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.

I at least am not asserting there is any way to prove gods do not exist. I am pointing out that there's also no way to prove fairies do not exist, so that fact in itself is no reason to believe.

I do find it hard to understand why so many people - intelligent people who I know today as well as historical figures - believe in religions. I can only assume it must be a sort of blind spot, it's so ingrained in their culture that they are brought up not to question it and don't. That particularly applies to historical figures. There's also a huge incentive to believe, eternal life, the righting of injustices, some kind of meaning to it all. I just happen to think that's wishful thinking. I know, I've been there myself, I was brought up as a Christian.

The thing that convinced me it was all wrong was that the more I tried to understand my religion the more logical inconsistencies I found, both internally and with what we now know of science. Because of the way religion works, my mind shied away from questioning. There was a degree of "how dare you expect to understand how the great god works", "you don't understand it, it's beyond your understanding, you just need to do what you're told and worship". Doubting felt bad, a sin, a failure. I think that's how people continue to believe it. If you believe believing is good you want to be good at believing.

Eventually I got to a point where I could entertain "actually it's just wrong" as a hypothesis and suddenly the world made a lot more sense.

Sorry, that's a lot of rambling about my personal journey set off by peacefuloptimist's point about not being able to prove there is no god, and intelligent people who did/do believe. It's probably entirely irrelevant to the discussion. I'm not trying to assert internal inconsistency as proof god doesn't exist though, as a religious person could just answer that god is unfathomable.

This sort of totalitarian argument, that you either agree with me or your irrational, stupid, gullible, dumb and are undeserving of respect is certainly what is undesirable about religious people

Atheists rarely suggest that the best response to people deciding as adults to take up religion is to kill them.

Now, let's talk about Islam and apostasy.

yes why not

as in what is written in the koran and the hadiths and/or what the vast majority of muslims believe in today and how they follow their beliefs

Many of our ancestors believed the world was flat and that you could fall of it. Those who thought it was round were initially considered mad!!

Actually, and I'm sorry to introduce facts and shit into this, they didn't. There were disputes in the middle ages about the heliocentric model of the solar system, and the Catholic church showed the intellectual depth and rigour for which Christianity is famed by asserting that such a model was wrong and threatening to kill everyone who disagreed. But "flat earth" theories, in the west at least, are mostly 19th century and later evangelicals trying to be nuttier than thou, in the manner than YECs are essentially trying to outdo each other in claiming to believe preposterous things to show how faithful they are. Eratosthenes derived the circumference of the earth in about 200BC, and got it pretty well bang on (most of his problems were about the technology, not the method, and if you re-do his work with modern surveying equipment you'll get a result within a few percent of the true value). Thereafter, no educated opinion in the west doubted the spherical world. It's never been a topic for debate in theology, because no-one ever doubted it.

right now in the world, the place where christians face the most persecution is in atheist North Korea

If North Korea is to be used as an example of atheism in action (and North Korea isn't, in any meaningful sense, atheist, given , do we get to choose the Islamic country of our choice and then assume all Muslims think it's a good thing?

Let me rephrase what I said. In the UK and other developed countries, there is no political party or other thread of thought campaigning for the death of the religious. In the UK, there are plenty of Muslim organisations who believe that apostasy should be punished by death (for example, al-Muhajiroun).

peacefuloptimist - Despite what some atheists on here are trying to assert there is no definite way to prove that God doesn't exist

There is no way to prove that there is no 'GOD' since someone's definition of god can be so vague and formless that there's nothing to discuss. There could even be a god that doesn't interact with this universe at all so there'd be nothing to see.

However, it is possible to say that a particular god 'as described' doesn't exist.
If for example someone claimed that their god cured all sickness immediately then I could say that god doesn't exist because clearly there is sickness.

We can say - and the last part of the thread has been about this - that the proof offered for a particular god is not proof at all.
I see many examples of that and the current one is that god exists because the book he wrote says so. Regardless of the actual existence of god this can be shown to be a false proof.

It is also possible to say - again regardless of the actual existence of god - that to decide god does exist without any evidence whatsoever is an irrational act.

This doesn't necessarily mean that the individual makes all decisions irrationally, though it's clearly a cause for concern. You wouldn't want to use that same process for deciding when to cross the road.

you have no right to separate a persons actions from their faith or explain away their religion as if its an irrelevant part of them, only that person has the right to do that.

Not sure where you were going there. Can you explain that a bit. Do you mean we should not be able to say that religion isn't true?

they didnt kill for religion, to them it was more in keeping with a Darwinian view of survival, but of course, i dont see a Stalin or Mao when someone says to me theyre an atheist,

The murderous activities of the Russian and Chinese governments of the middle of the 20h century were nothing to do with Darwinism (although I like the nice swerve, because I suspect that you're trying to keep your creationist views under wraps but are getting tempted).

The official line of the Russian communist party explicitly rejected Darwinian evolution for most of the time it was engaged in mass murder, because Lysenko's pseudo-science was the official line. I don't know enough enough about Maoism to know what they thought about Darwin, but given that China followed the Russian line pretty slavishly during that period I'd be extremely surprised if some form of Lysenkoism didn't take hold there as well. It would certainly explain quite a lot about their agricultural policy.

The mass killings of Russia were the holomodor, the famine in the Ukraine and elsewhere, which were a product of an entirely evil assault on non-collectivised farming, and then the post-war purges which were political paranoia. Neither had anything to do with Darwinism, or survival. The Cultural Revolution likewise had nothing to do Darwinism. The reason the religious like to assert that is that they want to sneak in the thought that "evolution as a concept leads to mass murder therefore God created everything".

So why then, crescentmoon, do so many Muslims call for apostates to be killed? Are they not proper Muslims?

"In the survey of 1,003 Muslims by the polling company Populus through internet and telephone questionnaires, nearly 60% said they would prefer to live under British law, while 37% of 16 to 24-year-olds said they would prefer sharia law, against 17% of those over 55. Eighty-six per cent said their religion was the most important thing in their lives.

Nearly a third of 16 to 24-year-olds believed that those converting to another religion should be executed"

crescentmoon what does the koran say about someone who was a muslim ceasing to be one.

Oxford many brilliant believers (past and present) were inspired and driven by their faith. To further understand the role faith played in their achievements I would recommend finding one you particularly admire and then reading their biography.

Do you have any links or sources for the neuroscience regarding bits of the brain that work/don't work in non-believers and believers?

Genocide is carried out when a group identifies another as lesser and dangerous and justifies their killing (usually in the name of security).

It transcends religion, race, ethnicity and ideology.

Back do you believe that all, most or even a sizable percentage of the 1billion + Muslims in the world wish to see non Muslims dead?

“There is no such thing as a Christian child: only a child of Christian parents.”

“Let children learn about different faiths, let them notice their incompatibility, and let them draw their own conclusions about the consequences of that incompatibility. As for whether they are ‘valid,’ let them make up their own minds when they are old enough to do so.”

“Faith can be very very dangerous, and deliberately to implant it into the vulnerable mind of an innocent child is a grievous wrong.”

All quotes taken from "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins.

All quite simplistic and well known quotes, but this is really how I sum up my view on religion.

As a baby and a child you are a sponge, soaking up everything around you and learning everything from your immediate influences which are usually parents, family and family friends. As a child you are wired to accept without question what you are told to be true, this is necessary to enable you to grow up with a sense of danger etc but also lends itself to the ability to accept religion without question or disbelief.

This is why children who grow up in a non-religious environment usually grow up to be non-religious - they make up their own minds when they are older and capable of critical thought and reasoning. Children were brought up with religion have it 'hard wired' into them to an extent and as such find it more difficult to challenge and question.

Adults who have grown up with religion and then denounced it are generally more vehement in their arguments against religion, whilst adults who have grown up atheist tend to have a more "whatever, so long as it doesn't directly affect me/society" attitude.

As I said, this is just my very simplified view - and as such I think it would be more beneficial to debate with an adult who has 'chosen' religion as an adult, because they do not have the legacy of childhood belief.

DioneTheDiabolist As I have said many times I'm quite sure there are huge numbers of muslims who want to get the working day over so they can be home with their kids and watch TV. They will see about all the killing on TV and shake their heads. Most Christians are like that now too. They have toned done the whole belief thing to something that happens on sundays.

Still the bible does tell christians they should be out there killing people and some take it more seriously and do so.

Did you notice me asking what the koran says muslims should do about apostates? Because there are many muslims claiming that a good muslim should be out there killing and that this is Allah's will.

Endless examples, but you might want to read the news about Pakistan if you can't imagine that happening.

A different Islam perhaps? Does the koran say that certain people should be put to death or are those muslims lying?

Despite what some atheists on here are trying to assert there is no definite way to prove that God doesnt exist.

True and this is why agnosticism is the one true way . Although you can also be certain that a maximum of one religion is correct, so the overwhelming majority are definitely wrong.

Always interesting though that so many of those who are certain of their faith, just happen to certain of the faith they were raised to follow, rather than any of the thousands of others out there. Do they study other religions in the same detail to satisfy themselves that their own is the correct one?

I am well aware of what is happening in the world Back. I just think that if the intention is really to stop pain and suffering then it is better to target those who are causing the pain and suffering and get as many others as I can, on board to help with that.

Followers of religions are more likely to speak out against atrocities than commit them. So where is the logic in alienating people who could be very helpful in your quest?

So no comment on the different Islams then?

on the different islams

are you talking about what is written in the koran or the hadiths

are you picking out parts that those who what to cause trouble use religion to gain power and harm other or those that use it against islam are you talking about (often the same thing)

i think we are all well aware that religion is sometimes used in a negative way. when islam came about as with christianity the world was a very different place to what it is now people adapt religion around their life the world is changing and islamic countries are probably going through the biggest changes of all at this point in time (and if we get political the west is keen to keep saudi as it is). Use the people that are using religion to cause harm as examples but not the religion as a whole unless you are going to do the same with extreme right wing christian groups. are they representative of all christians?

Back I read your post, made my comment and asked a follow up question at 14:43. Was my comment not good enough or not relevant in your eyes? Or perhaps you were expecting a response that would enable you to make a point to your audience.

Sorry for late response. RL in the form of my 1 year old ds came a calling.

Oxford- Dont misquote me. I said that MANY of the greatest human beings that lived believed in God NOT all of them believed in God. You entirely changed the point I was trying to make which is that this idea that only simpletons believe in God is not accurate.

Back - the point I was trying to make was illustrated brilliantly by Oxford who immediately tried to downplay or brush away the fact that many great and influential figures of history believed in God. You do not have the right to decide how much their religion did or did not influence them that is their prerogative.

As for your other points about Islams Im not sure exactly what you mean but I will answer it in terms of how I understood it. Islam is not a monolithic religion. It encompasses multiple opinions. Differences in interpretations have existed since the beginning of Islam and in fact are accepted. There are certain essential points that all muslims would agree with (things like the 5 pillars, certain theological principles etc) but when it comes to sharia in particular you can get a wide spectrum of scholarly opinions. There is no such thing as one sharia or the book of sharia laws so in that sense yes there are Islams.

Now with regards to your comment about apostates, first off a central principle in sharia is that you judge by what is apparent, in that you judge a person by what is evident of their actions and words. What a person does in their personal lives is their own business as long as it remains private. That is the biggest thing I think that many non muslims misinterpret about Sharia. The point of sharia is not to punish people for committing sins. The muslim scholars say that if you commit a sin and God keeps it hidden then you should not confess it to a judge and should keep your repentance between yourself and God alone. They take this from the famous hadith where a woman went to the Prophet Muhammed PBUH to confess that she had committed adultery and he pretended that he didnt hear her. He did this three times before finally enquiring whether she was sane. They say that the fact that he tried to ignore her (she had to come back three separate times before he acknowledged what she said and even then he delayed her punishment for 2/3years giving her plenty of time to escape) meant that the purpose of the sharia is not to punish individuals for making mistakes. Instead the purpose of the sharia is to deter people from committing sins.

It would be optimistic bordering on deluded to assume that all the worlds 1.5 billion muslims have the same level of belief and adherence to the religion. Some have a strong faith, some may have a mediocore faith and some may have no faith at all. I would argue that their are millions of apostates in the Muslim world in the sense that they do not believe or practise the religion (I have about 2 or 3 in my family). They are not bothered however because they keep it a private and personal matter. Its only when you come out and publicly start attacking the religion that you fall foul of the authorities in the countries where apostasy is against the law. In the same way that Muslims in this country are allowed to practice their religion but as soon as they start harassing non-muslims (or muslims for that matter) for not sharing their practices (similar to the way muslim patrol did) that they commit a crime and can be punished by the law. By the way Islam is not a vigilante religion. Individual muslims can not carry out punishments. If they do that they are committing an injustice and a crime against the sharia. Only the state has the authority to exercise the law.

Now Im sure the next thing you will probably say is why is it a sin or why should it be against the law to leave the faith. Well this is where you need to look at context. At the time of the Quran's revelation there was a battle royale going on between the Prophet Muhammed PBUH and the Muslims against the Pagan Makkans. The prophet Muhammed pbuh lived for 13 years in Makkah (the city of his birth) with the Muslim community where they were persecuted for daring to leave the religion of their forefathers (becoming apostates from the Makkan pagan religion incidentally). They finally left after 13 years of trying to peacefully practise their religion to live in the city of Madinah. However once in Madinah they were not left alone by the Makkan Arabs who wanted to wipe out the Prophet Muhammed PBUH and his followers from the Arabian peninsula. In this context apostasy was akin to treason. Imagine if you were a muslim you would be privy to sensitive information about the Prophet Muhammed PBUh and about how the early Muslim community was run. Your leaving the faith would mean that you could potentially expose many of those 'state secrets' to the enemy. Think of it, like the Edward Snowden case where the US feels like they cant let him get away with exposing them otherwise others may follow suit. There are some scholars who argue the punishment for apostasy is for cases like this where it is a threat to national security. However even then the person according to sharia must be given a chance to recant.

I hope that makes sense.