In thinking that people with faith or religion are deluded?

[Alouiseg]

This stems from another couple of threads i'm on but until God can be proven isn't religion just an outdated patriachal method of control?

boiledegg - no, that's wrong. Otherwise we would all maintain neutral positions on the existence of invisible rhinoceri. Most of us don't - as nobody seriously claims they exist.

I'm not being painted into a corner where I am made to look as if I am saying that scientific research into previously uncharted territory is wrong.

"I don't like to believe anything, in general, unless the weight of evidence is in its favour.

That should not be confused with needing 100% proof - it's just called needing enough evidence to make it very reasonably likely. 1% isn't enough. In fact, 10% isn't enough. In fact, insofar as one can put a mathematical figure on it, even 50% isn't enough for me."

UQD, we agree- your requirement is 50%+... Others are happy with 1%.

Belief still factors.

sigh

onagar, I did not say that atheists by definition dont have morals.
I said that in my experience, self-defined moral frameworks tend to be inadequate. Of course, there will always be a small number of people who can design their own moral framework - many more cant, and get it from soap operas and other twaddle.

boiledeggandsoldiers, you are then neutral on whether or not mutant star goats live in oak trees?

When you see a bus you are equally sure it could be a public transport vehicle or a current bun?

How do you function?

nighbynight - just what evidence is there for atheists "duffing up" believers for wearing religious insignia, FGS?? It's far more likely that the person taking offence will be an adherent of another superstition.

Yes. Almost all Atheists are Agnostic as well.

Atheism is saying I don't currently believe in a god.
Agnosticsm is saying I don't know if there is a god.

If I knew there was a good then naturally I would believe in them.

Atheists also attract physical violence, at abortion clinics, for example. As do believers from different faiths. It's not that relevant an argument to prove the superiority of faith versus atheism, from what I understand.

Boiledegg, your example of the experiment involves people building on a pre-existing body of knowledge in order to investigate a plausible scenario with a high likelihood of success.

How would we replicate that if we were to investigate God? There is no point having an open mind about something if you aren't going to use it, and we are not being given similar ways of finding out about God. It requires an entirely different psychological skill set.

If I knew there was a GOD even. I know there is a good. I fucking hope so anyway.

tethersend - sorry, no - we don't agree! Don't try and lump me in with "believers". As I said above, it is all about the weight of evidence being in favour of something.

And it's also about your willingness to change viewpoints when it becomes obvious that the weight of evidence is against your previous position. That's how science moves on.

I used to believe that "Buffy The Vampire Slayer" was a crap TV show. This was on the very flimsy evidence of a couple of episodes I'd seen once. That was not a valid viewpoint, as it was based on little or no evidence. Now I am watching it all properly, in sequence, I can see that it is, in fact, "quite good". There is every probability that, once I have watched all 7 series, I may have revised my opinion up to "very good".

"nighbynight - just what evidence is there for atheists "duffing up" believers for wearing religious insignia, FGS?? It's far more likely that the person taking offence will be an adherent of another superstition."

Like racism. I doubt that the morons responsible for attacking people in religious death are motivated by theology, to be honest.

nighbynight, since there is no evidence of any two way communication with god (or any higher being to supply the moral framework) then religious morals are just based on what previous religious people thought.

You could claim that a bunch of them got together and worked out a good moral system, but then so could atheists. God still doesn't figure into it.

Science encourages us to continue to question everything, but religion says "This is right. Don't think about it. Do it"

So should we have an open mind about gossamer teapots which pour honey?

nighbynight: There's an awful lot more evidence of people being physically assaulted for not conforming to the requirement of physical display of superstitous symbols than there is of 'atheists' assaulting people who are wearing supersitious insignia.
OK yes there have been incidents of anti-muslim violence ie the assaulting of hijab-wearing women, which is disgusting and totally unacceptable, but this is a lot more to do with racism than aggressive anti-religious opinion.

I am sure that it is difficult to design your own moral framework. It is fortunate that we have thousands of years of moral philosophy to fall back on and an entire society's debates to advise us, and access to global knowledge sources.

DF - yes, it was aimed at your comment that "every Christian has? "(a well defined moral framework)

UQD - I am not offended, I dont know where you got that idea from. Although I am using fairly strong examples, they are things that have happened recently in the UK.
The problem is, that the line is blurred. Your atheist way of living is likely at some point to cross my religious way of living. For example, some atheists are annoyed by the cross/headscarf example. Others require religious people not to participate in conversations in the workplace, in case they offend anyone with religous opinions. Your criteria probably meet this.

You can talk about your religion as much as you like. Just don't expect it to have any effect on my life (e.g. converting me), and don't expect me to believe any of its myths as true. That's been my approach for about 20 years and will continue to be.

YABVVVVVVVVVVU Just because you do not believe in a faith does not mean everyone has to be like you. For those who believe in a God,heaven/hell,Jesus, it is very real and alive in themselves and their hearts. You do not have to see God to see him at work, there are phenomonen (sp)or happenings in this world that cannot be explained by science. Of course if you pray for weath, and riches god will not provide, but i have prayed for other things to do with my family and friends and found that what I have prayed for has worked out.

well nighbynight I don't understand what you mean then, so perhaps you can explain?

What does "stop making claims for christianity, which you will then ridicule (like saying that christianity claims a god on a cloud that cant be proved)" mean?

I was asking does every christian have a well defined moral framework. I think it's far to simplistic to think all christians do and some atheists don't. I think it's fairer to say that some people do, some people don't and it's not their faith or their lack of faith which always determines it. Does that make sense?

I am not in any way about to make claims for Christians or Atheists, nor am I about to start banging on about clouds.

Oh well- case closed then, piglet.

All those who dont believe that you get violence from wearing religious symbols, try wearing a long coat and headscarf in Cardiff or Plymouth (2 examples, from my own experience).
White skinned people wearing these symbols attract violence, it is not just racism.

onagar, who cares where the relgions moral frameworks came from, the point is that there is a large community of people who believe in them and teach them...you are not left on your own, floundering around damaging yourself and people around you.

Talking about your religion is ok. Unfortunately some religious people don't know the difference between conversation and evangelism.

Let's face it you shouldn't be trying to sell Tupperware in work either, but it's ok to say you have some.