Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

Original poster

So how about a "Rationality, Scepticism & Atheism" section?

117 replies

UnquietDad · 29/05/2008 15:19

Where people can actually have sensible discussions about the debunking of the paranormal, and the lack of evidence for any of the crystal-healing-aura-chakra-reiki-throw-your-hands-in the-air-and-say woooooooooo healing rubbish.

Because I'm getting fed up with trying to remind the people in Philosophy, Religion and Woo that we actually live in the 21st Century.

OP posts:
chuggabopps · 29/05/2008 16:21

can you hide posts from individuals rather than just topics?

Lazycow · 29/05/2008 16:19

UD -Exactly - They push your buttons. When things push my buttons in that way I sometimes try and see what is is about the way I look at things that contributes to this.

It is of course much easier to just say 'well they push my buttons so they are all tossers' I do get that.

AMumInScotland · 29/05/2008 16:18

No-one is asking for separate sections for each belief. But religion and beliefs are an important part of many people's lives. I don't ask anyone to share my beliefs, I don't go round saying I'm better than anyone else. But a section which covers that whole area of human existence (including philosophy and atheism) doesn't seem unreasonable for a forum as large and wide-ranging as this one.

I have hidden the chicken-keepers topic. And the childcare topic. And nappies. And lots of others. Because I have no wish to get into discussions on those topics. So what's the problem?

getbackinyouryurtjimjams · 29/05/2008 16:17

I would be quite interested in a section entitled tea-leaf reading.

Personally I don't believe in god (or indigo children) but I can never really understand why people get so upset by those who do.

People are entitled to their beliefs. Although I don't believe I'd rather spend time with someone talking about their religion than listen to an atheist bore (usually arrogantly) about how stupid people are for believing in religion.

I like the philosophy etc section.

Lazycow · 29/05/2008 16:16

hullygully

I have no need for anyone to 'respect my beliefs' I am merely posting here in reply to UD's thread.

I also don't think 'you will one day know better' I think your beliefs are as valid as mine. I genuinely do, in fact I often wish I didn't believe in God, life would be a lot easier in many ways.

Original poster
UnquietDad · 29/05/2008 16:14

JV - nothing of the sort. I'm a former churchgoer of the typical middle-English half-hearted woolly Christian type, who didn't even realise until the age of about 10 that you were allowed not to go to church. When I stopped trying to square everything with "belief" the world suddenly made a lot more sense.

OP posts:
Swedes · 29/05/2008 16:13

There is apparently now a flouncers topic!
here

Original poster
UnquietDad · 29/05/2008 16:12

But there is an ongoing debate on here about the "validity" of certain subjects and whether they "deserve" to have sections all to themselves - witness the Chicken-keeper controversy and the ongoing Music debate.

How would people react if there were a section entitled "Leprechauns"? Or "Tealeaf-reading"?

swedes - I imagine those things are more visible to me as they push my buttons.

OP posts:
hullygully · 29/05/2008 16:11

Yay! Go UQD. I hate all them arsey tossers "let's all respect each other's beliefs" bastards. There are no fairies at the bottom of the garden either. And why do they want respect? Aren't they confident in what they believe? And why do they get the position of moral superiority, reminds me of when I was a kid and expressed socialist beliefs to be met with that tolerant "you'll find out one day naive little red person" from all the Tory bastards. I'll get back in my pram now.

Lazycow · 29/05/2008 16:10

I beleive quite a number of respected scientists are open to the idea of the existence of God.

I have read Dawkins and I really get much of what he says. The main problem I have with him is his zealousness and intolerance. something he shares with many religious people of the worst kind.

Some of my favourite children's books are the Pullman trilogy which is massivly anti church/religion. I have no problem with this. I found the book insightful and with many 'truths' in it. That does not mean I now think God does not exist.

UD - I do think you are trying to hard to 'convert' people I cannot agree that belief in God is a bad thing but by the same token I have no wish to convert you to a belief in God. I don't feel threatened by atheists/agnostics I totally understand their view. It just isn't mine.

JeremyVile · 29/05/2008 16:10

UQD - Is there a reason it bothers you so much to witness others talking about their faith? Did you grow up in a cult or something similar? Are you the son of a preacher man?

You seem especially sensitive to it.

Have you tried hiding the Philosophy, Religion and Faith topic? I think you should.

Swedes · 29/05/2008 16:08

Crystal healing
indigo children
Reiki
Faith "healing"

etc.
etc.
etc.

I can honestly say I have never even seen a thread about any of these topics. I've seen more threads about farting fannies.

Swedes · 29/05/2008 16:06

Religion doesn't stack up for me either. But I don't see any need to tear down or undermine other people's faith. Undermining others' faith shows the opposite of confidence.

Original poster
UnquietDad · 29/05/2008 16:05

If I ever decide to leave this place (and I'm not, yet) it will be one of the main reasons I will cite.

OP posts:
stuffitllama · 29/05/2008 16:04

"put up with" what are you on about
you don't have to read it
that's like saying i'm having to "put up with" this thread
i don't have to read it i just am

Lazycow · 29/05/2008 16:03

Therefore even !!

Original poster
UnquietDad · 29/05/2008 16:03

Never said I was, JV. But if I seem "provocative" it's perhaps because I put up with so much rubbish i don't even comment on.

OP posts:
JeremyVile · 29/05/2008 16:02

Of course a person with religious beliefs can talk about science. They do not cancel each other out.
I dont see any religious peopple on here getting arsy about non-believers. But I see you, quite often, being provocative, seemingly just for the fun of it.

PS: You aren't Dawkins...

Original poster
UnquietDad · 29/05/2008 16:02

Swedes:
Crystal healing
indigo children
Reiki
Faith "healing"

etc.
etc.
etc.

OP posts:
Original poster
UnquietDad · 29/05/2008 16:01

Lazycow - belief in the existence of God is a valid theory like any other. And so it deserves to be treated with exactly the same level of scrutiny as any other theory. No more, no less.

OP posts:
Swedes · 29/05/2008 16:01

UQD - Re the claims of pseudoscientific gobbledygook that you see on here all of the time - can you provide an example, please?

Original poster
UnquietDad · 29/05/2008 16:00

Hmm, "militant atheist"? That arse Theo Hobson in the Guardian came out with a similar load of cobblers last year.

I refer you, again, to Sam Harris.

"It is worth noting that no one ever need identify himself as a non-astrologer or a non-alchemist. Consequently, we do not have words for people who deny the validity of these pseudo-disciplines. Likewise, ?atheism? is a term that should not even exist. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make when in the presence of religious dogma."

If there were no woo, there would be no need for atheism and scepticism - militant or otherwise.

OP posts:
Lazycow · 29/05/2008 16:00

The problem I have with that is how you even go about measuring 'likelihood'. This is a very definite statistical concept and as you say requires sufficient evidence one way or another.

I believe that there is insufficient 'evidence' in the scientific sense to make a scientifically based decision on the question of the existence of God. There for I believe any statements about the existence or not of God are statements of faith.

Of course it is always possible to say that there is insufficent evidence one way or another and therefore to refuse to engage with the question- that I would describe as an agnostic response (I don't know) and a much more 'rational' response to the question than either atheism or the answer yes.

Original poster
UnquietDad · 29/05/2008 15:58

How is it "the shittiest argument ever"? Dawkins was told the same when his book came out - "you're not qualified to talk about theology, you're a scientist, not a theologian, you haven't studied it properly." The fact is, the theists have spent so long treading on his toes - without "studying it properly" - that it was about time he answered back.

I get annoyed - outraged, even - by the claims for the effects of psuedoscientific gobbledigook and crap that I see on here all the time. I don't know why, but this forum seems more susceptible to it than any other I've ever posted on. And if you take a stand against it you are made to feel like the odd one... it's cognitive dissonance in action.

OP posts:
stuffitllama · 29/05/2008 15:57

How about

if you could prove it there would be no need for faith
therefore it is essential that you cannot prove it

there are many arguments disproving the existence of the Christian god, all of them logically valid

I accept them all as logically valid and still have faith

it's a choice

nobody was ever converted to Christianity by losing an argument