Light sensors cause religious row

[OldLadyKnowsNothing]

Story here.

Maybe they should just move?

Doctor Who?

What about Doctor Who, sorry?

"the person making the extraordinary claim is the one who needs to back it up!"

Surely if all cultures have historically held to a claim, then the person who claims that the claim is FALSE is making the "extraordinary claim"?

UQD, depends on whether you see athiesm as a belief or not.

Prove the Big Bang to me. Explain the creation of the Universe and offer me concrete proof. Because it seems that science itself bandies around lots of theories that have no concrete proof. If you believe in the Big Bang then surely you should be able to prove it?

If one could prove God, there would be no need for faith. Debates like this would be obsolete.

But one question - if I could prove the existance of God, would you want to know? Think about the impact it might have on your life, would you really want to know?

I was wondering if Doctor Who ticked all of MP's analogy boxes.

He does tick all my boxes but not those particular ones

YES HE DOES!

I think we are taking different definitions of "extraordinary" here.

But "extraordinary" or not, the claim that god exists is a positive one. I can't prove a negative - it's impossible to prove a non-ness - so over to you.

Rhubarb, I know the term can cover different things, but people appear to use it in a misleading way. That is probably not in their best interest if they are then going to claim people were mean to my religion.

In fact it would appear that we don't have a word for someone like myself. Agnostic can mean 'true believer who will cut your head of if you express doubt that their diety is not real'

Atheism can mean 'has a faith type belief that god doesn't exist' or as in my case simply someone who places god in the same list as all the other things that lack any evidence such as 'oysters cause gravity'

Oooh, so we're positive and you're negative, I like that!

I've got 5mins before I pick the kids up. Which reminds me, I only told the Head today that the "shiteboard" doesn't work, instead of the "whiteboard"!

onager, in that case you need to come up with your own term. Do you want to open the thread up for suggestions?

Rhubarb - I think "bandies around" is a little loose for what science actually does. It's a constantly evolving process, taking on new ideas all the time. There is evidence for the Big Bang but some people don't see it as conclusive (probably because some people will never see anything as conclusive). I'm not a scientist, though, so I wouldn't do it justice.

Rhubarb - yes, of course I would want to know if you could prove God's existence; in fact I am almost tempted to add a 'FFS' to that one! I'm not stuck in some hide-bound bubble of God-denial, though you clearly have a low opinion of atheists. Give me evidence, hell yes, I'll change my life!

btw Rhubarb, why do you always spell atheism wrong? Apologies if you are dyslexic but I imagine not as the rest of your spelling seems OK... [mystified]

Onagar, what do you mean by "but people appear to use it in a misleading way. That is probably not in their best interest if they are then going to claim people were mean to my religion"?

Which people? Whose best interest? Who are you talking about? And where on earth are these agnostics of whom you speak who are given to beheading people?

Rhubarb, we did have a term, but we were told in no uncertain terms to stop using it. We refered to ourselves as rational people.

I too would love to see that proof. I don't for a minute think it will arrive in my lifetime, but that's what atheists are all about, really. We're not in denial, we just want strong evidence. And proof would be great.

Nah, there really isn't enough evidence for the Big Bang I'm afraid. But the Big Bang is only the tip of the iceberg. There's a theory about the creation of the earth too, again only a theory for now.

Religion too, works on trying to provide proof. But as faith is a very personal thing it's not easy. I'm a fan of science and find all these theories interesting. Many scientists do have a belief in God, so do many mathematicians who say that the creation is such a complex and genius sum that there has to be an intelligence behind it. I found an article for the last time I debated this, I'll try to find it again, but later or I'll be late for the kids.

UQD, yes I do. I was once told off by a pedant when I did a typo, since then it's stuck!

I should start calling them pendants, just to wind them up!

Yes, Olympe said a few times that she was agnostic. She is obviously well read on the subject. Some of her posts did come across as holier than thou(excuse the pun), but possibly that is because she feels people like me don't have the foggiest what we are talking about

Rhubarb, saying

'I've gone to great pains to show respect to non-believers on this thread'

and then

'I think many of you could do to read his words of wisdom'

is -ahem, interesting!

I too thought I had gone to great pains to show respect for the believers on this thread, but apparently not. You are right, once you get personal you have lost the argument(although I don't think that necessarily makes you incorrect in your belief, just a less proficient at debate).

Critisism and insults are different things. There are many critisisms on many layers in both directions. There are also insults going both ways, although initially these were high from the people who felt what this couple were doing was unnecessary. I do not know whether all of these were non-religious people, but suspect they were mostly as we are less likely to understand the importance of worship in this form.
I'm not condoning the insults btw. I do think though that they were intended to be leveled at the couple themselves, not because they were Jewish, but because(again, from the POV of those who do not worship in this way)it seemed unreasonable(especially given they were not full time residents, often a contentious issue in itself).

If the opening to the thread had been 'what do you think of Judaism'(not sure if that's termed correctly), and you got comments like that, then of course it would be unquestionably wrong to make any of those comments. But it wasn't, it was asking what people thought of this single situation, and many thought it unnecessary.
Personally, as I've said before, I think there must be more to it, but perhaps I'm in denial. I'm actually pretty upset to think it may be down to prejudice that they have been refused in their request, and would not have had a problem if I lived there on the bare face of it, and am confused as to why people would. As someone said, it's not much to ask and it means a lot to them.

On your other point, that someone's faith is often their life, do you not think it possible then, that that leaves them open to being more sensitive than realised by most non-believers? It's a genuine question.

Unstrungharp, why is my explanation for why some non-believers feel difficult when discussing religion(that they may cause offence), turned into an accusation? Words like that are inflammatory, which is just what you are asking non-believers to avoid.

When you come back, please tell me why it's the only word you ever spell wrongly...

Oh, you have.

Morningpaper! No...

You can't argue that because faith in the divine is around for, um, a very long time, that makes it true. Isn't that a category mistake or summat?

Of course it is sociologically and historically right that there has been faith for ages. But you can't slide between saying all different representations of the divine across different cultures are pretty much the same thing, and then also suggest that UQD is wrong to include the Loch Ness Monster. Can you? How?

Poppity - I wasn't thinking of your post particularly when I mentioned accusations of believers taking offence too easily. I was thinking more of this sort of thing:

"I do have to reiterate that I feel a lot of religious types are happy to cry "disrespect" at the first sign of having their arguments challenged."

and this:

"I think there is a big misunderstanding about this question of "respect". Some religious people get very shirty if you so much as suggest that their views are founded on very shaky ground, which they can't back up with solid evidence. This, apparently, is disrespectful. And patronising."