Light sensors cause religious row

[OldLadyKnowsNothing]

Story here.

Maybe they should just move?

snorbs - yes, or indeed any evidence. Do we even need to ask for it to be extraordinary?

Another problem with respecting other people's beliefs is when those beliefs are deeply offensive or downright nuts. Eg, some Christian's loudly-stated views that God wants practising homosexuals to be killed, some muslim's views that Allah is ok with them killing non-muslims, some Scientologist's views that psychiatrists really are part of some global conspiracy and that serious mental health issues should be addressed with an E-meter and "clearing" etc.

Such differences of opinion are more serious, and more dangerous, than can be easily passed off with "let's agree to disagree".

Ah, UD -- former believers are the worst. A bit like ex smokers

It makes us annoying but it doesn't make us wrong

Thunderduck : "And I haven't found many atheists, though there will be exceptions obviously,demanding that gay people should not be allowed to marry because it goes against their beliefs."

You should come to Somerset, everyone's heterosexual here.

Of course there are idiots of all beliefs and backgrounds, I don't see how you go from that to the right to use language which insults and offends vast numbers of normal people.

Personally I still fail to see the problem with the use of superstition,apart from the fact that I've had that Stevie Wonder song stuck in my head for two days now thanks to this thread.

No UQD, not Iorek, where is she btw? Someone else you have argued with, er, robustly, in the past.

Thing about being an agnostic is I don't have a problem with other world religions and their Gods. [I like Buddhism most, and its lack of a God, and love the theory that Christ was believed to be the Dalai Lama by the 3 wise men who took him away and educated him in Buddhism and then he came back and formed his own perfect combination of Buddhism and Judaism - Christianity.

For me the Hindu Gods are just another way of expressing stuff about the God concept. Even many Hindus say that the many gods are just different faces of the one creator. Words and language are pretty crap when it comes to trying to articulate God.

Atheists always get into trouble on threads like this for y'know, evangelising. Upsetting people. Mentioning Flying Spaghetti monsters.

But in real life, how many of you have been stopped in the street by an atheist asking you if you've kicked Jesus out of your heart yet? Handed leaflets about how you're not actually going to burn in hell, and are responsible for your own moral choices? Alright, there was the bus thing. But even that said 'probably'. You don't get street preachers saying 'probably'.

It just gets a bit wearing. And then we get a bollocking for saying that as far as we can see, all supernatural beliefs can be shoved in one folder, with a big label saying 'NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE'.

Thunderduck - but those people are wrong, the ones who object to gay marriage.
Apartheid also used the bible to justify its regime. That is why a rigorous intellectual theology is crucial to understand the labrynthine nature of the texts, lost in translation and out of cultural contexts.

This is the thing. There are a lot of idiots in the Church. It doesn't make the original teachings wrong, it makes them misrepresented. That's the hugely frustrating thing.

Olympede, one wonders why, if God is supposed to be omniscient and omnipotent, He couldn't have made His marketing materials a bit easier to understand...

Actually, there is no actual evidence for the Big Bang Theory, hence the "Theory" bit attached to the end of the name.

But as for atheists not going on about it, I think you'll find they do. Not all are the same and a lot of my friends are atheists, I don't convert them and they don't take the piss out of me. But many more ridicule my beliefs, make out that I'm ill-educated, mentally unstable or just plain bonkers. They quote Darwin at me, those interested in debates do anyway, others just laugh and prefer to insult.

It works both ways you know. I understand why people believe in atheism (and I think it is a belief, because it's a belief in science and the theories attached to it) and I can accept that. I just wish some of them could accept my beliefs as readily.

She, Snorbs. Multi- tasking and failing, probably.

JC did a damn good job of the marketing, but not many people [including most Christians] wanted to hear it. Social Justice, Unconditional Love, Equality and Compassion are just not attractive enough.

A scientific theory i.e Darwin's Theory of Evolution is not the same as a theory that you or I would have.

It's not a case of well this is a possibility, equal to many others. It's this is what the evidence points towards, this is the most likely explanation that we have the most evidence for and until it is disproved or something better comes along then it is essentially fact.

Could someone who is more articulate than I feel at the moment please rephrase that for me.

Could someone who is more articulate than I feel at the moment please rephrase that for me.

Could someone who is more articulate than I feel at the moment please rephrase that for me.

Just once though, not three times.

MN hates me. I swear.

Agree Thunderduck. Interesting though so many gaps in our understanding of our origins, it is in the mystery that science and God intermingle. [waves josticks]

Big respect to JC hisself, of course, as whether or not I necessarily believe all that has been ascribed to him, there's a lot going for the basic message he put out. But even then there's a lot of ambiguity.

If all the apostles had reported Jesus saying "Ladies and Gents, the Old Testament is a great read and all but, please, don't take it seriously. All that stoning, fighting and smiting? Let's not do that crap any more, shall we?"

But he didn't. In doing so he left the door wide open for others to pick and choose from fundamentally (heh) differing standpoints to match whatever it is they want to justify. Bit of a missed opportunity, really...

well he was pretty clear on some things, on other things he was using his discretion and respect, I would never say the OT is all a load of rubbish as it is disrespectful to Judaism for a start. And there is an awful lot of good stuff in the OT. Again though, it just needs a rigorous intellectual approach and awareness of context and tradition, which I'm sure, obviously, many Rabbis have too.

He did kind of almost say that, though. Definitely something about right, here's where we start again, Dad's sent me with a whole new message...

LOL. Well actually he used the OT an awful lot in his teachings, and loads of it postively. There were some things he changed [eg Turn the other cheek] but he certainly was not throwing it all out at all.

Olympede, again, if you have to have a "rigorous intellectual approach and awareness of context and tradition" just to understand which bits of the OT you should pay attention to and which bits you shouldn't then that, to me, suggests there's something odd going on with the whole "Bible as the primary source of Christian knowledge" thing.

I just can't help but feel that if I were an omniscient and omnipotent being then getting an understandable and non-ambiguous primary source text for what I want people to believe would seem fairly important. So I'd do things like using plain language rather than parables, I'd make sure that the bits which are allegorical are clearly marked and the bits that are factually true are highlighted. I'd also make sure that the bits that should only be paid attention to if you're a member of a small, nomadic desert tribe a few thousand years ago but that can be safely ignored thereafter have a little "Best Before 1AD" thing in the corner.

After all, if one is an omniscient being, surely you can predict that any significant ambiguities are going to cause no end of trouble?