Light sensors cause religious row

[OldLadyKnowsNothing]

Story here.

Maybe they should just move?

Olympe described herself as agnostic, but I think she is a Christian agnostic. Like I'm a Protestant atheist

"By OlympedeGouges Wed 17-Jun-09 18:39:53
Beckysharp was not saying atheism was a bad thing. She was saying a different kind of fundamentalism has grown up in recent times, and it is very apparent on MN. It is characterised by arrogance, insults and refusal to engage with argument. Sorry but it is true. And I say that as an agnostic."

I suppose some people have a greater patience threshold for all this stuff than I do.

I find it very frustrating that intelligent, well-read people can believe in ghosts, crystal healing, indigo children, gods, pixies, fairies, etc. etc.

These are often people who did the same kind of university education as me where you were taught to back up your every claim with evidence and quotes and references, and to question sources. I do sometimes wonder what has happened to that education.

I have more time for someone who believes in the Loch Ness Monster, because there is at least something they can offer (no matter how dodgy) in the way of concrete evidence which isn't a "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy.

Ah, now my dh is an agnostic. It's a belief in God, but a refusal to follow any particular faith.

You can have a Christian agnostic, who also believes in Jesus but similarly refuses to follow an organised religion. Fair dos.

UQD - I think the reason people take objection to it is that it's a brilliant piece of analogy.

It also kind of exposes the doublethink that says, "the things that I believe without evidence are My Faith and must be respected, but the things that other people believe without evidence are patent nonsense, and you are insulting me if you compare the two." Meat and drink to an atheist, but a bit of a head-f**k for the religious.

Especially if it's conceived of by a respected philosopher, and not just UQD being obnoxious

UQD, I don't believe in any of that stuff either. I'm University educated. I believe in God and Jesus.

Why?

I need proof before I believe anything. I'm a very suspicious, cynical person. It's true I was brought up a catholic, but I turned my back on it in my early twenties. However certain things happened, and one just recently. For me these things provided irrefutable proof. It's not an easy thing, I'd rather not believe sometimes. It's almost a burden, knowing that he is real. But he is.

Not sure if you thought I was joking, rhubarb, I truly wasn't! Just like I described Christians as 'Hindu atheists' about 400 posts ago....

I think I have a lot of friends who are Catholic Athiests.

UQD : You don't seem to be able to post without insulting people: comparing belief in the divine to the Loch Ness monster is not very nice is it?

I very much doubt that there is never going to be scientific evidence for a divine element to life, but you keep repeating this over and over again.

Every human culture has believed in the spiritual or divine side of life - there is a human imperative (for most humans) to do so. That is the only possible "evidence" that anyone can ever give you. That's all there is. That's the answer to your question. But you keep saying "Where's the evidence?!"

There has never been a historically atheistic culture in the sense that it is understood today. As far as I'm aware, when this issue is debated, the current climate in the UK is generally regarded as the most atheistic.

That sounds like a very personal thing,to you, Rhubarb (and I can sense you may not want to elaborate), but that's very difficult for people like me because it's not actually "proof".

I have no way of telling the difference - and this is not being offensive, just factual - between you and someone who is deluded and thinks they are hearing god when in fact hey are schizophrenic, or someone who thinks they are Napoleon Bonaparte or that the CIA is out to get them. How do I tell?

Sorry Beastie, it's hard to keep up! I did have a chuckle at the Protestant Atheist as I thought it sums them up rather well!

uqd - i accept you may have been a little strong with your comment.

however you must admit that the terms which you continue to refer to faith is a little derogatory, If you read further i did say that it was unfortunate that i chose - out of the lot - the teapot - and that you chose to use it -in whatever context to illustrate your point doesn't mean that its right, it really doesnt matter if a great philosopher wrote it. I have no idea in what context he did and his status does not by it's virtue mean he is right! Your context was derogatory imo.

also a respect not for the belief system itself, but for the person who holds it - this goes two ways and i apologise for my backhanded compliment

i am still non the wiser why to engage in a discussion with you one has to produce proof, when in essence they can't - which is the basis of the religeon.

i would hope that i wouldn't have to produce a bibliography and footnotes to every discussion i had.

What is mor than a bit pants, is saying in essence " well you don't have proof so its pointless discussing it"

if there were proof that god existed - the discussion would be mute!

lol UQD, now you are sounding like Dawkins. He is totally baffled how many of his scientific peers are still theists... It make no sense mummy!

It's time all the agnostics got together to sort out what they are then.

I've been told on MN by someone who would claim to be educated in these matters that I should call myself agnostic because (according to them) atheist means "holding a belief that god does NOT exist" Whereas 'agnostic' means no opinion either way.

Agnostics on MN have said to me "look I am not a believer, ok?"

So there is some misrepresenting going on

Morningpaper, you have just - frustratingly for someone who argues so well elsewhere - done exactly what I've said is so unconstructive when debating religion. Taking offence at a perfectly decent analogy and not looking at what that analogy is actually saying.

Maybe there just isn't evidence. Maybe that's the answer - it just isn't there at the moment. So surely until such time as there is evidence, non-belief should be the default setting? Otherwise we could say we believe in absolutely anything, and there is no "gatekeeping" to this belief - nobody and nothing to make us account for it. Which is very dangerous.

This is the problem I have UQD. It has captured the imagination of many a film maker. How do you prove your sanity?

Whenever people tell me their faith stories, I always take it with a pinch of salt. Only a couple have made the hairs on the back of my neck stand up, but then so have many horror films. I'm not the type to see things, hear things, feel things. I've been in churches with happy clappy people all saying they are buzzing with the Holy Spirit, and I've felt nothing but boredom. People have laid their hands on me and I've felt merely irritated.

But yes, my experiences are just that, mine. I don't want to go into them because I can't prove my sanity to you. But it's almost as if he knew which buttons to press.

I can't NOT believe, if that makes sense.

Well that might be one meaning of agnostic, rhubarb, but it literally means "without knowledge". I would see it more as having faith in neither a god nor a godless account of ourselves.

Sorry - that was to your post of 14:29

onager

Not talking about "proof", or a bibliography with notes. Just saying that there needs to be something you can refer to which cannot be shown to be potentially living inside your own mind.

I am confused by being called disrespectful, derogatory and rude when, really, this debate is no stronger - indeed, much more polite - than one would find in the Politics threads, in Breasters vs. Bottlers, in private school threads, in the "my DH is a lazy arse" discussions...

Athiesm

Custy, I like the teapot thing!

UQD: The Loch Ness monster:

1. Have all cultures historically believed in the Loch Ness Monster? Tick yes or no
2. Is Loch Ness something that exists outside of the physical universe? Tick yes or no

Find something that you can tick YES boxes for and you will an analogy that will work.

UQD, that is impossible.

May I ask, instead, that you prove that God does NOT exist. No theories please, concrete proof only!

Yes, onagar, extraordinary isn't it that two people might refer to themselves by the same label and actually hold quite distinct beliefs. Language is really a hopelessly inefficient system.

What morningpaper said.

Poor try, Rhubarb! You can do better than that! You know the answer to that is "the person making the extraordinary claim is the one who needs to back it up!"

Maybe this is the problem. That faithers just don't see their claims as extraordinary.

morningpaper, I don't see the point of that. Your questionnaire presumes that the thing people are believing in (or being agnostic about) is taken as read as being something all cultures have believed in and which exists "outside of the physical universe".