Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Religion

503 replies

crazydil · 12/09/2017 11:48

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

OP posts:
roseforarose · 14/09/2017 13:27
  1. LIFE DEMANDS A LIFE GIVER

"Life does not pop into existence from nothing. Neither the puppy at the pound nor the bacteria on the doorknob spontaneously generated. Every scientist, whether theist or atheist, knows this observation to be true.

In biology, one of the most widely recognized laws of science is the Law of Biogenesis. “Biogenesis” is composed of two words—“bio,” which means life, and “genesis,” which means beginning. Thus, this law deals with the beginning of life, and it simply says that in nature life comes only from previous life of its own kind. Over the years, the truthfulness of this law has been documented by thousands of scientists, most notably Louis Pasteur. His work dealt a crushing blow to the notion of spontaneous generation.

In 1933, evolutionist John Sullivan admitted that “it became an accepted doctrine that life never arises except from life. So far as the actual evidence goes, this is still the only possible conclusion” (p. 94, emp. added). Okay, but that was 1933. As we move further into the 20th century the obvious question was “Is it still the only possible conclusion?” What have we learned since the days of Louis Pasteur in the 19th century and John Sullivan in the first half of the 20th century? Observational science has reached the same conclusion experiment after experiment, year after year. The eminent evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson and his colleagues observed that “there is no serious doubt that biogenesis is the rule, that life comes only from other life, that a cell, the unit of life, is always and exclusively the product or offspring of another cell” (1965, p. 144, emp. added). Evolutionist Martin Moe noted that “a century of sensational discoveries in the biological sciences has taught us that life arises only from life” (1981, 89[11]:36, emp. added). More recently, staunch evolutionist Neil Shubin conceded the following in his book titled Your Inner Fish:

I can share with you one true law that all of us can agree upon. This law is so profound that most of us take it completely for granted. Yet it is the starting point for almost everything we do in paleontology, developmental biology, and genetics. This biological “law of everything” is that every living thing on the planet had parents. Every person you’ve ever known has biological parents, as does every bird, salamander, or shark you have ever seen.... To put it in a more precise form: every living thing sprang from some parental genetic information (2009, p. 174).

The importance of Shubin’s concession must not be missed. He recognizes that the actual scientific information verifies that life in the natural world must come from previously existing life. Yet he refuses to carry that fact to its proper conclusion: that life could not have sprung from non-living chemicals. Materialistic evolution cannot adequately account for or explain the most basic laws of science, not the least of which is the Law of Biogenesis."

ErrolTheDragon · 14/09/2017 13:29

Madhairday isn't one of the sulkers, Bert.

BertrandRussell · 14/09/2017 13:36

"Madhairday isn't one of the sulkers, Bert."

Oh help, no, definitely not! I really didn't mean to imply that! Sorry, madhairy....

Madhairday · 14/09/2017 13:47

Don't worry Bert, I thought I was possibly 'z' or `but c'! Grin

Thanks Errol. I do appreciate that Smile

ErrolTheDragon · 14/09/2017 13:53

Is this the reference for your c&p, rose? https://www.amazon.com/Call-Crusaders-Vitalis-Chi-Nwaneri/dp/1514477882

Its just a wordy assertion, with no basis but lots of bias.

The current state on research into abiogenesis is, as I understand it (caveat - I'm not an expert but watched an interesting Great Courses lecture series on the origins of life a while ago) that there are lots of plausible theories- its a pretty new field, and I doubt one which its easy to get funding for. We don't know yet but that in no way means we have to invoke a creator.

Userwhocouldntthinkofagoodname · 14/09/2017 13:54

Catholics have been persecuted through the ages. Hardly privileged
Isn't that what god calls karma?

lets say I believe you look ridiculous in a pair of jeans
If they entitled me to special Jeansus privileges, then yes I would expect to be the subject of ridicule until I took them off.

If you decide to believe in something as ridiculous as a god then it need to be repudiated with an equal amount of ridicule
I thought it would be self evident why belief in something without evidence was ridiculous (absurd). 200 million years of dinosaurs with no evidence of gods. Around 6000 years of civilization and 10,000 gods with 99.99% of them disproven. 2000 years of specific god claims disproved and the last few remaining are so unspecific as to have nothing to actually disprove. A 2000 year old christian religion based on a book with unknown authors written years after the events and with no contemporary validation. It predicts nothing, explains nothing and can be interpreted in so many different ways it has given rise to 33,000 different protestant denominations. Contrasted with a way of rational logical thinking that has discovered billions of facts about reality, predicting and verifying these facts across every country and culture in the world. The idea of a literal god has been easily pushed to the edge of the universe, so as to leave space only for, "Well, something can't come from nothing, can it?", or alternatively denying the facts of reality and creating 'god' in the ignorance. So that is why if you believe in a ridiculous idea like a god then it is reasonable to point out polity that it is ridiculous. HTH

FYI: a) Virtual particles (misleading historical name) pop into existence from nothing all the time. They actually violate conservation of energy. b) We don't know a universe can't come from nothing as we dont' have other universes to compare with.

SunSeptember · 14/09/2017 13:57

^ Even if it did - even if one day someone proved there was a god - it doesnt mean we all have to worship him and he wouldnt be a very nice god if he made us worship him would he.....and punished us for not worshiping him and even more suspect^ if he encouraged us to kill others who did not worship him.

No not the sort of god I would wish to follow anyway.

roseforarose · 14/09/2017 13:59

Catholics have been persecuted through the ages. Hardly privileged
Isnt that what God calls karma
Is it just Catholism deserving of karma, any other religions? or would it not be right to mention them.

roseforarose · 14/09/2017 14:04

We don't know a universe can't come from nothing as we dont' have other universes to compare with
Well if that's the case, that we need another universe to compare with, then we know nothing. Everything must be nonsense.

ErrolTheDragon · 14/09/2017 14:10

No-one deserves persecution. I would guess user meant that the church of Rome has done a considerable amount of persecution in its history- this is, unfortunately, irrefutable. As is the persecution of catholics by protestants when the latter gained the upper hand. Its not edifying, whoever is doing it to whoever else.

Userwhocouldntthinkofagoodname · 14/09/2017 14:11

I am glad roseforarose has finally understood what atheism is and hopefully will stop trying to turn it into a religion. But not glad to hear she wants to keep religious privilege.

Lets try and get more understanding of the facts. Evolution DOES NOT describe or even attempt to explain how life first started. Evolution just explains how life changes over time. Being seeded here from somewhere else in the universe is still in the running as a sensible possibility.

Another one. Evolution does not mean we are here by chance. Evolution is NOT chance. Please learn what evolution is before you say you dont believe it. And next time your ill, make sure your doctor doesn't give you any medicine created using evolution.

Can anyone point to anytime EVER that Richard Dawkins has dug himself into a hole of illogic? One example would be enough. Not holding my breath on that one.

Atheists do sometimes get angry when discussing religion not because they care about the religion but that they care about the effect it has on their lives and because they care about the truth. I have never met an atheist that cares about private beliefs.

roseforarose · 14/09/2017 14:13

userwhocouldnt think
Has it not occurred to you that the only time you'll get evidence is when you die. Why this obsession of "evidence" all the time. Why does God need to provide the kind of evidence which would be deemed acceptable by non believers. He doesn't have to. His evidence is everywhere, it's not His fault if you choose to ignore it.

Madhairday · 14/09/2017 14:17

No not the sort of god I would wish to follow anyway

I remember reading C. S Lewis's reflections on his atheist self. He thought that the God of Christianity looked like a petulant narcissistic old woman iirc, asking for all this praise and worship all the time. It seemed to him that God had a massive ego and therefore he didn't want anything to do with any of it as an academic rationalist.

Later, after his conversion, he thought on the nature of praise, and said that we all share praise of something when we are bowled over by it. We praise our partners and our children, we praise great art and literature and we tell others about it when we think it's something which will enrich their lives as well. Praising something is good for us, when it is something we want to praise because we appreciate or love it. It's the same with people of faith worshipping God; it's not about massaging a tender ego or doing something because we are scared of the alternative, but more about rhapsodising on something we think is great. In my experience worship is life changing and enriching and brings joy unspeakable, as Lewis called it. I believe God knew that we have an innate and profound need to praise and that praising God is the fullest expression of this. For me, it's the most beautiful, awe inspiring thing; something that touches my soul.

But hey, I'm just that woo type in the corner Grin

SunSeptember · 14/09/2017 14:22

We praise our partners and our children, we praise great art and literature

^^ But we manage to do those praising s without the rule book telling us how too - without the fear of falling foul of the rule book.

SunSeptember · 14/09/2017 14:23

I personally do not care about evidence I do not wish to choose to worship a god - at all.

ErrolTheDragon · 14/09/2017 14:25

Stephen Hawking wrote a book about how a universe could come from nothing. As I'm not a physicist or cosmologist, I've no idea whether his theories on this are correct, but it would certainly be foolish of me (and I would guess, anyone else posting on this thread) to assert that it's impossible.

Userwhocouldntthinkofagoodname · 14/09/2017 14:25

The "strong evidence" that there is no reason to believe in a god is very simple. Thousands of years of lack of evidence for a god. The development of science to a point that it can explain so much of the world combined with an understanding of the bits we dont understand to leave no reason to need a god to exist. The lack of explanatory power of religions. The dispersion of religions to multiple truths rather than convergence on any facts. The dissonance between religious morality and modern tolerance and equality. Greater understanding of history. Experiments showing prayer can actually decrease health outcomes in patients. ...

I hope you never join a debate talking about your non belief in God
LOL, you don't debate what you dont believe, you debate what people do believe. [face palm]

A debate on god places the burden of proof on the person making the claim that a god exists. Atheists are NOT claiming a belief.

BertrandRussell · 14/09/2017 14:32

That's the point I made earlier, rose. The whole point of faith is that it has no evidence-otherwise it wouldn't be faith.

BertrandRussell · 14/09/2017 14:34

But please stop misusing the word "evidence"

existentialmoment · 14/09/2017 14:49

Catholics have been persecuted through the ages. Hardly privileged

They also did a lot of persecuting through the ages, so yep, pretty privileged.

ChilliMary · 14/09/2017 14:54

Roseforarose

"Why this obsession of "evidence" all the time. Why does God need to provide the kind of evidence which would be deemed acceptable by non believers. He doesn't have to. His evidence is everywhere, it's not His fault if you choose to ignore it"

So we just have to believe in a god, without question, debate and or evidence because of group of men, 2000 years ago, told us that we should, even through it was only their word vs nothing? Belief is subjective. We hear what we want hear, take on those beliefs that suit us and give us comfort. Nothing wrong with that. For most people religion is simply an inherited belief system. As a child I was told there is a God because the bible says so and if the bible says it must be true, so why am I even questioning this. End of discussion.

If you have blind faith in something that is not proven , again that is your choice. We should all accept our different beliefs for sure, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with questioning this and asking for "evidence" or proof.

Madhairday · 14/09/2017 14:56

Yy, Errol, I agree that it would be foolish to say that the universe could not have sprung from nothing or discount Dr Hawkings explorations of M-theory etc (I like him a lot and love when he cameos on the Big Bang Theory) Smile

But perhaps equally foolish to assert that is couldn't have been created by a higher power. After all, both theories are unprovable through observational data. Why more likely that nothing started this all off, and we got to where we are now with all our intelligence, reason, beauty, conscience and consciousness, - and that somehow the laws of physics must have already been in place for the something to spring from the nothing - than a higher intelligence designed it in all its intricacies.

I love thinking on all this and it blows my mind - I am really not a scientist, sadly, though luckily the dc have inherited dhs keen mind on the sciences rather than my more arty farty bent - and I do not base my faith on theories about the beginning of everything which are unprovable, but

roseforarose · 14/09/2017 14:58

Catholics have been persecuted through the ages. Hardly privileged

They also did a lot of persecuting through the ages, so yep, pretty privileged.
What religion hasn't. Do you have anything to say about Islamic extremism, you know the ones who are currently "persecuting killing people.

araiwa · 14/09/2017 15:14

What religion hasnt?

That is the point everone is making. Religion is bad and shouldnt be involved in the lives of anyone outside it