Do you not think then we should fight for our sovereignty, our autonomy? This capitalist model of the universe leaves you as a perpetual serf, in this life or the next. Eternal grovelling existence. No thanks.
I don't believe you logically, understand the stakes. Hell or annihilation might suit you for the contempt. Think about it: "I don't want to live in God's universe or play by His rules" --> You. What is left? Either you get your wish, which would be hell, or you get your wish and are annihilated. The problem, it will be like seeing 'what I didn't realize I'd miss,' before the inevitable. Further? It shows that atheism is not so much a cognitive problem for you, and thus not even the Evolution/creation discussion. The matter was settled before you ever knew a thing. Intellectual atheism, then is an attempt at shoring up. In my family, I wouldn't have chosen my biological father. Denying his existence is possible, given my continued breath is not sustained by him, but logically and intellectually, I'd be weird, frankly, to doubt he ever existed. I assert that God is nothing like my father? Why? Because whatever you actually enjoy in your life and existence that is good, comes from Him.
T]he good news is that actually none of it can be true. We live in the free West (as much as that is a thing) and we die properly in fealty to no sky demon and our atoms are recycled for some other living thing to carry the baton forwards.
Logically, you are mistaking allowance to foster an false confidence. All the rich-kid stories are about the father cutting off allowance, for the entitlement mentality in which it harms the kid. Ultimately, this is what atheism is, and nothing more. It is a false sense of security at every turn. As long as the allowance lasts I suppose. The good news? The story of the prodigal son is likely even more for you, than it was for me.
Even if christianity were true it can't be called desirable.
Confirming all of the above. My position is this: I don't care what is desirable as much as what is true. In a sense, it is self-serving because it explains my desirability to live by what is true, even if it is uncomfortable. We do not share the same driving force in life. I have to know what is true, no matter what that means. Only you can investigate whether He is a tyrannical despot or a loving one, or one that loves but in a manner you cannot accept. Again, in the end, there is nothing but getting what one hopes for: An eternity of getting your wish and not being with Him, or annihilation. Whatever it is, you have no control over that particular. We choose consequences, even if we are naïve about them. "I didn't know jumping off this cliff would make me live in a wheel chair the rest of my life! It is not fair." - There is no fair, there is only the consequence of our actions and choices. If I tempt gravity, the consequence was and is, indeed from what I chose.
But it is all being saved up for me, right? This chattel belonging to your god that is my body and soul (whatever the heck that is) does what it does, then when it dies it waits around for judgment day. Then the corpse is dug up and judged (by a judge that is morally corrupt, given its killing of over 20,000,000 humans if you believe the mythology) and if, as you suggest this corpse is found wanting then it is destroyed by burning sulfur / tortured forever, depending on how you interpret the mythology. And of course it took the arrival of baby Jesus for this horror story to be inflicted on the planet.
If this is the best of my understanding, I'd likely reject it also. I think the Church of England did a number on a good many of you. I think that too is why Dawkins is rethinking his stance. He just never realized that Christianity is different than where any one particular denomination gets it wrong. His statement that only Christianity can stop Islam, and that a lot of his bias was due to indoctrination, is a bit of a revelation on what you blokes are facing over there. I suppose that is why the Evangelical church there is growing.
If you believe all that then you are either gullible or your education has been so neglected that you are living in a modern-day dark age and you brain is being hijacked by god memes, as they are very good at doing.
I don't. Perhaps I need to entertain the idea that British atheists might have some better reasons. If that is what is passing for theology on your side of the ocean, read a few theologians on this side. I guess that is what you are doing. The damage done is a bit of a hurdle though.
Are we talking about scriptural rules or democratically determined laws? Humans had values for at least 180,000 years before Judeo-christianity was invented.
Yeah, exactly. If they are shared human values, that is what I mean. The ones not agreed upon are as individual as there are people on the planet or have been, but I was talking about shared values. We don't complain about what we equally value (or shouldn't).
Sure, I'm not advocating an atheist state. That would be dystopia as much as any theocracy is. I advocate for a secular state.
A secular state doesn't do that however. We all influence each other and media has a strong effect on the masses. Without media, I don't believe Schwarzenegger would have been governor or Trump would be in presidential running.
Why don't they just say that there is a list of things that don't work, so they won't be wasting their time with them. Prayer, homeopathy, you know the kind of thing. It is a disgrace, really, to apply pseudoscience when people are desperate.
Because we do have studies this side of the ocean that says it works. A 'natural' way it works would be that patients who are more relaxed, and less stressed do better in post-op. Telling a heart-risk patient who may die, "I'm praying for you" might convey to one without faith there is little hope. I would imagine that might have an ill-effect. As I understand it, the Cancer Institute staff only prays with those who ask, and would probably be in the patient's treatment preference. Such I think, does honor the scientific method and is sensitive to it, as well as counting documented benefits, but it is too, like Spinoza and Einstein said: Science cannot be divorced from faith. That will likely ever be a frustration to science folks like yourself. I just don't think, academically, it is a good idea to argue with Einstein. Once you do that, people are comparing IQ's and he will always be esteemed over a 'lesser' scientist/mathematician and with a lower IQ.
If you think that is oddball then how the heck can you hold an opinion on what the meta analyses of prayer studies say? Surely the key point is to eliminate placebo effects. Or are you saying the rules are that your god only intervenes if the person is aware of the request?
When you dissect something you kill it. Observational science, in this case, is better science than a sterile and fabricated facsimile. I'd tell science "observe, don't contrive, else you'll not get what you are actually looking for. Even singing to your unborn in a lab, is a contrivance to simply doing a case-study. Case studies do show prayer has positive effect. Compare. It is generally the lab that finds inconclusive or negligible results, and I think, specifically because what it is measuring is a contrivance. The one study I'd seen wasn't really that involved. They had no way of knowing if it was just in that area, if the results were repeatable or any number of important variables. A study like this needs to be over several decades, perhaps with observational study and lab study that is unobtrusive....
I forgot that you were an expert on experimental design and experimental ethics.
I think actually it's just that you don't like the results so you rubbish the work.
Er, good science calls into question results it doesn't expect. Absolutely such may 'rubbish' the work but science genuinely doesn't care. Only a bias would, no? I do have more background in sociology and psychology, yes.
Much like you do with Einstein's tricky spirituality and natural history.
WOW. Talk about your trashing conveniently. I even provided a link. I know Einstein and I know of Spinoza's God. This was part of my BA studies.
Your instinct is to go to Answers in Genesis to see if they can help you trash what you don't like.
:doh: Google. AiG was first on the list. I read several. Would you suggest one trying to catch up on a microbiology learning curve only pay attention to his/her detractors? I mentioned to you earlier: Coping mechanisms. I may even be wrong about your particular study. The one I had read several years ago, introduced on TOL, was unconscionable because heart patients died or suffered because of their test.
Now, my instinct is to go to rationalist-type websites of course but that is usually to check I haven't made a mistake or misrepresented a religious point of view.
I went there also. It wouldn't make sense to have presented the same exact material you'd have given. I was rather looking for the rebuttal. I even thanked you for it, remember?
If you mean literally 2+2=4, then you don't have to prove it because (and I think you are saying this) mathematics is a self-referential system. Its rules work in complete isolation. 2+2 is 4 by the definitions of the discipline. If you mean how can you demonstrate that 2+2=4 has any meaning, then you would have to go to the work of Bertrand Russell to get a justification. You could read his Why I Am Not A Christian while you were at it!
Have read a bit of him. The basics are that if numbers didn't matter, you'd never have a problem emptying out your wallet for me, by my simply asking. So, I meant both.
Circular logic is a fallacy, something to be avoided when making a rational argument.
Not necessarily to the first part, yes (if possible) to the second part.
Christianity is profoundly offensive. I don't hear you apologizing.
I'm not on an atheist website and I wonder if you are masochistic being on a Christian website. I'm not sure I need to apologize in that sense. You choose to be here with the offense. I don't demand an apology.
If you kept your nasty hobby within the confines of private property and stopped allowing it to leak out into the public sphere where it causes misery and conflict wherever it seeps, then perhaps you wouldn't be hearing so many angry sounds.
Again, I'm not sure if I empathize, nor if we all the way over here in America are that loud across the sea? I don't know what it is like in your neck of the woods. How many of us in this thread are European Christians? I suppose it makes sense to file complaint where ever it is allowed to be logged, but it gets a bit out of touch with the esoteric for me. I am just not sure how much I/we actually effect you over there.
So you understand the atheist sentiment as it is sometimes felt, right?!
Stuart
I know what it look like over here, but I have less sympathy on this side, most of them just look like James Dean rebels without a cause on this side. Some of them have come from poor theology churches, but there are so many to choose from that it looks a bit contrived on this side of the ocean.
