in your posts were most certainly on those lines, so basically yes you did imply that all atheists are like that.

If that was not what you intended to say then I would politely suggest that you be more careful with how you word such generalizations in future, particularly given that you seem to be continuing that same generalisation.

If it's a generalization it shouldn't be a problem then, right? As long as I don't include everyone, in which case it's not a generalization anymore. I tend to think people can read between the lines and give me the benefit of the doubt, as I do with others, but sure I'll be more careful.

Religious people do the same thing, as do other people on many issues, it's often a symptom of being insecure in their beliefs. The rest of us only think it, at most.

It's not right when religious people do it either, and honestly it's not right to think it either. It's narrow minded to believe 100% there's a god, or 100% there isn't. We simply don't know, and probably never will. We should just move on with our lives and ignore such impractical beliefs.

 

[TenEightyOne]

If it's a generalization it shouldn't be a problem then, right

I could generalise and say that "All black people are prone to stealing things". My neighbour is black and went to prison for fraud. So I can make a generalisation from that fact, right?

I tend to think people can read between the lines and give me the benefit of the doubt, as I do with others,

That's like saying "I'll say what I like and just pretend you don't understand what I'm saying".

It's narrow minded to believe 100% there's a god, or 100% there isn't. We simply don't know, and probably never will. We should just move on with our lives and ignore such impractical beliefs.

The "unsure" position is the one held by agnostics.

Your statement says that all theists or atheists (the absolute positions that stand astride agnostics dangling the belief-twins in their collective face) are narrow minded.

You've mastered irony, I'll give you that.

 

[BHRxRacer]

I could generalise and say that "All black people are prone to stealing things". My neighbour is black and went to prison for fraud. So I can make a generalisation from that fact, right?

Well according to Famine in that other thread, if it's statistical it's not racist. The thing about Polish people that you, yourself thought was racist?

That's like saying "I'll say what I like and just pretend you don't understand what I'm saying".

No, I honestly do it with clear intentions. Maybe it's the culture. We have a saying in Arabic خير الكلام ما قل و دل which means it's best to get your point across with minimum number of words. Perhaps sometimes I do say too few words at the beginning of a discussion , but that's all the blame I'll take really.

The "unsure" position is the one held by agnostics.

Your statement says that all theists or atheists (the absolute positions that stand astride agnostics dangling the belief-twins in their collective face) are narrow minded.

You've mastered irony, I'll give you that.

Funny. I'll give you that one. Let me rephrase, or try to. I did say believe 100%, and not all atheists nor theists are 100% believers are they? Technically if it's 1-99% you're agnostic but in reality most religious people I know admit their faith is not 100%, and equally some atheists.

So no, not all atheists are narrow minded but I apologise again if the generalization offended anybody.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Well according to Famine in that other thread, if it's statistical it's not racist. The thing about Polish people that you, yourself thought was racist?

Funny. I'll give you that one. Let me rephrase, or try to. I did say believe 100%, and not all atheists nor theists are 100% believers are they? Technically if it's 1-99% you're agnostic but in reality most religious people I know admit their faith is not 100%, and equally some atheists.

So no, not all atheists are narrow minded but I apologise again if the generalization offended anybody.

You should tag @Famine when you invoke him I'm not sure which way your point is heading though; I was demonstrating a generalisation without thinking of it as racist, I could say "people from Cornwall", which he was.

If you're not 100% sure there is no god then you are not atheist, you're agnostic because the definition of atheism IS absolute. The line is blurrier for people who are theists but who aren't 100% sure, while theism is literally absolute one has to accept that there are different views of one's God, applying the strict definition to that end of the spectrum isn't so accurate.

Some atheists are narrow-minded, I also agree with that.

 

[Spurgy 777]

You should tag @Famine when you invoke him I'm not sure which way your point is heading though; I was demonstrating a generalisation without thinking of it as racist, I could say "people from Cornwall", which he was.

If you're not 100% sure there is no god then you are not atheist, you're agnostic because the definition of atheism IS absolute. The line is blurrier for people who are theists but who aren't 100% sure, while theism is literally absolute one has to accept that there are different views of one's God, applying the strict definition to that end of the spectrum isn't so accurate.

Some atheists are narrow-minded, I also agree with that.

Atheism is a lack of belief in a god, not a belief in no god, that's non-theism.

 

[BHRxRacer]

You should tag @Famine when you invoke him I'm not sure which way your point is heading though; I was demonstrating a generalisation without thinking of it as racist, I could say "people from Cornwall", which he was.

If you're not 100% sure there is no god then you are not atheist, you're agnostic because the definition of atheism IS absolute. The line is blurrier for people who are theists but who aren't 100% sure, while theism is literally absolute one has to accept that there are different views of one's God, applying the strict definition to that end of the spectrum isn't so accurate.

Some atheists are narrow-minded, I also agree with that.

I'm not sure if having another discussion with him is a great idea, he tends to take too long to declare defeat I don't tag people unless I'm willing to have a discussion. I just mentioned it because he's an admin and if he thinks it's legal, then a mod shouldn't disagree. Whether or not generalization is a nice thing is not the matter, I was just telling @Scaff that from my understanding it's "legal" on this forum as long as it's statistical.

I still don't understand how the line is blurry on one end and not the other, but I don't think we disagree on the main point here so it's not important.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Atheism is a lack of belief in a god, not a belief in no god, that's non-theism.

No, the "a-" means without. It's the same thing, just non-theism is for people who aren't comfortable with the superior construct.




@BHRxRacer if you quote an mod/admin's view of the rules then you should credit them. I have my own view on that discussion with @Famine and it was one not upheld by the forum leaders. We move on, I accept I was wrong*


*Grrrrr. Aarrrrrghhhh. Grrrrr!

 

[Famine]

Well according to Famine in that other thread, if it's statistical it's not racist. The thing about Polish people that you, yourself thought was racist?

You might want to check what I said, because it wasn't about Polish people - and most certainly wasn't anything negative about Polish people. In fact, to be offended by it, you'd have to be both not Polish and not reading.

I did say believe 100%, and not all atheists nor theists are 100% believers are they?

Atheism is, by definition, not a belief.

 

[Scaff]

If it's a generalization it shouldn't be a problem then, right? As long as I don't include everyone, in which case it's not a generalization anymore. I tend to think people can read between the lines and give me the benefit of the doubt, as I do with others, but sure I'll be more careful.

Which is why I asked the question following your posts, for further clarification, which you have now provided.

It's not right when religious people do it either, and honestly it's not right to think it either. It's narrow minded to believe 100% there's a god, or 100% there isn't. We simply don't know, and probably never will. We should just move on with our lives and ignore such impractical beliefs.

I'm an atheist. I have no belief in any gods based on a total lack of evidence to support any and all deities I have seen claimed (in very much the same way that I have no belief in Santa and the Tooth Fairy), I am however extremely open minded and would quite happily consider any and all valid evidence (and I has to be actual evidence - i.e. to a scientific standard).

As the saying goes, I will convert for evidence.

 

[BHRxRacer]

Which is why I asked the question following your posts, for further clarification, which you have now provided.




I'm an atheist. I have no belief in any gods based on a total lack of evidence to support any and all deities I have seen claimed (in very much the same way that I have no belief in Santa and the Tooth Fairy), I am however extremely open minded and would quite happily consider any and all valid evidence (and I has to be actual evidence - i.e. to a scientific standard).

As the saying goes, I will convert for evidence.

I didn't mean that kind of open mindedness. I meant being open minded in accepting that other people may believe in a god simply because they can't prove he/she/it doesn't exist. I know it's silly to credit god for anything we can't explain, but narrow minded to call people idiots for doing that. Silly, maybe. Narrow minded idiots? You're overstepping it.

edit

by "you" I didn't mean literally you. You = whoever thinks like that.

Atheism is, by definition, not a belief.

I was under the impression that according to Latin it is in fact a religion. I'm sorry but I may have to consult an old friend on that. No offense but you've shown that that the homework you do is often lacking(mainly about Bahrain), so I'll get an expert's opinion before we continue this.

I'll get back to this when I get word.

 

[Scaff]

I didn't mean that kind of open mindedness. I meant being open minded in accepting that other people may believe in a god simply because they can't prove he/she/it doesn't exist. I know it's silly to credit god for anything we can't explain, but narrow minded to call people idiots for doing that. Silly, maybe. Narrow minded idiots? You're overstepping it.

edit

by "you" I didn't mean literally you. You = whoever thinks like that.

I also fully accept other peoples right to believe in anything they like, up to the point that belief impacts in the rights of others.

Simply put, people have rights (so believe what you want) but religions don't.

I was under the impression that according to Latin it is in fact a religion. I'm sorry but I may have to consult an old friend on that. No offense but you've shown that that the homework you do is often lacking(mainly about Bahrain), so I'll get an expert's opinion before we continue this.

I'll get back to this when I get word.

Atheism is most certainly not a religion at all, it has no belief structure, no credo, not manifesto.

"from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" + theos "a god""

Source - http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=atheist

To try and claim its a religion is akin to claiming that being 'without Santa Claus' (so having no belief in Santa) is a religion!

 

[BHRxRacer]

Simply put, people have rights (so believe what you want) but religions don't.

Religions don't rights? Please explain. That's interesting.

 

[Famine]

I was under the impression that according to Latin it is in fact a religion. I'm sorry but I may have to consult an old friend on that. No offense but you've shown that that the homework you do is often lacking(mainly about Bahrain), so I'll get an expert's opinion before we continue this.

So often your bolthole that one - pretending other people know less than you but not really providing any evidence for it but your word and then letting it fade away, hoping everyone forgets...

Incidentally I have a qualification in Latin.

Theism = Belief in god/s
Nontheism = Belief in no god/s
Atheism = No belief in god/s

 

[TenEightyOne]

by "you" I didn't mean literally you. You = whoever thinks like that.

Then the word is "one", ie "if one thinks like that". Happy to help.

And despite a subtle after-slap I agree with @Famine, his definition is absolutely correct. Can you prove otherwise?

 

[Scaff]

Religions don't rights? Please explain. That's interesting.

What's to explain.

Religions are an abstract concept, how exactly would they have rights, why would they need rights and what would an abstract concept do with rights?

The only reason people want religions to have rights seems to be to try and use those'rights' to undermine the rights of people.

 

[BHRxRacer]

So often your bolthole that one - pretending other people know less than you but not really providing any evidence for it but your word and then letting it fade away, hoping everyone forgets...

Incidentally I have a qualification in Latin.

Theism = Belief in god/s
Nontheism = Belief in no god/s
Atheism = No belief in god/s

What qualification?

What's to explain.

Religions are an abstract concept, how exactly would they have rights, why would they need rights and what would an abstract concept do with rights?

The only reason people want religions to have rights seems to be to try and use those'rights' to undermine the rights of people.

Latter part is a generalization

You've explained enough, thank you. A little picky with semantics as always but meh. There really is no such thing as religion without people, so if people have rights, and they happen to believe in a religion, they'll obviously try to impose the rights/rules of their own religion. So saying religion has no rights is like saying religious people have no rights. LIKE saying, I know what you mean now though.

BTW what do you mean by people have rights? Where did they come from exactly?

 

[TenEightyOne]

What qualification?

Dude, while Latin may be uncommon in Bahrain you need to trust me when I say it's not uncommon for English people to have good knowledge of that language. It was de rigeur (joke intended) in my Middle School. You're arguing about the a- preposition, I presume? Google it and check for yourself, other NON-government monitored search engines will be available to you.

Latter part is a generalization

Your generalisations are neither well-thought nor accurate if my recent experience is anything to go by.

 

[BHRxRacer]

Dude, while Latin may be uncommon in Bahrain you need to trust me when I say it's not uncommon for English people to have good knowledge of that language. It was de rigeur (joke intended) in my Middle School. You're arguing about the a- preposition, I presume? Google it and check for yourself, other NON-government monitored search engines will be available to you.

What if I told you....


My friend is Italian, currently living in Italy, fluent in Latin AND has a degree in it?

Your generalisations are neither well-thought nor accurate if my recent experience is anything to go by.

Subjective my dear.