There is no god

[OldKingCole]

Inspired by another thread … I was surprised by the level of atheism professed … as I always though I was in a tiny, tiny minority.
would be interested to see the MN response.

IABU - there is a god
IANBU - there is no god

@ShodanLives of course if the Bible were an honest book it would just say 'you should have lost of babies and raise them in our faith so there are more of us than of all those other guys who all believe the wrong thing and that means we have a better chance of winning a war against them and generally taking over'. But it isn't and it doesn't.

Gender identity ideology is a faith based belief system with no basis in science or rationality. Much like religion. Gender ideology and religion are part of the same evolved human tendency/ need for overarching abstract ideas to unite groups of people in social bond/ identity. And, no, education is no protector against allegiance to one of these unevidenced, anti-reality based belief systems. As gender ideology shows.

I have found that people who are anti-religion belief systems like to cordon religion off as something special and unique, that they can uniquely criticize. But it’s not. It’s part of a wider human drive to abstract thinking to unite groups. Secular and religious belief systems are two sides of the same coin. I think atheist groups, like humanists and the skeptics, like to cordon religion off in this way as it means they never have to critically examine their own thinking and beliefs, hence their vulnerability to falling whole scale for gender ideology. Their critical thinking capabilities just weren’t developed to spot this for what it was.

@BarkAscending so how would you explain the fact that I am an atheist who is also gender critical? On a psychological level, I can accept that people like to unite in a social bond. And I feel that gender ideology functions in a cult-like way, so fair enough, I can see the parallels. Doesn't mean there is a god!

So what you did @Biscuitsneeded was say critical thinking was the causative mechanism linked to education that led to a decline in religious belief. I am arguing that gender identity ideology shows that critical thinking arising from education is clearly not a protective factor is developing allegiance to faith based, unevidenced anti- reality ideas.

So something else must be linked to education to lead to the decline in religious belief. Which I suggest is that religion fell out of favor as something for educated people to believe. But that did not mean they wouldn’t fall for Religion Mark 2 in other belief systems which evolved, such as gender ideology.

i cannot follow your line of argument here at all. Nothing I said is saying there is a God. I have no idea why you think I need to explain why you as an atheist is GC?? I have said nothing to say those two things are opposed. I am an atheist GC myself.
I really don’t know what you think I have said to conclude any of this. But I sure didn’t say it.

I am not religious but I know that God exists.

Actually no, you don't. You believe he exists but that's entirely different.

@BarkAscending OK, fair enough. I totally buy gender ideology as Religion Mark 2. Except that most if its adherents are teenagers who possibly haven't yet developed the ability to think especially critically. And actually they are just the people being exploited, in the same way religion exploits. But when we look at who or what is doing the manipulating, and to what end, we arrive at patriarchy. Guess I do (sadly) believe in that. Both religion and gender ideology are designed to subjugate females to the advantage of males.

1.Change exists in nature (evidence)
2.Change is the actuation of potentiality and an essential chain of actuations cannot go to infinite regress. A fully actual Prime Mover is necessary (logic)
3.That Prime Mover is what all men call God (conclusion)

What does any of this actually mean?

My original answer pointed out.
God invented the concept of marriage Adam/Eve was the first human marriage.
Sexual relations are forbidden outside of marriage whatever that entails.
There are no translations of the bible where this has explicitly changed.

Then a poster asked why the bible forbids same-sex relations. I said it was to do with.
The sanctity of marriage.
Populating the planet.

The family unit has many functions one of which is to provide sustenance/home etc for any offspring.
The idea we can replace the duty to parent with a paternity test is absurd and we know in today's society is troublesome, we also know the government via the tax system providing sustenance for families is not sustainable.

Then I personally speculated the population of the planet would be under threat with a small or significant shift towards same-sex relationships.
To answer your first point animals are not under any commands from the bible. The Bible was written for humans.
Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

As for modernity, the 10 commandments are still relevant. What people don't like is the idea of a GOD via the bible and religion setting out objective rules.
This leads to all kinds of wonderful sophistry to either deny or mock.

I'm not bothered, posters are not mocking me, they're mocking what is written.
It's interesting that academics can debate these topics with wisdom and piety, yet the internet can not.

@PrincessConstance I agree the family unit is important. Evidence shows that children raised in a stable gay relationship do just as well as children raised by a stable straight couple. The important thing is the stability of the parents' relationship, not their sex.

I disagree that the rules in the Bible are in any way objective. Especially the first commandment - there's no objectivity in that at all. The bible is a book of stories. No more, no less. Unless of course you are a believer and you have chosen to make that leap of faith - but that does not mean that your beliefs are any more valid than anyone else's.

Their critical thinking capabilities just weren’t developed to spot this for what it was.

Agreed, Idolatry isn't just about the worship of other Gods, it also includes ideas, such as modernity, science, and Gender theories. Whatever is around at the time.
People cannot unfortunately see these are one and the same. Religion in a different coat.
Then what happens is they try to redefine concepts such as Critical thinking as they have a personal crisis as they are judged.

‘I agree the family unit is important. Evidence shows that children raised in a stable gay relationship do just as well as children raised by a stable straight couple.’

better, actually, when they have 2 mums.

28 pages debating God / religion.

People have a lot of time

On the one hand, if you're an adherent of many religions, your views on god may effect your 'soul' for all eternity. How can anyone who truly believes it not feel compelled to share this?

On the other, if you don't believe in any sort of afterlife, the damage and waste caused by religions may be seen as worth liberating people from for the one life they have.

Quite obviously we do not agree-the thread isn't about your first point so I'm not going to be drawn into that debate.

The ten commandments for instance are objective much like circular road signs-they give orders and must be followed to be within the law. They're not optional.
I certainly believe there is a God, based on sound logical premises, our very existence is proof. It's a universal truth.
I know DP has two 1st class degrees in Philosophy, politics, and economics disciplines and this has cemented his belief and ideas. In fact, he said it was unequivocal. We used to debate into the early hrs when we first met.

I'm sure posterity will determine that the religious debate was finally settled once and for all on the mumsnet forum.

I am genuinely baffled that so many people believe these ‘fairy stories’ in 2023.
I went to a faith school and from the age of 7 I can clearly remember wondering that if there really was a god who loved us all equally then why did he let the teachers treat the children who went to church better than those who didn’t go? I remember one teacher in primary school who would constantly put me down because I ‘didn’t go to church’
I’ve seen this many times since, absolute arseholes who hide behind religion and try to portray themselves as saints because they do a lot for the church. The treatment of women in most religions is disgusting too. I feel a bit disappointed if I learn that someone new I meet is religious as in a way they would be supporting these views. I do think there is a difference between people who identify as a Christian or as a follower of other religions because that’s their identity compared to the preachy ‘anyone who doesn’t follow my religion’ is inferior types.

What I find baffling is the attempt of some posters to belittle those who do believe in God. Some of you seem to deride some type of strange pleasure in mocking those with faith.
I believe in God, but I have no interest in mocking those who do not believe in a higher power.
My faith in God is of importance to me. However, I am not trying to convert any non believers . I don’t feel the need to justify or prove that I am right and others are wrong .
I just live my life the best way I can

@PrincessConstance the first commandment is 'Thou shalt have no other gods before me'. That isn't logical, sound or reasonable - it is the demand of a dictator.

The existence of human life is evidence of biology. Nothing more, nothing less.

I accept that my lack of belief in a god is just that - a belief. You do not have the humility to say the same thing about your beliefs.

Your DP's degrees are irrelevant. They would still be irrelevant if they were in a STEM field. You and he have one set of beliefs. Many other people have a different set. There is no objective proof that any of them are more valid, factual or logical than any of the others.

If everyone was celibate the population would decline, and yet there hasn't been centuries of persecution of celibate people from Christians.

Although everyone being celibate is about as likely as everybeing gay so...

Not really. Many new atheists , like Daniel Dennett , are Illusionists. They believe the Hard Problem of Consciousness, as outlined by the Scottish philosopher Chalmers , is not a problem because Consciousness itself is an illusion.

What you imagine to be your ideas are simply the byproduct of complex electrical / chemical interactions in your brain. Therefore 'your' choices are not yours at and free will doesn't exist either of course. It would be interesting to see this tested in a court of law eg as mitigation for some serious offence.

I'll stick with Dr Johnson on this one : ' We know we have free will and there's an end on it.'

@Lampzade so do I. But there is huge disrespect towards atheists both on this thread and in the wider world. So many believers feel that they are morally superior to those who do not believe. So many believers think that what they believe is fact. I believe that all beliefs are equal in that they cannot be proven one way or another. So many believers use their religion to oppress and persecute others without reflecting on whether what they are doing is really in line with the teachings of their faith.

@Abhannmor I do know how the brain works, thanks . I was joking.

I'm sure posterity will determine that the religious debate was finally settled once and for all on the mumsnet forum.
so there's no point discussing anything beyond the mundane, is there?

It's not deflecting to say that it's not actually banned in the bible only later translations, it's in fact incredibly relevant

The bible is also positive about adoption, so being fruitful does not have to be procreation personally.

The new testament recommends being fruitful through converting others to the faith of christianity, not through procreation.

And ultimately the command to multiply is in the old testament. As is the command not the wear mixed fibres. Or that you shouldn't sit in a seat that a woman on her period has sat on because she is unclean. it also gives you instructions on how to deal with your slave. And it's okay for men to visit prostitutes (but not women of course). And women are supposed to shut up and obey men. Burning incest is prohibited, charging interest in loans etc

Now many say that the rules of the old testament were over ridden by Jesus and the new testament. Which is why its now okay to wear mixed fibres, and have a mortgage, and an opinion as woman.

But if the only law that you are interested in carrying over from the new testament is that homosexuality is wrong because the old testament implies multiply through procreation (as opposed to the new testaments multiply by new followers) and you are not also on the S&B threads complaining about mixed fibres, and boycotting banks that charge interest on loans then it starts to sound like you are using religion to justify bigotry.