Split from pedophile priest thread

[Arnold Layne]

Interesting Mr Layne , I'd be interested to read why you think in this way .

IMHO the big difference between 'theists' and 'atheists' be they evangelikal or not is that an evangelican religious-ite can always justify her/his actions by an appeal to the 'higher' or 'god's' will/law. This justification seems to me to be at the heart of the difference , what 'external' justification can a rabid atheist claim???

"Science"

"Science" teaches us that.....

Its a final authority without question. I can't question it, few can except the scientifically trained and educated.

In that sense, "Science" is just like a God or a religion, it has become a final authority.

So when I hear Dwakins coming across so aggressive and certain, I know I've got me a real full on fundamentalist zealot every bit as mental and dangerous as Billy fuckin' Graham If I were a scientist, I would be embarrassed by him. I know some who are, big time.

[sam-i-am]

Nice post Booj

It's strange really, Atheism is unscientific and christianity is incompatible with the teachings of Christ. Funny old world

[ramblingmadman]

Interesting Mr Layne , I'd be interested to read why you think in this way .

IMHO the big difference between 'theists' and 'atheists' be they evangelikal or not is that an evangelican religious-ite can always justify her/his actions by an appeal to the 'higher' or 'god's' will/law. This justification seems to me to be at the heart of the difference , what 'external' justification can a rabid atheist claim???

"Science"

"Science" teaches us that.....

Its a final authority without question. I can't question it, few can except the scientifically trained and educated.

In that sense, "Science" is just like a God or a religion, it has become a final authority.

So when I hear Dwakins coming across so aggressive and certain, I know I've got me a real full on fundamentalist zealot every bit as mental and dangerous as Billy fuckin' Graham If I were a scientist, I would be embarrassed by him. I know some who are, big time.

Good point sir, but is "science" actually a belief system or a method for testing veracity?

For some reason I am reminded of a quote "Our method is science , our aim is religion"

peas

rm

( e2a - brilliantly put sam-i-am)

Edited April 15, 2010 by ramblingmadman

[Boojum]

"Science"

"Science" teaches us that.....

Its a final authority without question. I can't question it, few can except the scientifically trained and educated.

In that sense, "Science" is just like a God or a religion, it has become a final authority.

There are differences, though. Aside from getting into a discussion of how the scientific method works (or, rather, should work), the main difference is that anyone at all, if they are sufficiently interested, can study science and level the playing field. But no matter how much you study a religion you are always going to run into the final unassailable rebuttal "Because God says so.", to which there is no answer. With sufficient knowledge you can answer any piece of scientific evidence placed before you, you can deal with it on its own merits, but no amount of knowledge can furnish you with an answer to anything that invokes the will of God. It's the ultimate terminal argument.

E2A And I'm no fan of Dawkins myself, I do see him as an evangelical atheist preacher who seems to have forgotten how he began as a genuine scientist with an open mind - that's what folks outside the sciences tend to forget, most scientists first got interested in science precisely because their minds were open. Sadly it seems that something happens along the way to some of them to shut them and lock them tight That's not the fault of science, as I keep saying 'science' is just a methodology, that's all, but I think perhaps is may be the fault of how science is taught.

Edited April 15, 2010 by Boojum

[sam-i-am]

God doesn't say fuck all, language is a human tool

[gluebag]

God actually quite keen to see how all this paedophile business plays out in court

God actually quite keen to see how all this paedophile business plays out in court thumbnail

God last night let it be known that after significant global media coverage, He is actually quite keen to see how all this Catholic paedophile stuff plays out in a court of law.

Several humanist and atheist groups have suggested that the Pope should face civil charges for the Catholic church’s systematic cover up of child abuse during his visit to the UK, a proposition which God finds interesting.

In a statement issued through David Icke, God said, “I have watched with interest as accusations of cover-ups have been cast at the church, and I have to admit I am more than a little intrigued to see how it all plays out in a nice dramatic setting.”

“There is very little good legal entertainment up here since Ally McBeal finished, so I consider this to be a bit like an extended episode of LA Law.”

Pope

The Church has long claimed that the Pope will deal with the accusations internally and through an ecclesiastical court, something which God isn’t that keen on.

The statement continued, “People often say the Pope is my nominated representative on Earth, which is a bit unfair because I certainly didn’t vote for him. He’s a bit like Gordon Brown in that respect.”

“I guess to use a sports metaphor he’s like an agent - my Mr 10% - though in practise he actually keeps the other 90% of all the money I make as well.”

“But he’s not really helping my image at the moment, so I want to hear what he has to say to a trained and hostile lawyer.”

“I just hope they don’t try and throw that celibacy thing back at me, because I never told them to do that, I sweat to G…whatever. I think it’s bloody mental to be honest.”

“I asked Jesus about it after he got back and he said it was ‘Hell, after a couple of years I was just about ready to jump on Mary Magdeline, and everyone knows she was a moose’.”

“So bring on the trial - and you can tell him from me, I’ll know if he is lying.”

just thought id add this...

from newsarse.com

[troy]

How is atheism unscientific ? Belief means you agree something exists or is true , what do atheists believe is true or exists ? Belief implies faith. Faith has nothing to do with atheism. There is no evidence to support belief in a god. Atheism is the lack of belief. A belief that something does not exist is not a belief. It doesn't require any faith, just an acceptance of rational thinking. Atheism is more of a lifestyle than a belief.

[Boojum]

Sigh.

I'll try it one more time.

Atheists BELIEVE that there is no God. A belief that something doesn't exist in the absence of proof is just as much a belief as a belief that something does exist in the absence of proof. You cannot prove God exists. Neither can you prove that God does not exist. So the belief that God does not exist is just as much and act of faith as to believe God does exist. Atheism is a belief. Agnosticism is a lack of belief. They are different things. If you say that God does not exist, you are an atheist and making a statement of belief.

Give me strength

Edited April 15, 2010 by Boojum

[troy]

No need to be patronising. Its impossible to prove a negative so you can never prove god does not exist. There is no evidence to prove god exists so why would I believe it ? Its not a belief in the same way that religion is a belief. You are just playing into the hands of the religious if you use this line of reasoning. I don't need to have faith as there is no evidence to the contrary. Its reason that guides my thinking not faith. This is my last post here on this subject as mc pot says it is off topic.

[ramblingmadman]

Sigh.

I'll try it one more time.

Atheists BELIEVE that there is no God. A belief that something doesn't exist in the absence of proof is just as much a belief as a belief that something does exist in the absence of proof. You cannot prove God exists. Neither can you prove that God does not exist. So the belief that God does not exist is just as much and act of faith as to believe God does exist. Atheism is a belief. Agnosticism is a lack of belief. They are different things. If you say that God does not exist, you are an atheist and making a statement of belief.

Give me strength

understand what you're saying fully mr 'jum,

but my query still stands . what 'higher', 'external' justification can be used by atheists, in the way that 'theists' appeal to 'god' or'god's will'.

this bearing in mind that you seem to agree with me that 'science' per se is a methodology , not a belief system or structure.

Apologies for continuing the derailment of the topic , but this is a subject that genuinely intrigues me , and there are certainly folk around here who could help me clarify my ideas...

(btw i'm a commited cantheist agnostic- I don't know what god is /isn't but Im damn sure that my herbal communion brings me closer to the bit of godhead in me/us)

e4spelling

Edited April 15, 2010 by ramblingmadman

[HvyFuel]

Because to be an atheist is to believe that there is no God. It's not just a lack of belief in one, as I said that's agnosticism,

You've said that twice now Booj and I'm sorry but you're wrong. Agnostics don't believe there is no God, they believe it's impossible to prove if there is or is not a God.

As to atheists I have to disagree also, you're reversing the meaning imo. An atheist is someone who does not believe in God/s, not believes there isn't a God as there's nothing to believe in. And you can sigh all you like, you're still wrong.

[weed_G]

Because to be an atheist is to believe that there is no God. It's not just a lack of belief in one, as I said that's agnosticism,

You've said that twice now Booj and I'm sorry but you're wrong. Agnostics don't believe there is no God, they believe it's impossible to prove if there is or is not a God.

you can still be agnostic if you think the truth is unknown ..but not necessarily unknowable

[HvyFuel]

Because to be an atheist is to believe that there is no God. It's not just a lack of belief in one, as I said that's agnosticism,

You've said that twice now Booj and I'm sorry but you're wrong. Agnostics don't believe there is no God, they believe it's impossible to prove if there is or is not a God.

you can still be agnostic if you think the truth is unknown ..but not necessarily unknowable

That sentence is meaningless.

[troy]

oops , I know what I said but, I don't understand agnostics , they just seem to sit on the fence. Have some commitment at least.

[weed_G]

That sentence is meaningless.

it means that you can be an agnostic and still believe that the truth of god existence ...is knowable

I don't understand agnostics , they just seem to sit on the fence.

...how very scientific off them

Edited April 15, 2010 by weed_G