Topic: Atheism

[WhereAngelsPlay]

I would say that I am a very,very strong 7.

Just cannot imagine a so called all seeing and all knowing creator of everything that has gotten so many things wrong.

Even the Female of the species was a 2nd thought ffs.

[Alan_X]

God, as defined in religion?  I'm a 6.9-7 on that one. 

God, as in an entity that operates at a supernatural level that we don't currently understand, applying some purpose to its interventions?  5.

I don't understand that. If you believe in God (or Gods) that operate supernaturally they are no different to those defined in religion. What's the distinction in your opinion?

[Corkboy]

I don't understand that. If you believe in God (or Gods) that operate supernaturally they are no different to those defined in religion. What's the distinction in your opinion?

I was going to ask what the elevated levels of evidence are for 5.

[Corkboy]

I would say that I am a very,very strong 7.

7 is "100% certain". Adding very, very strong to that seems a bit dramatic. Trumpesque, even.

[CornerFlag]

Somewhere at the high end of between 6 and 7 for me.  There are those (myself included) that would say that, because you ultimately cannot disprove the existence of God then it must remain a possibility, no matter how piss-small the actual chance of it is.  So, for me, more or less absolutely nothing shows me the existence of God, but I remain open to the possibility simply for the fact it technically is a 'chance'.  But I'm not living my life in fear of them regardless.

[coolbyrne]

I am a 7. Does that mean there is no God or that I will be proven wrong? No. But going strictly by the description "I am 100% sure that there is no God," I am a 7.

[thejbs]

That’s not what that article says at all.

I didn't say that's what the article said. I linked it as a modern day example of dangerous superstitious beliefs.  That it was news on the weekend where civil society celebrate a human sacrafice, was ironic.

[thejbs]

Tepid's posted link would suggest that Hawkins was an atheist. I questioned it as I had watched a video on you tube where he woldn't rule out a creator. However this was quite an old video so looks like he's changed his mind on this.

I would say evolution dispels gods creation of Humans, rather than the Universe. 

I cant put a link in as Im in work, however Dawkins discusses the fact that no one can be an atheist in the truest sense as you can prove something doesn't exist.

What science has uncovered about the origins of the universe and about the evolution of species completely contradicts the biblical creationist account. Nothing of how the creationist account describes it's 7 days of creation has any similarity to what science has uncovered.  Furthermore, while we don't know what happened at the point of creation with certainty, the creationist account made a number of fundamental cosmological errors which we know with certainty are wrong.

If there is a god behind the creation of the universe, it is absolutely not the God of the bible.  It's a catch 22:  If they insist on the bible being the literal account of creation, then science shows them to be wrong; if they concede that creationism is mythical they concede the bible isn't infallible and throws every part of it into doubt.  The reasonable conclusion is that the biblical God of Christianity is, almost certainly, a fabrication. 

I don't understand that. If you believe in God (or Gods) that operate supernaturally they are no different to those defined in religion. What's the distinction in your opinion?

I'm a 7 on the Abrahamic God but a 6 on deities in general. Having studied the bible and science I feel 100% sure the God of the bible doesn't exist.  But that doesn't mean I can conclude 100% that there are no gods.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

7 is "100% certain". Adding very, very strong to that seems a bit dramatic. Trumpesque, even.

Drumpf would never give his reason.

The part that you left out of the quote.

[Sammy5IsAlive]

I don't understand that. If you believe in God (or Gods) that operate supernaturally they are no different to those defined in religion. What's the distinction in your opinion?

Personally I'd put myself at 3 on that scale in terms of believing that there is 'something else' going on that is beyond our comprehension and perhaps always will be. I don't know whether I would call it 'God' as in a bearded guy up in the sky but I strongly believe in the limitation of our knowledge and then when I think 'beyond' that knowledge my inclination/faith is that the universe and our place within it has some higher purpose/meaning than something that is purely 'dust to dust'.

In terms of the gods of our established religions I would go for 7. The whole point of what I believe is essentially that 'God' is beyond our understanding and so from that I'd conclude that any human representation of God must by default be inadequate.

[electricghost]

Personally I'd put myself at 3 on that scale in terms of believing that there is 'something else' going on that is beyond our comprehension and perhaps always will be. I don't know whether I would call it 'God' as in a bearded guy up in the sky but I strongly believe in the limitation of our knowledge and then when I think 'beyond' that knowledge my inclination/faith is that the universe and our place within it has some higher purpose/meaning than something that is purely 'dust to dust'.

In terms of the gods of our established religions I would go for 7. The whole point of what I believe is essentially that 'God' is beyond our understanding and so from that I'd conclude that any human representation of God must by default be inadequate.

Why would you believe in something that is beyond understanding and comprehension ?  Surely you could believe in anything on this basis.

I am a fan of Dawkins, but putting an agnostic position on a scale that otherwise addresses belief is a bad mistake.

[TepidT2O]

Why would you believe in something that is beyond understanding and comprehension ?  Surely you could believe in anything on this basis.

I am a fan of Dawkins, but putting an agnostic position on a scale that otherwise addresses belief is a bad mistake.

Surely you can only believe in something that is beyond comprehension?

Still, to believe something as being beyond human comprehension seems to be setting our sights pretty low to me...

[electricghost]

Surely you can only believe in something that is beyond comprehension?

No not at all.  Belief is just being convinced that something is true or likely true. This can be with or without comprehension. Comprehension should be vital to forming a belief, or as I said above you are then open to believing anything, including contradictory things.

[TepidT2O]

No not at all.  Belief is just being convinced that something is true or likely true. This can be with or without comprehension. Comprehension should be vital to forming a belief, or as I said above you are then open to believing anything, including contradictory things.

Sorry, I should explain better.  If something were truely to be beyond comprehension. (Which is of course silly) then only belief could be used to explain it.

Dies that make more sense?

[electricghost]

Sorry, I should explain better.  If something were truely to be beyond comprehension. (Which is of course silly) then only belief could be used to explain it.

Dies that make more sense?

I think I follow what you mean, I would use the word faith there rather than belief. Faith is believe without evidence, or counter the evidence.

[TepidT2O]

I think I follow what you mean, I would use the word faith there rather than belief. Faith is believe without evidence, or counter the evidence.

Yes, I agree

[Nobby Reserve]

From last year, but Stephen Fry articulates his attitude to 'god' very well

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/stephen-fry-blasphemy-god-ireland-confronted-by-met-a7722191.html

That some sad prick sought to have him prosecuted for blasphemy says just as much.

[beardsley4ever]

I don't understand that. If you believe in God (or Gods) that operate supernaturally they are no different to those defined in religion. What's the distinction in your opinion?

If there is a supernatural entity, I don't think that it cares any more for humans than it does for the millions of other living and non-living species.  Indeed, it may not care at all.  So, for me, the God articulated in religion is absurd.  I can, however, conceive of (though it is very unlikely) something that exists on a level we don't understand that is doing things for reasons that have nothing to do with us or our daily behaviour/thoughts/actions.  We could all be part of a great transformation of energy from one form to another, or we could all be ants in a giant world of planets controlled by something.  It is all very unlikely (i.e. 5-6 on the scale), but it is slightly more conceivable to me than what religion describes as God.

Not sure if that makes sense.  My mind is on the game, so only half talking sense right now! 

[The Real Rasta]

I didn't say that's what the article said. I linked it as a modern day example of dangerous superstitious beliefs.  That it was news on the weekend where civil society celebrate a human sacrafice, was ironic.

Yes apologies mate misread what you said.

[thejbs]

Yes apologies mate misread what you said.

No sweat! I probably could've been more clear. 

[Kenny's Jacket]

What science has uncovered about the origins of the universe and about the evolution of species completely contradicts the biblical creationist account. Nothing of how the creationist account describes it's 7 days of creation has any similarity to what science has uncovered.  Furthermore, while we don't know what happened at the point of creation with certainty, the creationist account made a number of fundamental cosmological errors which we know with certainty are wrong.

If there is a god behind the creation of the universe, it is absolutely not the God of the bible.  It's a catch 22:  If they insist on the bible being the literal account of creation, then science shows them to be wrong; if they concede that creationism is mythical they concede the bible isn't infallible and throws every part of it into doubt.  The reasonable conclusion is that the biblical God of Christianity is, almost certainly, a fabrication. 

I'm a 7 on the Abrahamic God but a 6 on deities in general. Having studied the bible and science I feel 100% sure the God of the bible doesn't exist.  But that doesn't mean I can conclude 100% that there are no gods.

Yes, thats pretty much what i am saying

[hide5seek]

5

[Corkboy]

New paper suggests that if the government provides what people need, they will be less likely to seek help from supernatural entities. They found that better government services were related to lower religiosity among countries (Study 1) and states in the United States (Study 2)

[sms1986]

That's technically true but not very helpful. Nobody can be 100% sure there isn't a god but you can't be 100% sure it's not me, either.

Dawkins had a scale as follows:



He described himself as a 6.9. I'd add a few 9s to that.

I would say I was a 5, never been religious and I don't think any deity that exists will be exactly like any found in human religions, but at the same time I don't know whether one exists or not. Maybe one day we'll know for sure.

[thejbs]

New paper suggests that if the government provides what people need, they will be less likely to seek help from supernatural entities. They found that better government services were related to lower religiosity among countries (Study 1) and states in the United States (Study 2)

Will read later but it's no surprise.

[Zeppelin]

I'd have to go for 6.9 edging onto 7. There's always a tiny chance that we've got it all wrong and the whole thing is a vast cosmic joke, but it's pretty unlikely.

[Sudden Death Draft Loser]

I'm an eight on that scale

[Nobby Reserve]

6-point-something for me

[Riquende]

6.66 for me.

[SamAteTheRedAcid]

6.66 for me.

[Corkboy]

IS THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT DRIVING AMERICANS AWAY FROM RELIGION?

New research finds that, when evangelical organizations raise their profile by sponsoring a high-profile political campaign, a backlash ensues.


Article

[thejbs]

IS THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT DRIVING AMERICANS AWAY FROM RELIGION?

New research finds that, when evangelical organizations raise their profile by sponsoring a high-profile political campaign, a backlash ensues.


Article

Without a doubt. Closer to home, look at the backlash against the Irish Catholic Church. They're cultivating a real environment of agnosticism I'm the ROI.

[hide5seek]

Without a doubt. Closer to home, look at the backlash against the Irish Catholic Church. They're cultivating a real environment of agnosticism I'm the ROI.

Why, what are they doing?

[Corkboy]

Why, what are they doing?

Mostly horrible things to children.

[Kenny's Jacket]

Without a doubt. Closer to home, look at the backlash against the Irish Catholic Church. They're cultivating a real environment of agnosticism I'm the ROI.

I do find this strange. Surely if you believed in the Abrahamic God of the 3 main religions would it not make more sense to become a proddy?  As opposed to Atheist, or a Jew for that matter. Surely taking up another Christian denomination or religion is less extreme than losing your faith.

[thejbs]

I do find this strange. Surely if you believed in the Abrahamic God of the 3 main religions would it not make more sense to become a proddy?  As opposed to Atheist, or a Jew for that matter. Surely taking up another Christian denomination or religion is less extreme than losing your faith.

I think for many, the shitty behaviour of the Catholic Church has led them not just to question their Catholicism but Christianity. And it really doesn't hold up to much scrutiny once you scratch the surface. For many, Catholicism is habitual rather than an important part of their daily lives. Find me an Irish Catholic under the age of 50 that will claim they actually enjoy attending mass.

Agnosticism is as easy as conversion to another xtian sect. It has the appeal of sounding reasonable while not exactly giving up on God. 

In the 2016 census, Catholicism was down 6% on 2011. No religion was up something like 75%.  I recall reading a while back that Ireland has the second highest decline in religiosity in Europe. I've had actual conversations with people who filled in Catholic in the census but say they 'don't really believe in God.'

[cress]

Strong 7.

Religion is a means to control people and make money, also a tool to carry out wars.

[hide5seek]

Mostly horrible things to children.

Well, I've always said religion is a form of child abuse.  As for the other type of abuse, poor fuckers, feel for anyone who is abused.

[hide5seek]

I think for many, the shitty behaviour of the Catholic Church has led them not just to question their Catholicism but Christianity. And it really doesn't hold up to much scrutiny once you scratch the surface. For many, Catholicism is habitual rather than an important part of their daily lives. Find me an Irish Catholic under the age of 50 that will claim they actually enjoy attending mass.

Agnosticism is as easy as conversion to another xtian sect. It has the appeal of sounding reasonable while not exactly giving up on God. 

In the 2016 census, Catholicism was down 6% on 2011. No religion was up something like 75%.  I recall reading a while back that Ireland has the second highest decline in religiosity in Europe. I've had actual conversations with people who filled in Catholic in the census but say they 'don't really believe in God.'

You only need to go on the net and research if there is real proof of Jesus and that'll soon put most off religion. Or read the bible, if that doesn't put someone off religion then nothing will.

[thejbs]

You only need to go on the net and research if there is real proof of Jesus and that'll soon put most off religion. Or read the bible, if that doesn't put someone off religion then nothing will.

I'm continually perplexed at how Mormonism hasn't collapsed completely since the dawn of the internet. Joseph Smith was a total charlatan whose shady life had been covered up by the LDS church until the net exposed Mormons to it.