The god Delusion: Richard Dawkins

[Jose Jones]

Josef Svejk rapidly rising to the top of the biggest troll on TLW chart. He eems to be modelling his persona on a condescending twat with absolutely nothing valuable to say.

 

The point is, if you know anything about religion (the reality of it, that is, and not 18th century pseudo-intellectual metaphysical philosowankery), then you'll know that even in the "less dogmatic strands of mainstream religions", they still believe those things.

 

You simply can't be a Christian unless you believe Jesus walked on water and came back from the dead. You simply can't be a Muslim unless you believe that Muhammad met the angel Gabriel, flew a winged horse to heaven and had a chinwag with God.

 

Literally everyone who is Christian or Muslim holds views that are "manifestly in conflict with the evidence", and if they don't, they aren't Christian or Muslim. That's the fucking point, and those things don't need to be explicitly written, because we know with utter certainty that religious people believe these things.

 

Don't be stupid on purpose SD.  It's really unbecoming.

[Josef Svejk]

Josef Svejk rapidly rising to the top of the biggest troll on TLW chart. He eems to be modelling his persona on a condescending twat with absolutely nothing valuable to say.

 

The point is, if you know anything about religion (the reality of it, that is, and not 18th century pseudo-intellectual metaphysical philosowankery), then you'll know that even in the "less dogmatic strands of mainstream religions", they still believe those things.

 

You simply can't be a Christian unless you believe Jesus walked on water and came back from the dead. You simply can't be a Muslim unless you believe that Muhammad met the angel Gabriel, flew a winged horse to heaven and had a chinwag with God.

 

Literally everyone who is Christian or Muslim holds views that are "manifestly in conflict with the evidence", and if they don't, they aren't Christian or Muslim. That's the fucking point, and those things don't need to be explicitly written, because we know with utter certainty that religious people believe these things.

 

You've been exposed as a pseudo-intellectual. So have resorted to anti-intellectualism. Not an uncommon procedure.

 

I haven't defended anything to do with religion. I've just defended the "right" of people who are (in my opinion) wrong not to be continually abused by a fucking idiot.

[Spy Bee]

Josef Svejk rapidly rising to the top of the biggest troll on TLW chart. He eems to be modelling his persona on a condescending twat with absolutely nothing valuable to say.

 

The point is, if you know anything about religion (the reality of it, that is, and not 18th century pseudo-intellectual metaphysical philosowankery), then you'll know that even in the "less dogmatic strands of mainstream religions", they still believe those things.

 

You simply can't be a Christian unless you believe Jesus walked on water and came back from the dead. You simply can't be a Muslim unless you believe that Muhammad met the angel Gabriel, flew a winged horse to heaven and had a chinwag with God.

 

Literally everyone who is Christian or Muslim holds views that are "manifestly in conflict with the evidence", and if they don't, they aren't Christian or Muslim. That's the fucking point, and those things don't need to be explicitly written, because we know with utter certainty that religious people believe these thing

I'm sorry, but this is just bullshit. I raised an example a few pages ago about my Gran. She was a devout church goer, she was outwardly very much a Christian, but her real views were much more complex. She used the church as a way of expressing her faith in a higher power. She didn't literally believe that Adam & Eve and a snake were fucking about in a garden with some apples. I think that will be the case for a great number of people, but what number it's hard to say, I have not had many deep conversations with people about their faith, but when I have it has often been the case that they do not believe the bible (I've only spoken to Christians) to be literal.

[Rico1304]

I'm sorry, but this is just bullshit. I raised an example a few pages ago about my Gran. She was a devout church goer, she was outwardly very much a Christian, but her real views were much more complex. She used the church as a way of expressing her faith in a higher power. She didn't literally believe that Adam & Eve and a snake were fucking about in a garden with some apples. I think that will be the case for a great number of people, but what number it's hard to say, I have not had many deep conversations with people about their faith, but when I have it has often been the case that they do not believe the bible (I've only spoken to Christians) to be literal.

Have you been to a church lately? I've been to a few weddings, christening sand funerals and whilst all Christian they were across all denominations and all the prayers and sermons referred to a bloke in heaven. I don't know of a single Christian denomination who dont take the Jesus story literally.

[Spy Bee]

Have you been to a church lately? I've been to a few weddings, christening sand funerals and whilst all Christian they were across all denominations and all the prayers and sermons referred to a bloke in heaven. I don't know of a single Christian denomination who dont take the Jesus story literally.

I think you've kind of missed my point entirely.

[PestiRed]

You've never been to the Church of England? They are extremely woolly on the whole subject of miracles and even whether Jesus is actually divine. Here's a quote from a 1984 survey

 

"More than half of England's Anglican Bishops say that Christians are not obliged to believe that Jesus Christ was God, according to a survey published today. The pole of 31 of England's 39 bishops shows that many of them think that Christ's miracles, the virgin birth and the resurrection might not have happened exactly as described in the Bible. Only 11 of the bishops insisted that Christians must regard Christ as both God and man, while 19 said it was sufficient to regard Jesus as 'God's supreme agent'"

 

Some more polls listed below - and these are the clergy and bishops, not just your average one Sunday a month church-goers

 

Beliefs of Christian clergy:

 

We have found three polls of Christian ministers, pastors, and priests. For some reason, data is more easily obtained from the UK than from the U.S.:

 

1998: A poll of 7,441 Protestant clergy in the U.S. showed a wide variation in belief. The following ministers did not believe in the virgin birth:

American Lutherans 19%

American Baptists 34%

Episcopalians 44%

Presbyterians 49%

Methodists 60% 1

1999: A poll of 103 Roman Catholic priests, Anglican priests, and Protestant ministers/pastors in the UK found that about 25% did not believe in the virgin birth. Yet, 97% of the same group do not believe the world was created in six days, and 80% do not believe in the literal existence of Adam and Eve.

2002: Another poll of 140 Church of England (Anglican) clergy found that 27% do not believe in the virgin birth. The pollsters reported:

"...one Hampshire vicar was typical: 'There was nothing special about his birth or his childhood - it was his adult life that was extraordinary....I have a very traditional bishop and this is one of those topics I do not go public on. I need to keep the job I have got.' John Roberts, spokesperson for the Lord's Day Observance Society, said: 'If you take away the virgin birth you might as well take away the entire Christian message. The miracle of the Christian faith is that God came down to us. If you lose that miracle you lose the resurrection and everything else'."

 

2004: A poll of ministers of the Church of Scotland found that 37% do not believe in the virgin birth. Many believe that the virgin birth should be interpreted metaphorically rather than as a description of an actual event." Times Online reported that:

"There was a geographical split with most ministers in the Highlands and islands favouring a literal interpretation while those in the central belt were more sceptical."

[Rico1304]

You've never been to the Church of England? They are extremely woolly on the whole subject of miracles and even whether Jesus is actually divine. Here's a quote from a 1984 survey

"More than half of England's Anglican Bishops say that Christians are not obliged to believe that Jesus Christ was God, according to a survey published today. The pole of 31 of England's 39 bishops shows that many of them think that Christ's miracles, the virgin birth and the resurrection might not have happened exactly as described in the Bible. Only 11 of the bishops insisted that Christians must regard Christ as both God and man, while 19 said it was sufficient to regard Jesus as 'God's supreme agent'"

Some more polls listed below - and these are the clergy and bishops, not just your average one Sunday a month church-goers

 

Lovely stats, but not addressing the points.

[PestiRed]

Lovely stats, but not addressing the points.

The point is that these people who run the church do not take the Jesus story literally. Your point was that you "don't know of a single Christian denomination that doesn't take the Jesus story literally"

 

You're welcome

[Rico1304]

The point is that these people who run the church do not take the Jesus story literally. Your point was that you "don't know of a single Christian denomination that doesn't take the Jesus story literally"

You're welcome

You're welcome? Ha ha ace. So of the 31 11 said Jesus was God and man, whilst 19 said he was gods messenger. So of the 31, 30 believed that God either sent him or was him. Thanks for proving my point.

[ElishaScottBC]

I know a Christian minister that says you don't have to believe the Jesus parables literally to still be a Christian. I know Catholic people that get blind drunk on Friday/Saturday and pray for their sins on the Sunday walking away believing they are good church people.

[PestiRed]

You're welcome? Ha ha ace. So of the 31 11 said Jesus was God and man, whilst 19 said he was gods messenger. So of the 31, 30 believed that God either sent him or was him. Thanks for proving my point.

"He was the best example of what god wants that has ever lived" is not the literal Jesus story that you were referring to. The fact that a majority of church leaders do not think that you have to believe in the virgin birth, the miracles or the resurrection to follow their religion is quite significant in a discussion of the varying grades of belief in the supernatural

[Duff Man]

He isn't God, his old man is! Even I know that one. Christians these days..

[Josef Svejk]

Have you been to a church lately? I've been to a few weddings, christening sand funerals and whilst all Christian they were across all denominations and all the prayers and sermons referred to a bloke in heaven. I don't know of a single Christian denomination who dont take the Jesus story literally.

 

I have an unchristened child. I don't attend christenings at all, including those of my brother's children. But I might if the parents actually believed in what they were doing. Out of respect for those whose beliefs, rituals, etc. I think are ridiculous. But not for said beliefs, rituals, etc.

[Rico1304]

"He was the best example of what god wants that has ever lived" is not the literal Jesus story that you were referring to. The fact that a majority of church leaders do not think that you have to believe in the virgin birth, the miracles or the resurrection to follow their religion is quite significant in a discussion of the varying grades of belief in the supernatural

No it isn't, then they teach the opposite of what the believe everyday. Your survey proves my point.

 

Here's more bollocks and why it's dangerous http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/news/education/banning-creationism-lessons-is-dangerous-warn-headteachers.25925821

[PestiRed]

You're going a bit Stronts here. Changing your argument (which I'm not against, it's a good thing) whilst failing to acknowledge it (a bad thing).

 

However I'm glad that we now have agreed that religion does not have to involve Jesus being a deity and that miracles, virgin births and resurrections are not a majority view within the official Christian church of the UK

[Rico1304]

You're going a bit Stronts here. Changing your argument (which I'm not against, it's a good thing) whilst failing to acknowledge it (a bad thing).

However I'm glad that we now have agreed that religion does not have to involve Jesus being a deity and that miracles, virgin births and resurrections are not a majority view within the official Christian church of the UK

Fuck me! Where does it say that? Just because the top dogs have worked out its bollocks they've not stopped telling the sheep it's the truth.

[Josef Svejk]

Fuck me! Where does it say that? Just because the top dogs have worked out its bollocks they've not stopped telling the sheep it's the truth.

 

Anyway, more important matters:

 

[Rico1304]

Then were the days, can't get in those jeans anymore.

[ElishaScottBC]

[KopOut]

Of course we're hypocrites when it comes to so called Islamic Fundamentalism.

 

Take ISIS. They grow stronger because they have oil income. That oil income is derived by selling oil to the West.

 

We'd prefer to send in the airforce and possibly the ground forces (the death of 'our own') rather than simply stop buying ISIS oil. No, we couldn't do that could we?

[Stu Monty]

When you've got to the point that you're having to have an argument to establish the foundation of the debate as one where religious people believe in an interventionist god then it's probably not worth the conversation is it?

 

Ridiculous state of affairs.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Now, I actually wrote a massive long reply to this fucking ages ago and have it as a word document - that's how sad I am - but most of it was off topic. Considering the time that has passed since, I'll just reply to that one point you asked and cut out all the stuff about my own perspective, the science (which I wrote a load on, but was fairly irrelevant to what you'd actually asked), the philosophy, a critique of atheism from a scientific and logical perspective, and all that shite. Maybe a discussion can flourish about those things now the heat is dissipated from the thread.

 

Sorry, I'm still waiting here for someone to give me an actual reason why bringing fairies into a conversation about gods is not on.

I didn't say it wasn’t on; you can do whatever you like, it's your right to share whatever view you like. I said that if I had to resort to that - bringing up stories traced back a few hundred years - I'd have to reassess how I thought about the subject of ‘gods’ or 'a god'. And I would, because it’s a false equivalence you're making. What you’re essentially saying is that the idea of ‘gods’ or 'a god' is the same nonsense as a made-up story from an author. Bringing unicorns into a conversation about ‘gods’ shows, to me at least, that you’re allowing yourself to be overtaken by thoughts of some guy on a cloud throwing thunderbolts, which nobody worships BTW. You’re talking about ‘gods’ and/or 'a god', your words, not the purported views of a few or the brainwashings of some Southern-American inbreed. It’s like you need to argue against those fictions in order to define your own views.

 

I think all that stuff is beneath you, actually. I don’t mean that in a patronizing way, it’s just how I feel. It’s much more complex an idea than all that stuff, anyway, and it doesn’t do the subject any justice to reduce it to unicorns and fairies or the blue lady from Avatar. Though, I’d be happy to talk about the latter at some stage. It might annoy you that not everybody who has an IQ over 50 blindly rules out the idea of creation by something yet undefined – something we might call a God - but that’s how I feel about it (the not ruling things out part, not that things were created by a God) and, if equating them to Unicorns is something you genuinely feel is credible, then I don’t think you’ve thought nearly enough about the subject. Maybe it’s not as interesting to you, which is fine. It’s important and interesting to me, though.

 

I've spent a really long time trying to learn enough about this subject in order to have the tools to allow me to come to reach a conclusion as definitive as yours. From the pre-Socratic philosophers – such as Thales and Democritus and Leucippus – and the work that came after from the likes of Aristotle and others following on from his work on metaphysics, to more modern work, like logic, ontology, epistemology, reason, and other stuff, stemming from the enlightenment. I’ve tried my best to learn as much about scientific disciplines – particularly physics – as I can; from the scientific method to current theories of creation and evolution and the mind-bending parts of astrophysics and quantum mechanics, to what separates good science from the dogmatically bad, and onto the philosophy of science. I haven’t done that because I wanted to be a boring cunt (it just happened that way, Rico, before you start), I did it because I felt like I needed the right toolset to think about the big things – like reality and existence - in the right way.

 

Maybe it’s just my perspective clashing with yours, if this things just aren't that important to you, but I honestly do value insight into this subject, if there is any to be had. To see it all compressed down to unicorns and fairies is, well, just not that interesting to me. You might want to make an equivalence between a story, which nobody believes in or has mentioned, and the complex subject of a god, gods, deism, deities, creation theories, etc., because it makes it easy to ridicule and belittle the things you clearly don't like, but I’m not going to just smile and be quiet about it because I don't find them particularly credible or scientific. Maybe it’s not that, maybe you do it because it’s easier to view the unknown/unknowable in those terms. I didn’t really want to have to rant on about it, but a passing comment wasn’t enough; you wanted a reason and that’s it. It's a false equivalence and only targets a small perspective on a wider subject.

[Rico1304]

2nd paragraph - can I see your sources for 'no one' believing in a man in the sky throwing thunderbolts?

 

Quick google search shows that over half Americans Christians do.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

2nd paragraph - can I see your sources for 'no one' believing in a man in the sky throwing thunderbolts?

Well, it's hard to prove a negative but I'll give you a million quid per person who believes in somebody who literally throws thunderbolts from a cloud.

 

Quick google search shows that over half Americans Christians do.

Can I see that? Of course, it'll have nothing to do with thunderbolts or clouds, so save it. It's no surprise that you've disregarded everything written and tried to reduce it down to the same old shit.

[Rico1304]

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2006-09-11-religion-survey_x.htm

 

Of the 4 categories of believers 31.4% believe in a God that is ready to throw the thunderbolt of judgement " Now, I'm not greedy, just give me say, £10m. Cheers, this is better than PPI!