Religion

[crazydil]

There have been a few threads in regards to religion and without exception there are always a few posters who cannot help themselves from being disrespectful.

Is it difficult to get a point across without a slight dig? Criticism is part of a healthy discussion but to be so rude about something that is very important to some. ..is it really needed?
I've never felt the need to be rude about anyones belief no matter how strange I find it to be.

So basically aibu in expecting respect in any conversation

boysofmelody what "facts" have we had from you?

So what do I search for? Dawkins hole illogic? Hang on....l,

Bertrand it wasnt me who first used the word "illogic" i was responding to an earlier poster who used the word. So less with the patronising sneeriness please. just google "the impossibility we are here by chance" or perhaps the "illogicality we are here by chance". That should do it.

First hit- Miles Mathis. Did you mean him?

On the contrary, RD has many a time dug himself into a hole of illogic.

Has he? However, even if he had, that would not contradict my observation in any way, nor answer the question raised. Maybe not the best judge of logic on current evidence.

. I always find it odd that something they dont believe in brings out such passion

If religion did not negatively impact our lives, it wouldn't.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/23/no-religion-outnumber-christians-england-wales-study

This reflects what I see around me. IME, the vast majority of people who are raised by atheist parents become atheists and a lot of people raised in a Christian faith ditch those beliefs when they get older. However, it's unusual for people with atheist parents to then find religion. I know it happens but not very often.
If the trend continues this way, the number of practicing Christians in the U.K. will continue to dwindle. My DM goes to church and the average age of the congregation is 70+.

I quite like what you said about imaginary friends, Errol

300,000 ish Christians in N Korea, imprisoned, tortured murdered. I agree actually about the leadership worship being a form of religion albeit an enforced one and Kim Jong Un professes atheism. There's still high persecution in China today as well outside the government sanctioned churches.

Anyways, sorry, off point. As you were.

I've done the searches you suggest.

Using google scholar nothing relevant shows up.

In general google ... the top hits I've taken a look at ...if you mean something like www.scienceforums.net/topic/67884-what-are-the-odds-of-life-evolving-by-chance-alone/ then you should obviously be alerted to the bias of the writer by the use of the term 'evolutionist', and then I suggest you read and try to understand the comments below which refute it. I'm not going to try to explain further, because I don't consider myself an expert - a PhD in chemistry and some understanding of statistics is about enough to understand it but not to add much.

Depends on the church, tho, MissHooliesCardigan (great name!) My church is full of all ages from babies to a wonderful lady in her late nineties and all between including loads of young people. I'd agree that mnay churches are dying out, but many are growing too.

Madhair - there seems to be a definite trend overall though. And of course, there are quite a lot of churches where there's oddly high numbers of parents with preschoolers or those having a 'year 5 epiphany' ...

"Atheists are fond of claiming that their way of thinking is logical, reasonable, and intellectual. Yet atheism irrationally says that everything came from nothing. Atheism says that an explosion caused exquisite order. It says that random chances produced precision and that life popped into existence in nature from non-life. Atheism contends that a well-designed Universe could come about without a Designer. Atheism says that fish and frogs are man’s distant forefathers and that intelligence is ultimately the result of non-intelligence. Atheism alleges that either man is on the same moral plane as a moose, or he actually evolved a sense of morality from amoral mice. While trying to convince others he is galloping confidently atop a stallion called Common Sense, atheism stumbles on the back of a donkey called Foolishness.

Theism, on the other hand, is absolutely rational. Why? Because (among other things) (1) matter demands a Maker; (2) life demands a Life Giver; (3) design demands a Designer; (4) intelligence demands an Intelligent Creator; (5) morality demands a Moral Law Giver; (6) the Bible’s supernatural attributes demand a Supernatural Author; and (7) the historical, miracle-working, resurrected Jesus demands a supernatural explanation (which demands God). Indeed, the Christian can say with all confidence, “I know that God exists.” As former atheist Antony Flew so eloquently concluded: “I must say again that the journey to my discovery of the Divine has thus far been a pilgrimage of reason. I have followed the argument where it has led me. And it has led me to accept the existence of a self-existent, immutable, immaterial, omnipotent, and omniscient Being” (2007, p. 155)."

Errol no i'm sorry, it all depends on what side of the fence you're on. An atheist will choose to believe anything they read that suits their agenda. So too will the theist, the difference being the theist will also have faith on their side.

rose One thing that I really agree with Dawkins about is that people who are passionate atheists are not just as 'fundamentalist' as people of faith.
Atheists generally form the beliefs that that have on weighing up evidence rather than just believing it because it's written in a Holy Book.
The other difference is that the vast majority of atheists would change their mind if shown credible evidence for God's existence whereas people with a strong faith will never change their mind no matter how much evidence they're presented with.

roseforarose

Atheism makes no such claims.

Atheism in a lack of belief in god.

And that's it.

It has no doctrine, no rules, common theories.

You are making a mistake in comparing atheism to a faith.
It isn't.

Atheists may think we came from alien life, they may not think dinosaurs existed, they may think the world is flat.

Or any other idea.

And frankly when you say things like "Atheism says that fish and frogs are man’s distant forefathers and that intelligence is ultimately the result of non-intelligence."

You cannot be further from the mark and it's slightly embarrassing to read.

Errol, too true... Thankfully we don't have a church school so not the case in ours. And yy to downward trend in the west at least. In many other areas there's something of an upward trend, interestingly. And in the UK those churches outside the established churches are rarely counted in these things and they're on the rise.

That isn't true cardigan,many many people lose their faith for many reasons, but "evidence" wouldn't be one of them, simply because there isn't any. But i'd love to know what this "strong evidence" is that there isn't a God. Lack of proof can't be it. What is the "strong evidence" that is presented to us? Also what is the proof that atheists demand which would make atheists change their mind if presented with "credible evidence" ? God appearing on a fluffy white cloud in the sky?

I personally have all the "evidence" i need to believe in God.

"Atheism says that an explosion caused exquisite order. It says that random chances produced precision and that life popped into existence in nature from non-life. Atheism contends that a well-designed Universe could come about without a Designer. Atheism says that fish and frogs are man’s distant forefathers and that intelligence is ultimately the result of non-intelligence. Atheism alleges that either man is on the same moral plane as a moose, or he actually evolved a sense of morality from amoral mice. While trying to convince others he is galloping confidently atop a stallion called Common Sense, atheism stumbles on the back of a donkey called Foolishness"

Absolutely nothing you are quoting here has anything to do with what atheists think.

Oh, and, rose? It's considered good form to attribute c&ps........

The whole point about faith is that there is no evidence for it. Otherwise there would be no need of faith. And faith without evidence is generally considered "stronger" (cf poor old St Thomas). People of faith and agnostics/atheists go to the edge of the unknown together. The atheist says "I'll wait here for more evidence" - the person of faith says "I believe" - and jumps. What would be remarkable about that if they had evidence that God would catch them?

Caille If you are an atheist it naturally follows that you believe we evolved from nothing, That is what an atheist believes. You can't just say "we don't believe in God and that's it" without explaining how you think we got here. Far from me being far from the mark i think i was spot on. It is by denying that which is embarrassing to read.

If you are an atheist it naturally follows that you believe we evolved from nothing, That is what an atheist believes.

You are not getting it rose.

An atheist does not believe in god.

And er, that's it.

All this "naturally follows" business is maybe the way your mind works.

Atheism is not a faith.

Bertrand can you remember what this thread is all about. I think some of your posts perfectly sum up the point the OP was making. Rudeness, sarcasm, condescension. All common traits in atheists i've noticed. I wonder just what it is that makes you all so? 1

"Caille If you are an atheist it naturally follows that you believe we evolved from nothing, That is what an atheist believes. You can't just say "we don't believe in God and that's it" without explaining how you think we got here"

Yes you can. You can be an atheist and believe that earth was spawned by aliens. Or that life evolved (you fundamentally misunderstand evolution, by the way) Or that we have no idea where life came from.

Atheism is not believing in God. Nothing more, nothing less.

"Rudeness, sarcasm, condescension"

I have not been rude. I may have been a bit sarcastic, but when someone repeatedly tells me what I believe and gets it wrong, it can be a bit trying. Condescending? Hmm. I try not to be, but see previous point.