The MI6 Community Religion and Faith Discussion Space (for members of all faiths - and none!)

16869717374108

Comments

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,536
    Please read the whole sentence, @Risico007.
    My point is not the number of men but the lack of a firm empirical framework to support their statements. I was also trying to show you that even if "they" say it -- "they" meaning men with a no doubt solid scientific reputation -- I still need more to be convinced. That's one of the differences between science and religion. We don't just hang on every word spoken by those we look up to. If we did, not a lot of progress would be made, right?
  • Posts: 14,817
    @Risico007 Instead of bragging about being able to give us all the evidence to prove the stories of the Bible, whether it's the Exodus or the Gospel, you should actually try to demonstrate said claims. Because claiming you can do something is not the same as doing it. So far you have quote mined, you have given us partial evidence, made gigantic short cuts, or dubious claims (the Shroud, which even the Catholic Church does not dare to claim it's genuine for fear of being ridiculed), now you resort to appeal to consequences. No, science has not proved the soul, if it had then we would know about it and some scientists would be picking up their Nobel Price by now for proving it, not to mention it would create a revolution in many fields, such ad medicine. But let's say I have a soul, I don't think 1)that an eternity is heaven is such a great deal and 2)that I would want to worship a God that wants gullible and blindly obedient people in heaven.

    And I'd say again that atheists do not say there is no God, but that there is no reason to believe in God as you cannot prove a negative, etc. But then I'd be repeating myself and it's not like you are really paying attention. You are closing your ears, doing "la, la, la!", thus going back to your preconception of the term. At least you spell atheist correctly now, I guess.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Risico007 wrote: »
    What I find truely ironic about this is I can give you all the historical accounts all the research done all the eyewitness testimony from the days of Moses to now and you won’t believe not due to a lack of evidence but due to your own stubbornness (though I think Wizard doesn’t believe out of spite)...
    Here we go again. Happy to read your eyewitness testimony 'from the days of Moses' (wow not even just back to Jesus any more, you now have solid proof of the parting of the Red Sea. Any chance you can go right back to Adam & Eve as I'd love to hear their quotes on the talking snake?) that I'm sure meets all criteria for beyond reasonable doubt. No doubt at the time someone made a careful record of what people had observed that is unimpeachable by today's rigorous standards of proof and would stand up in court otherwise an intelligent bloke like you wouldn't believe in it would you? I mean I'm sure you'll agree that it would be ridiculous for sane people in the 21st century to base their entire philosophy of life and the universe on the scribblings of a few Middle Eastern goat herders over 2000 years ago?
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Plus the obvious irony you “believe” there is no god.
    We've established that you have a tenuous grasp on logic (I'm being generous) but it seems beyond your ken to even understand the meaning of extremely common words now.

    When it comes to God and religion atheists don't 'believe' in anything. As we've stated time and again our default position is that we are waiting for proofs that God exist but the current efforts are - at best - fatally flawed to nonexistent. Until someone offers more than an inconsistent hotchpotch of fairy tales then we just sit here twiddling our thumbs.
    Those of us on this side are getting RSI from copy/pasting 'the burden of proof lies with those making extraordinary claims to back it up'.
    Risico007 wrote: »
    See atheists have faith too inspite of their denial of it just faith in the wrong thing (at least from my perspective) and (again in my perspective) are no different from the thousands of other false religions throughout time.
    Can you please enlighten me about all the false religions out there. Let's assume there is a God and clearly lots of people believe in him. Can you delineate why your particular faction (I have no idea what you are but I'm going to have a wild punt at Westboro Baptist Church?) is the truth and the others are false? If, as you claim, the bible is a rock solid historical record then why not the Quran? One of you is wrong so where do you get your certainty from? Please tell me you've got more in your locker than that old Polish painter who did an online quantum physics course?
    Risico007 wrote: »
    but the undeniable truth is your placing your life and soul (if such a thing exists I believe science has proven it does and I will get into it in a moment but still so Wizard doesn’t have a heart attack due to anger I figure I will put the caveat in) on a gamble.. no different from those who make their living playing at casinos. Again show me the scientific evidence show me the data convince me I waste my time on Sunday’s and that sad truth is like children with funny hats you convinced yourselves you are pirates and explorers on the quest for truth when you seemingly are just ignoring the truth standing in front of you
    Even if we ignore the nonexistent grammar and questionable syntax I really struggle to fathom how to even attempt to start climbing this, the Mt Everest of inane drivel.

    I must have missed that briefing they give when you just pop out the womb instructing you that the whole purpose of life is to make the right punt for after you are dead.
    I'm quite reconciled to rotting in a hole in the ground for eternity. There's something quite beautiful about my atoms being absorbed back into the universe so there's no gamble just cold, hard reality. Anyway there's especially not a gamble with my life as unless I've missed the point somewhat isn't religion's whole schtick that deals with what happens after your life ends?

    If anything you're the one gambling old son, and wildly so, as there's hundreds, if not thousands, of religions out there so the odds of you with your, let's not beat around the bush here, pretty feeble grasp of the concepts of proof and evidence successfully flailing your way to the correct one seem very long indeed.

    If I was you I'd just side with the one that is moving in the right direction with more and more punters backing it - Islam. Christianity is dying on it's arse so it would seem a very brave or stupid person who stuck a monkey on that long shot.

    Anyway I do hope your whole religious stance isn't based on Pascal's wager as that always assumes you are backing the right horse. If it turns out Allah romps home by six furlongs you're going to look pretty foolish.
    Risico007 wrote: »
    I can give you all the historical accounts all the research done all the eyewitness testimony from the days of Moses to now

    Please do then. Don't just keep promising. I've long given up on @Dragonpol's mountains of evidence ever coming to light but am still holding out hope that your thesis is on its way any minute....
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited April 2018 Posts: 17,797
    I'm afraid I have long since washed my hands of this thread.

    At all times from now on I shall be Pontius Pilate @Dragonpol.
  • Posts: 14,817
    No disrespect @Dragonpol but that could be considered mocking the book you consider holy. Using characters and expressions from it in a parodic or trivial manner.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Not to mention running away from the argument is hardly something to be proud of is it?
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,797
    Ludovico wrote: »
    No disrespect @Dragonpol but that could be considered mocking the book you consider holy. Using characters and expressions from it in a parodic or trivial manner.

    I was merely quoting Alan Partridge there. No need to worry.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,797
    Not to mention running away from the argument is hardly something to be proud of is it?

    No, but I don't have what you chaps are looking for and nothing I bring forward would ever satisfy you so there's little point in my continuing with this thread. It's all just going round in circles now.
  • Posts: 14,817
    Not to mention running away from the argument is hardly something to be proud of is it?

    That is pretty much what most theists do: make a claim, run away when it's time to back it up.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited April 2018 Posts: 9,117
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Not to mention running away from the argument is hardly something to be proud of is it?

    No, but I don't have what you chaps are looking for and nothing I bring forward would ever satisfy you so there's little point in my continuing with this thread. It's all just going round in circles now.

    Not so much circles as an impasse. Yourself and @Risico007 claim to be sitting on mountains of evidence, we are waiting for you to deliver, you don't.
  • Posts: 14,817
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Not to mention running away from the argument is hardly something to be proud of is it?

    No, but I don't have what you chaps are looking for and nothing I bring forward would ever satisfy you so there's little point in my continuing with this thread. It's all just going round in circles now.

    Not so much circles as an impasse. Yourself and @Risico007 claim to be sitting on mountains of evidence, we are waiting for you to deliver, you don't.

    Indeed. Claims have been made from the theist's side but never backed up.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited April 2018 Posts: 17,797
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Not to mention running away from the argument is hardly something to be proud of is it?

    No, but I don't have what you chaps are looking for and nothing I bring forward would ever satisfy you so there's little point in my continuing with this thread. It's all just going round in circles now.

    Not so much circles as an impasse. Yourself and @Risico007 claim to be sitting on mountains of evidence, we are waiting for you to deliver, you don't.

    I don't believe that I ever claimed to be sitting on mountains of evidence, but anyway.
  • Posts: 14,817
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Not to mention running away from the argument is hardly something to be proud of is it?

    No, but I don't have what you chaps are looking for and nothing I bring forward would ever satisfy you so there's little point in my continuing with this thread. It's all just going round in circles now.

    Not so much circles as an impasse. Yourself and @Risico007 claim to be sitting on mountains of evidence, we are waiting for you to deliver, you don't.

    I don't believe that I ever claimed to be sitting on mountains of evidence, but anyway.

    I need to find the exact quote but you did say the events of the Bible were proven true beyond doubt, if I'm not mistaken you mentioned archeological evidence.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    edited April 2018 Posts: 3,985
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    The belief in an afterlife or a soul isn t the same as belief in a religion. Many get those mixed up.

    This is true enough: some theists don't believe in an afterlife and Buddhists do not believe in a God but believe in souls... that said neither beliefs are supported by evidence.

    What I find truely ironic about this is I can give you all the historical accounts all the research done all the eyewitness testimony from the days of Moses to now and you won’t believe not due to a lack of evidence but due to your own stubbornness (though I think Wizard doesn’t believe out of spite)...

    Plus the obvious irony you “believe” there is no god. See atheists have faith too inspite of their denial of it just faith in the wrong thing (at least from my perspective) and (again in my perspective) are no different from the thousands of other false religions throughout time. Sure you clergymen are called different names then the others your places of worship are different as well but the undeniable truth is your placing your life and soul (if such a thing exists I believe science has proven it does and I will get into it in a moment but still so Wizard doesn’t have a heart attack due to anger I figure I will put the caveat in) on a gamble.. no different from those who make their living playing at casinos. Again show me the scientific evidence show me the data convince me I waste my time on Sunday’s and that sad truth is like children with funny hats you convinced yourselves you are pirates and explorers on the quest for truth when you seemingly are just ignoring the truth standing in front of you

    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Sigh what have the aethist said except there is no god and laughed

    Yes, that's what we have done and that's what we do. What else is there to do? You keep going in circles about how god exists because god exists because the truth is that God exists and if God doesn't exist then how come he exists because he really does exist? So we tell you no, God doesn't exist; the theist crowd goes bonkers, and we have ourselves a couple of good laughs. We're being showered with strange logic like God exists because where else does morality come from?; God exists because how else can we distinguish between good and evil?; God exists because science can't prove everything just yet. Voila! So god exists.

    And to that, we say: no, we disagree. It's like telling a child when it's grown old enough, that Santa doesn't exist. Then we can laugh about it. We don't have to prove that God doesn't exist, you know. In fact, we can't. It's not possible to prove that something undefinable, irrational does or doesn't exist. I bet we could make up thousands of weird creatures and entities and whatnot, and you wouldn't be able to prove they don't exist. If I told you the resurrected corpse of Elvis Presley is sitting next to me right now, but you can't see or touch him, go ahead and prove me wrong.
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Plus the true humor is I posted a site for two quantum physicians discussing quantum consciousness and yet you guys ask what does that have to do with the soul.... ok you either can’t comprehend what quantum consciousness is or you don’t bother to look at the evidence anymore I am assuming out of fear...

    But please hit me with your best shot let’s see the intelligent athiest

    Whoa, okay, time-out!
    The principles of quantum theory are understood by a majority of all active physicists. These principles are nevertheless exotic and hard to approach intuitively because few things in our daily experience seem to be directly linked to them. Consequently, it's also possible to read too much into the seemingly infinite possibilities quantum physics offers. Most of quantum physics has the appearance of being talk in thin air anyway, even if it isn't. One of the major frustrations of the quantum physics community is that some scientists tend to take the more intriguing notions of the theory a few notches too far, resulting in speculative talk, bordering on esoteric nonsense, but brought to you by eloquent and otherwise smart people who know how to sell an idea. Yet evidently there's a difference between presenting the world with a spectacular hypothesis, even if it is built on, for the most part, rock solid quantum physics, and actually performing empirical tests which offer reproducible results and are submitted for scrutinous peer evaluation. Scientists think up lots of hypotheses and bury most of them very soon thereafter. Only a small percentage survives the first tests. Those that do are then further examined. Usually, it takes a very long time before a new theory is accepted.

    However, with many scientists being pressured to achieve something and the Internet a very unreliable forum for all people with a keyboard and lots of good or false ideas, certain hypotheses leak out into public awareness long before even the first batch of tests has been set up. Even some of the most respectable scientists have pondered over many curious topics, have then dropped an interesting hypothesis and have thus reached the world with still little to no evidence in hand. A beautiful example is Hugh Everett's quantum multiverse hypothesis, presented as an answer to Schrödinger's cat paradox. It was a clever way out of a possible theoretical paradox and science fiction writers still worship at the man's altar for that spark of creative genius, yet thus far, not a single test has been performed to conclusively demonstrate that the quantum multiverse is, indeed, reality. A wise scientist understands the difference between a hypothesis and a theory, between speculation and fact, between a good idea and a tested one. And a good scientist will be honest about that too. When I introduce the quantum multiverse to my students, I tell them what it is: a hypothesis, not a theory nor a fact, but a hypothesis, yet to be tested and therefore not yet a reliable piece of science.

    But some scientists are less concerned with "hygienic" science communication. An interesting idea can sell books, put food on the table, lead to name recognition. Scientists are people too, and sometimes people bring ulterior motives to the game. A "quantum consciousness" or "quantum soul" sounds good, but @Risico007, the real tests have yet to be performed. And until then, please forgive my lack of impulsive enthusiasm. Understand also that I'm not trying to convince this forum of my "scientific brilliance". The gentlemen in your linked source are no doubt far better educated than I am. But that doesn't mean I will follow them unconditionally. Einstein was probably far more brilliant than any of us, yet he spent the last three decades of his life trying to steer quantum physics in a totally different direction, away from where it was making progress, to a place that would have obstructed progress rather than facilitate it. I admire the man for his explanations of the photoelectric effect and the Brownian motion and for all of his predictions which have ultimately led to the very successful branch of physics known as relativistic physics. But I also know that even the great Einstein made errors in the final three decades of his career. His example is a very good one. No matter who tries to sell the idea, the idea itself must be amply tested before it can be accepted.

    Ergo, your quantum conscience scientists have yet to show us empirical evidence to support their ideas. Until they do, I'm afraid I choose not to accept their sayings as a valid argument in our debate about the soul. If I did accept anything without conclusive evidence, I'd be a bad scientist anyway and a terrible example for my students. I hate to say it, @Risico007, but you'll have to do better than that, as I cannot be convinced on the basis of a few men with the proper credentials saying something that might as well be false.

    I love the last line of this “I can not be convinced by a few men with proper credentials” ok so how many men would it take 100? 1000? 10,000? 100,000?

    Please share with us the number and I will meet and exceed said number.

    What I find 'ironic' is that it's never occurred to you that where you're born usually dictates what religion you are. Middle east - Islam, far east - Buddhism, the west - Christianity, etc....well what a massive coincidence!

    Could it be that the children of these regions are being indoctrinated? Or do people just wake up one day and say "Ooh I'm feeling the catholic vibe today, I'm off to church!"???

    These poor brainwashed children then grow up and as adults suffer from the affliction, 'belief perseverance'.....the tendency to stick with an initial belief even after receiving contradictory or disconfirming information about that belief.

    Self delusion at its saddest
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,421
    I quite like the Ancient Egyptian religion. So many gods, each crafted for a particular problem. Quite elegant.
  • Posts: 14,817
    It's funny: all these "wrong" religions, or "false" ones as @Risico007 puts it, but one special true one...How is Christianity more valid than any other? On what basis? There is a term for this fallacy: special pleading.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,797
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Not to mention running away from the argument is hardly something to be proud of is it?

    No, but I don't have what you chaps are looking for and nothing I bring forward would ever satisfy you so there's little point in my continuing with this thread. It's all just going round in circles now.

    Not so much circles as an impasse. Yourself and @Risico007 claim to be sitting on mountains of evidence, we are waiting for you to deliver, you don't.

    I don't believe that I ever claimed to be sitting on mountains of evidence, but anyway.

    I need to find the exact quote but you did say the events of the Bible were proven true beyond doubt, if I'm not mistaken you mentioned archeological evidence.

    Well I rescind any such comment. I can't be bothered with the browbeating, arguing and condescension in this thread any longer. I'm finally leaving it behind.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited April 2018 Posts: 9,117
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Not to mention running away from the argument is hardly something to be proud of is it?

    No, but I don't have what you chaps are looking for and nothing I bring forward would ever satisfy you so there's little point in my continuing with this thread. It's all just going round in circles now.

    Not so much circles as an impasse. Yourself and @Risico007 claim to be sitting on mountains of evidence, we are waiting for you to deliver, you don't.

    I don't believe that I ever claimed to be sitting on mountains of evidence, but anyway.

    I need to find the exact quote but you did say the events of the Bible were proven true beyond doubt, if I'm not mistaken you mentioned archeological evidence.

    Allow me Sir:
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    The point isn’t evidence, it’s about having faith. If there was strong evidence to prove the religion, everyone would join.

    Well, yes, that is what it boils down to.

    I will ask again a question I asked before: what's the difference between an existing God and an inexistant God if the only way you determine said existence is by faith alone?

    Well there is the Bible, for a start. Biblical archaeology has proved a lot of things too. There are many books on the subject that are well worth reading.

    So, it's not just a case of blind faith alone. The Bible is a history book in part too. It's a whole series of books collected together, in fact. It's very easy to forget that at times.There is evidence out there too that proves it is factually correct.
    'Factually correct' quite a bold statement indeed.
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Well I rescind any such comment.
    You rescind in it the sense that you admit you have no 'evidence' that 'proves it is factually correct' or that you have given up your belief and have come to realise what a load of old cobblers it all is?
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    The belief in an afterlife or a soul isn t the same as belief in a religion. Many get those mixed up.

    This is true enough: some theists don't believe in an afterlife and Buddhists do not believe in a God but believe in souls... that said neither beliefs are supported by evidence.

    What I find truely ironic about this is I can give you all the historical accounts all the research done all the eyewitness testimony from the days of Moses to now and you won’t believe not due to a lack of evidence but due to your own stubbornness (though I think Wizard doesn’t believe out of spite)...

    Plus the obvious irony you “believe” there is no god. See atheists have faith too inspite of their denial of it just faith in the wrong thing (at least from my perspective) and (again in my perspective) are no different from the thousands of other false religions throughout time. Sure you clergymen are called different names then the others your places of worship are different as well but the undeniable truth is your placing your life and soul (if such a thing exists I believe science has proven it does and I will get into it in a moment but still so Wizard doesn’t have a heart attack due to anger I figure I will put the caveat in) on a gamble.. no different from those who make their living playing at casinos. Again show me the scientific evidence show me the data convince me I waste my time on Sunday’s and that sad truth is like children with funny hats you convinced yourselves you are pirates and explorers on the quest for truth when you seemingly are just ignoring the truth standing in front of you

    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Sigh what have the aethist said except there is no god and laughed

    Yes, that's what we have done and that's what we do. What else is there to do? You keep going in circles about how god exists because god exists because the truth is that God exists and if God doesn't exist then how come he exists because he really does exist? So we tell you no, God doesn't exist; the theist crowd goes bonkers, and we have ourselves a couple of good laughs. We're being showered with strange logic like God exists because where else does morality come from?; God exists because how else can we distinguish between good and evil?; God exists because science can't prove everything just yet. Voila! So god exists.

    And to that, we say: no, we disagree. It's like telling a child when it's grown old enough, that Santa doesn't exist. Then we can laugh about it. We don't have to prove that God doesn't exist, you know. In fact, we can't. It's not possible to prove that something undefinable, irrational does or doesn't exist. I bet we could make up thousands of weird creatures and entities and whatnot, and you wouldn't be able to prove they don't exist. If I told you the resurrected corpse of Elvis Presley is sitting next to me right now, but you can't see or touch him, go ahead and prove me wrong.
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Plus the true humor is I posted a site for two quantum physicians discussing quantum consciousness and yet you guys ask what does that have to do with the soul.... ok you either can’t comprehend what quantum consciousness is or you don’t bother to look at the evidence anymore I am assuming out of fear...

    But please hit me with your best shot let’s see the intelligent athiest

    Whoa, okay, time-out!
    The principles of quantum theory are understood by a majority of all active physicists. These principles are nevertheless exotic and hard to approach intuitively because few things in our daily experience seem to be directly linked to them. Consequently, it's also possible to read too much into the seemingly infinite possibilities quantum physics offers. Most of quantum physics has the appearance of being talk in thin air anyway, even if it isn't. One of the major frustrations of the quantum physics community is that some scientists tend to take the more intriguing notions of the theory a few notches too far, resulting in speculative talk, bordering on esoteric nonsense, but brought to you by eloquent and otherwise smart people who know how to sell an idea. Yet evidently there's a difference between presenting the world with a spectacular hypothesis, even if it is built on, for the most part, rock solid quantum physics, and actually performing empirical tests which offer reproducible results and are submitted for scrutinous peer evaluation. Scientists think up lots of hypotheses and bury most of them very soon thereafter. Only a small percentage survives the first tests. Those that do are then further examined. Usually, it takes a very long time before a new theory is accepted.

    However, with many scientists being pressured to achieve something and the Internet a very unreliable forum for all people with a keyboard and lots of good or false ideas, certain hypotheses leak out into public awareness long before even the first batch of tests has been set up. Even some of the most respectable scientists have pondered over many curious topics, have then dropped an interesting hypothesis and have thus reached the world with still little to no evidence in hand. A beautiful example is Hugh Everett's quantum multiverse hypothesis, presented as an answer to Schrödinger's cat paradox. It was a clever way out of a possible theoretical paradox and science fiction writers still worship at the man's altar for that spark of creative genius, yet thus far, not a single test has been performed to conclusively demonstrate that the quantum multiverse is, indeed, reality. A wise scientist understands the difference between a hypothesis and a theory, between speculation and fact, between a good idea and a tested one. And a good scientist will be honest about that too. When I introduce the quantum multiverse to my students, I tell them what it is: a hypothesis, not a theory nor a fact, but a hypothesis, yet to be tested and therefore not yet a reliable piece of science.

    But some scientists are less concerned with "hygienic" science communication. An interesting idea can sell books, put food on the table, lead to name recognition. Scientists are people too, and sometimes people bring ulterior motives to the game. A "quantum consciousness" or "quantum soul" sounds good, but @Risico007, the real tests have yet to be performed. And until then, please forgive my lack of impulsive enthusiasm. Understand also that I'm not trying to convince this forum of my "scientific brilliance". The gentlemen in your linked source are no doubt far better educated than I am. But that doesn't mean I will follow them unconditionally. Einstein was probably far more brilliant than any of us, yet he spent the last three decades of his life trying to steer quantum physics in a totally different direction, away from where it was making progress, to a place that would have obstructed progress rather than facilitate it. I admire the man for his explanations of the photoelectric effect and the Brownian motion and for all of his predictions which have ultimately led to the very successful branch of physics known as relativistic physics. But I also know that even the great Einstein made errors in the final three decades of his career. His example is a very good one. No matter who tries to sell the idea, the idea itself must be amply tested before it can be accepted.

    Ergo, your quantum conscience scientists have yet to show us empirical evidence to support their ideas. Until they do, I'm afraid I choose not to accept their sayings as a valid argument in our debate about the soul. If I did accept anything without conclusive evidence, I'd be a bad scientist anyway and a terrible example for my students. I hate to say it, @Risico007, but you'll have to do better than that, as I cannot be convinced on the basis of a few men with the proper credentials saying something that might as well be false.

    I love the last line of this “I can not be convinced by a few men with proper credentials” ok so how many men would it take 100? 1000? 10,000? 100,000?

    Please share with us the number and I will meet and exceed said number.

    What I find 'ironic' is that it's never occurred to you that where you're born usually dictates what religion you are. Middle east - Islam, far east - Buddhism, the west - Christianity, etc....well what a massive coincidence!

    Could it be that the children of these regions are being indoctrinated? Or do people just wake up one day and say "Ooh I'm feeling the catholic vibe today, I'm off to church!"???

    These poor brainwashed children then grow up and as adults suffer from the affliction, 'belief perseverance'.....the tendency to stick with an initial belief even after receiving contradictory or disconfirming information about that belief.

    Self delusion at its saddest
    Well said Sir.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    If a person feels a religion is right for them, no problem. When they insist it is right for everyone else as well, well...then I have a problem with it.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou. I can still hear my old hound dog barkin'.
    Posts: 8,687
    If a person feels a religion is right for them, no problem. When they insist it is right for everyone else as well, well...then I have a problem with it.

    This pretty much sums it up nicely for me as well.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,536
    If a person feels a religion is right for them, no problem. When they insist it is right for everyone else as well, well...then I have a problem with it.

    Valid statement, except for one element: offspring.

    Many people are perfectly fine with having their own religion and letting everyone else choose theirs or none at all. Until they have to raise children, that is. Because those children are not "everyone else". Those children are instead "shown the way" by their parents and as such are also deprived of a fair choice to choose their own religion or, again, none at all. A small percentage will at a certain age decide that their parents' religion is rubbish, either because they want to rebel or simply because they see things differently. However, the impact of one's upbringing on one's choices in life cannot be overstated. Religion is allowed to perpetuate for the most part because parents spoonfeed it to their children. The few rebellious or "radicalised" souls or the ones that pick up a whole new religion in school or in books later in life, don't count for much I guess, at least statistically speaking.

    So yes, I'm fine with people living their lives on their own terms and never mind what anyone else does; but it's what they teach their children that I'm worried about. I'm confronted with parental indoctrination in school every day. Some students simply tell me I'm lying when I'm talking about the Big Bang simply because I'm contradicting the stuff their parents have taught them. Their parents' teachings somehow overrule mine. These students work from a strange hierarchy which automatically puts their parents in a higher position than me, regardless of the subject matter.

    Indeed, my biggest beef with the religious, no matter how peaceful and whatnot, is that many indoctrinate their children, willingly or not, and with the best intentions or not. And in some cases, even the kindest and most pacifist parents, completely against their will, plant the seeds for what might eventually lead to an extremist son or daughter, who might have stayed away from its extremist life decisions if it had never been introduced to its religion in the very first place.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    If a person feels a religion is right for them, no problem. When they insist it is right for everyone else as well, well...then I have a problem with it.

    This is one of the things that pisses people off about religion. It simply can't mind its own business.

    I just got off the tube at Southwark station and (those of you who live in London will be familiar with this) there was one of those wanky messages on a whiteboard that station staff seem to think makes people forget about their shitty commute. This one read:

    'If you seek the person to change your life for the better you need to look above.'


    Now call me a curmudgeonly old atheist if you want but is it too much for me to expect to just get from A to B without some arsehole shoving his facile, back of a cereal box, platitudes down my throat at 06.30 in the cocking morning?

    Obviously at a place like TfL riddled with stage 3 terminal PCness the guy is probably encouraged to spout his views to the public although naturally if he was a Jedi, a satanist or a Nazi they wouldn't be so accommodating.
  • Posts: 4,600
    Trouble is, it is so ingrained into our culture that people just accept it rather than question.

    Every Sunday morning, I can hear the church bells ringing. Half the town can hear them. How is that legal? If any other non religious organisation built a large tower in the middle of the town, installed a huge bell and rang it on a Sunday morning, Evironmental Health would slap a court order on them wihtin days.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,570
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Religion is allowed to perpetuate for the most part because parents spoonfeed it to their children. The few rebellious or "radicalised" souls or the ones that pick up a whole new religion in school or in books later in life, don't count for much I guess, at least statistically speaking.

    So yes, I'm fine with people living their lives on their own terms and never mind what anyone else does; but it's what they teach their children that I'm worried about. I'm confronted with parental indoctrination in school every day. Some students simply tell me I'm lying when I'm talking about the Big Bang simply because I'm contradicting the stuff their parents have taught them. Their parents' teachings somehow overrule mine. These students work from a strange hierarchy which automatically puts their parents in a higher position than me, regardless of the subject matter.

    Indeed, my biggest beef with the religious, no matter how peaceful and whatnot, is that many indoctrinate their children, willingly or not, and with the best intentions or not. And in some cases, even the kindest and most pacifist parents, completely against their will, plant the seeds for what might eventually lead to an extremist son or daughter, who might have stayed away from its extremist life decisions if it had never been introduced to its religion in the very first place.
    I'm confused by this Dimi.

    I see religions which radicalize others and as such become dangerous. You know that lot I refer to.
    I see very odd groups like Jehovah Witnesses that really do bring their kids up to believe whatever it is they believe. And they spend weekends standing on street corners with beatific smiles on their faces. God knows why (pun intended), but their kids do seem to buy into it.

    I see these American shows on TV where these mid western staunchly God fearing country folk are almost insane with religious fervor. But is that the real world?

    But on the flip side I've mentioned before that my wife teaches at a Catholic school and my three kids went to it. And none of them were brow beaten about their beliefs and what they should represent. And if you asked any of them why we celebrate Easter they would probably say it's because Jesus laid a chocolate egg. No one in this schools is forced to become God fearing. They are taught about God and Jesus, because whether we like it or not its a subject that still exists, but I don't know any from this school who bash the old Bible because of it.

    So, what are you referring to when you say I'm confronted with parental indoctrination in school every day.

    What kind of parents are you speaking of? And what kind of religious movement?

  • edited April 2018 Posts: 4,600
    It's either a Catholic school ot it's not. You can't have your cake and eat it.

    Indoctrination takes many forms within schools, some more subtle than others. Merely by calling the school "catholic" is, in itself, a form of indoctrination. There is zero need to have any religion connected with the name of the school....other than indoctrination.

    Being taught about God is part of the national curriculum and completely different from a school actually being run by a religion and having an admissions policy based on that religion. Bunching kids together within the same religious group is another form of indoctrination as it does it's best to prevent input and discussion by non-beleivers.

    Having religion used to divide communities via admission policies is a horrible, horible thing.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,570
    I think around a third of kids at Catholic schools are non-Catholic.

  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    patb wrote: »
    It's either a Catholic school ot it's not. You can't have your cake and eat it.

    Indoctrination takes many forms within schools, some more subtle than others. Merely by calling the school "catholic" is, in itself, a form of indoctrination. There is zero need to have any religion connected with the name of the school....other than indoctrination.

    Being taught about God is part of the national curriculum and completely different from a school actually being run by a religion and having an admissions policy based on that religion. Bunching kids together within the same religious group is another form of indoctrination as it does it's best to prevent input and discussion by non-beleivers.

    Having religion used to divide communities via admission policies is a horrible, horible thing.

    Well said.

    At the age of about 6 or 7 I was aware that we were Catholic and the school down the road was Protestant. I had no idea what Protestant was other than something to do with their church being different in some way. But I was left in no doubt by my fellow pupils that Protestant = bad.

    This indoctrination clearly came from their parents as apart from morning prayers the teachers didn't really mention religion that much as I recall (although perhaps that's the trick of brainwashing someone - they don't know it's being done?) and living deep in the shires of middle England I obviously had no concept of the Northern Irish conflict until I came into contact with the poison of religion and the school system that was allowed to segregate us. So children like me who hadn't even been indoctrinated by my church going but hardly hardcore Catholic parents grew up with the mindset that proddys were bad and we were automatically better just by dint of the fact we were Catholics.

    That sense of superiority and being the chosen people is quite a powerful drug and I can see why people are reluctant to let go of it.

    I get the same feeling when I converse with @Risico007!
  • Posts: 14,817
    Having worked in a so called "secular" school in the UK, my wife having done the same in a different school, I can witness of the harmful nature of religion even there. There was a compulsory assembly prayer conducted by the local vicar or the head teacher, which is basically coercing worship, even if pupils were of various faiths, some of no faith at all. Of course there's no compulsion to pray, but the fact that there is a form of worship already stygmatize those in the school, pupils or staff, who would not pray.

    And as I mentioned before on this thread one of my wife's friend and colleague (at the time) who was also a TA at the same school had her daughter (7 or 8 then) come back in tears after RE. When asked why, she said that she was "not special". It turned out the teacher had told the class baptized children are special in the eyes of God and he loves them all very much for it.

    But no, @NicNac there's no religious indoctrination in schools. Nothing that could harm children in any way, no religious favoritism.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,570
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Having worked in a so called "secular" school in the UK, my wife having done the same in a different school, I can witness of the harmful nature of religion even there. There was a compulsory assembly prayer conducted by the local vicar or the head teacher, which is basically coercing worship, even if pupils were of various faiths, some of no faith at all. Of course there's no compulsion to pray, but the fact that there is a form of worship already stygmatize those in the school, pupils or staff, who would not pray.

    And as I mentioned before on this thread one of my wife's friend and colleague (at the time) who was also a TA at the same school had her daughter (7 or 8 then) come back in tears after RE. When asked why, she said that she was "not special". It turned out the teacher had told the class baptized children are special in the eyes of God and he loves them all very much for it.

    But no, @NicNac there's no religious indoctrination in schools. Nothing that could harm children in any way, no religious favoritism.

    I'm not arguing that any religion is harmless. I was playing devil's advocate if you will, and asking Dimi to clarify his point.

    But, on your point there - Are you saying that this one teacher represents all faith teachers? Are you saying this is a general attitude throughout faith schools?


  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    NicNac wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Having worked in a so called "secular" school in the UK, my wife having done the same in a different school, I can witness of the harmful nature of religion even there. There was a compulsory assembly prayer conducted by the local vicar or the head teacher, which is basically coercing worship, even if pupils were of various faiths, some of no faith at all. Of course there's no compulsion to pray, but the fact that there is a form of worship already stygmatize those in the school, pupils or staff, who would not pray.

    And as I mentioned before on this thread one of my wife's friend and colleague (at the time) who was also a TA at the same school had her daughter (7 or 8 then) come back in tears after RE. When asked why, she said that she was "not special". It turned out the teacher had told the class baptized children are special in the eyes of God and he loves them all very much for it.

    But no, @NicNac there's no religious indoctrination in schools. Nothing that could harm children in any way, no religious favoritism.

    I'm not arguing that any religion is harmless. I was playing devil's advocate if you will, and asking Dimi to clarify his point.

    But, on your point there - Are you saying that this one teacher represents all faith teachers? Are you saying this is a general attitude throughout faith schools?

    Well it surely stands to reason that a faith school is going to push their own chosen faith over others (if they teach them at all). They're hardly going to say 'The stuff we believe is a load of old bollocks, Islam has got it nailed though.'

    And the term 'faith' school is another thing that needs stopping as well. A school is a place of learning, critical thinking, enlightenment whereas 'faith' (whatever the hell such a wishy washy concept is supposed to mean - it's just a euphemism for self delusion isn't it?) is the very opposite of this.
This discussion has been closed.