To think that belief in Father Christmas is not comparable to religious belief.

[Throughthelongnight]

Just that really. I have noticed that the expectation is that we all go along with the pretence of FC for the sake of parent's children's sensibility, but the same is not afforded where religious belief is concerned.

and I haven't a clue about fairies

No you don't have proof, proof is something that would stand up in a court of law, that would be able to withstand objective testing.

You will have an anecdote, a story - that is not proof.

you mean like witness statements?

Oh here we go, did you and your friends see a shining light? someone raised from the dead? Perhaps the face of the messiah on a piece of toast?

and yes, I do.

no you don't

yes I do

ad infinitum. I told you, pointless

why are you being rude?

I understand that not being part of something that other people experienced can be unsettling, but it doesn't make their experiences untrue.

and do you really expect me to share my experiences?
it will not make any difference as you are not ready to hear them

Yes it is pointless, because whatever 'proof' you think you have will have a scientific reasoning behind it.

People are so desperate to believe in a higher deity they'll see it in anything rather than finding the rational explanation.

But you can believe what you want to, I hope your 'god' is treating you well..

No it isnt unsettling, it's delusional.

Like people who think they have a ghost because they keep feeling a chill. Only to be told there's a draft coming through one of the windows.

not desperate at all.

And yes, God is amazing. thanks for asking

Tell Mama includes "religious and other related social institutions" in its definition which is rubbish. Though I can quite see why religious people might want to make it illegal to disagree with them. It's actually quite revealing to see someone try and play the trump card.

Judaism, Islam and Christianity are childish fantasies. So is belief in Odin and family (whatever that's called), The Hindu gods read like the narnia books and are equally real.

The main religions are in my opinion damaging to the individual in many cases and to society in most cases. They frequently lead to abuses of the vulnerable or minorities, demands for special rights and immunities from laws we must all follow and to conflicts in which we all suffer.

I usually try to be at least a bit tactful about the kind of 'thinking' that accepts these fairy stories as true without evidence, but it's no secret that I find it shocking and disappointing that people have so weak a grasp on reality.

If some part of that is Islamophobia then feel free to call the police, but you won't stop me holding those opinions or voicing them in debates.

Back - That is ludicrous cherry-picking. No where in TellMama's definition of anti-Muslim hatred is "making it illegal to disagree with them" mentioned or even hinted at.

What is it you are hoping to achieve by your debate Back?

GoshAnneGorilla I didn't say it was. I pasted part of what Tell Mama said - feel free to actually read it since it was your link - and then I said "religious people might want to make it illegal to disagree with them" which is my experience generally. I also said it was revealing to see people trying to play that trump card, which it is.

Dione, I've said many times what I believe debate achieves. Not the conversion of the true believers as it's relatively rare for that to happen. I'm more interested in demonstrating to those others reading that not everyone has to believe and that the arguments for believing are weak and empty. That believing is not necessarily desirable and that it is legal to say so. I'd hate for people to keep quiet because they had been led to believe that was the law.

Oh and I think I covered enough religions in that post to make the point once again that there is no real difference between them to me. I would expect that only a religious person would think the differences were that significant.

So you are using actual posters on a thread to make a point to an audience. I never really thought about it like that before Back. That's very interesting.

Back - that's like saying "Only a philosopher would find any major differences between deontology and utilitarianism". It makes you sound ignorant and I'm sure that's not your intention.

Still not sure where Tell Mama or anyone on this thread are trying to make it illegal for you to disagree with them, or play it as a "trump card".

The only religion I really know anything about is Christianity so these are genuine questions.

I know Judaism does not accept Christ as the son of god and the whole idea of exemption and resurrection through Christ as saviour; so fairly fundamental differences between those two.

So far as Islam I assume the position on Christ will be the same as Judaism although no doubt plenty of other points on which it will disagree with Christianity and Judaism.

Is the god of Islam, Judaism and Christianity the same one?

Given there seem to be significant differences amongst them which one is right?

How is that determined?

Who gets to decide?

And are Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism are misguided?

Nobody apart from actual Scientologists ever seems to have a good word to say about them but just out of interest are they right too?

Sorry, redemption, not exemption.

BackOnlyBriefly

I have only read the first item on that list

Glory to Him [Allah], Who created in pairs all things that the land produces, and their own kind (humans) and other things of that they have no knowledge of.

How could an illiterate man who lived 1400 years ago have known that matter is in pairs

Well the Quote doesn't mention matter.

And many fruit trees need to have another one in the vicinity to produce fruit, it's not unreasonable for an illiterate man to know that.

OK it's got me hooked

(Allah) Rules the cosmic affair from the heavens to the Earth. Then this affair travels to Him a distance in one day, at a measure of one thousand years of what you count.

How is that the speed of light?

BackOnlyBriefly Sat 07-Dec-13 18:05:01
for every poster there could be dozens or 100s of people reading these threads. Some of them may be put off accepting religion blindly because of what they read here. If it makes one person re-examine their position it's worth it.

What a ludicrously self-important person you are.

Let's take away the belief that helps a widower keep going every day, and the ethical code that helps people to turn the other cheek and otherwise consciously choose to be better human beings in a hundred little ways every day, and the social structure which gets isolated old people out of their solitude and encourages teenagers to volunteer in orphanages, and so on.

Just because some pinhead on the Internet feels the better for it.

I think BackOnly made that point in response to something I posted.

I agree with her/him now.

It was a good point.

How about respect individuals until they've done something to hurt/disrespect you?

And no, having different beliefs/being religious is NOT disrespectful to you.

I'm an agnostic, I actively dislike the concept of organised religion (It's not that I don't accept the possibility of a higher being, I just don't believe in one who takes attendance), but the reason I'm agnostic is because I really can't be arsed to get all militant about what I do/don't believe in. I don't know what I believe in and I'm not sure I even really want to - what happens, happens.

I would never disrespect someone purely because they follow a religion, or ask me if I follow a religion (seriously? someone thinking you follow a religion is offensive? How ridiculous) - if they asked me about my beliefs I'd tell them, adult or child, in a respectful way because I'm an adult capable of respecting people rather than a child who whines "I can't respect you because you have thoughts!".

Also, I believed in FC for longer than I believed in a God. But neither belief is ridiculous/pointless/bad if it makes people happy. Oh, and people start wars and blame it on their beliefs. The beliefs themselves don't start the wars.

Respecting individuals-essential.
Respecting beliefs, particularly in a discussion about beliefs-not essential.

If somebody says "This is what I believe. I have no proof, but faith is an important part of that belief, and I have faith" then, until such time as that faith impinges on my life, then it is their business and nothing to do with me.

If somebody says, particularly in the course of a discussion about belief "This is what I believe- and this is the proof that it is real" then surely they should be prepared for what they put forward as proof to be analysed, challenged, and, yes, even ridiculed if it is ridiculous. Nobody is forced to join the discussion.

I'm being slated for saying people who would believe in someone because a book says they are real could be mentally ill, but no-one want to answer the question I posed, which is how is it NOT mentally ill to believe this?

If you take away the cultural privilege of a religious text, is it not bizarre to say this? Religious people here - if I was to say to you that I KNOW totally, I truly believe that Bilbo Baggins the Hobbit is totally real, and I have talked to him and had experiences of him, would you not think "Okay, that sounds crazy". You know you would.

Saying you believe someone or something is real solely on the grounds that a book says they are does sound mentally ill. You can't exclude the Qu'ran or Bible from this, as there is no other proof of the existence of deities to exclude them.

Incidentally, mental health problems are incredibly common, and do not mean someone is dangerous or 'stark, staring mad', as the saying goes. Many people are mildly depressed or have issues around food and eating. This would be classified as them having a mental illness. It does not mean that they are incredibly damaged, flawed, inadequate human beings. Nor did I mean that people who believe God exists on the basis that a book says so are incredibly damaged and inadequate. Just that it's a bit of an odd thing for an adult to do. I presumed other posters would understand better about using MH as a term. I suffer from Mh issues (depression and OCD). It is not meant as an insult, it was meant as a statement of fact to describe disordered thinking about something (suspending critical judgement, etc.).

Respecting individuals-essential.

Some, possibly most individuals. Not all individuals. Rudolf Höss was hung in April 1947. You're welcome to say that it's essential that he be respected, but if the name doesn't ring a bell, look him up and call us back about the respect you think he deserves in life or in death.