Topic: Freedom of speech

[zero zero]

Where is your evidence for your Atheism?

Atheism is a product on the complete lack of evidence of a God. Happy to help.

And don't be too quick to say there's no Atheist crutch - the constant prattle about it being linked to reasoning and science is precisely that. Insecurity central

"Dear God, please tell me what to do as I have no confidence on making the right decision without you"

Would you care to explain why Atheism is "insecurity central". Try and do it without playing the race card, please. Thanks in advance.

[electricghost]

Where is your evidence for your Atheism?

And don't be too quick to say there's no Atheist crutch - the constant prattle about it being linked to reasoning and science is precisely that. Insecurity central

Atheism in it's basic form is the default position, so as no positive claim is being made, there is no burden of proof, so no evidence is required. 

[zero zero]

I think the bigger discussion is, is it intellectually honest and morally correct for secular outsiders to force a particular Church to go against it's teachings in order to placate secularists and ingratiate itself with the wider public.

Secular outsiders had no say in the appointment of a female Bishop. We don't care.

[LondonRapLondon]

Ever heard of russell's teapot?

Yep.  My mate is called Russell and he has a teapot and at times brews some nice tea in the said pot.

I'm surprised you knew about it but clearly Russell's teapot has seen more action than I first thought.

[KiNki]

Ever heard of russell's teapot?

if its not mentioned in the big book then why would he? 

[LondonRapLondon]

Atheism is the default position, so as no positive claim is being made, there is no burden of proof, so no evidence is required.

No it's not the default position. That's just another one of those slogans that Atheist Apologists present to their crowds.

 Prof Bruce Hood's studies point to the human brain being hardwired for a belief in the supernatural.

[Max_powers]

I think the bigger discussion is, is it intellectually honest and morally correct for secular outsiders to force a particular Church to go against it's teachings in order to placate secularists and ingratiate itself with the wider public.

I think a religious establishment loses a lot of credibility when it begins to change just for these reasons. When a religion stops being an organic whole that's when issues of hypocrisy and inconsistency arise.

Religions have always been changing. If that is your benchmark then there isn't a religion out there with any credibility. For example Christians don't stone kids for being disobedient, they also don't threaten to kill people who suggest a heliocentric solar system . Many Hindus don't follow a caste system anymore, Muslims don't go around killing non believer's(well vast majority of them). Are these bad things?

[TepidT2O]

I think the bigger discussion is, is it intellectually honest and morally correct for secular outsiders to force a particular Church to go against it's teachings in order to placate secularists and ingratiate itself with the wider public.

I think a religious establishment loses a lot of credibility when it begins to change just for these reasons. When a religion stops being an organic whole that's when issues of hypocrisy and inconsistency arise.

This change hasn't been caused by secular outsiders.

It has very much been changed by those within the church.

Eventually the other churches will follow suit, as their doctrine becomes less popular and the numbers of clergy dwindle. Necessity is the mother of invention.

[zero zero]

So you don't think a religion/church should move with the times?

Not all religions wish to live in ignorance, Chakan. Fine words from a world famous atheist.

[Chakan]

Not all religions wish to live in ignorance, Chakan. Fine words from a world famous atheist.

These people have been contemplating the nature of the universe for years. If only some other people did that

[Mutton Geoff]

These people have been contemplating the nature of the universe for years. If only some other people did that

and recently one of em is preaching violence against other religions

[LondonRapLondon]

So you don't think a religion/church should move with the times?

You put it in a certain way but I'd rather say I believe in intellectual honesty.

So if a religion's proof texts are genuinely open to an interpretation that makes it inline more with a particular vogue then of course that's not intellectual dishonesty.

The problem of intellectual dishonesty that some Church leaders are being confronted with through external pressures to change classical understandings and unambiguous texts is something that I cannot support.

When an external or even internal body starts changing a religion then that religion has is no longer the same religion.

[zero zero]

Prof Bruce Hood's studies point to the human brain being hardwired for a belief in the supernatural.

Enlightened people can overcome their hardwiring.

[electricghost]

No it's not the default position. That's just another one of those slogans that Atheist Apologists present to their crowds.

 Prof Bruce Hood's studies point to the human brain being hardwired for a belief in the supernatural.

    It isn't a slogan it's based on pure logic.

You either accept a claim to be true or you don't accept it to be true

With the claim a God exists if you accept it -theist, if you don't accept it - atheist

If you don't accept a claim to be true you don't have any burden of proof as you have not said it is false.

[zero zero]

and recently one of em is preaching violence against other religions

?

[MichaelA]

It really is a stretch. Dogma is sticking to a belief when the evidence, or lack thereof suggests otherwise. Atheism is simply an assessment of the evidence. It's the opposite of dogma. That's why Tomred couldn't point to any examples in this thread. Can you?

Pragmatism rather than dogmatism, in my view. In arguments like this, I always fall back on what I refer to as the 'Liam Neeson Defence'. In the chronically crap film 'Loch Ness' Mr Neeson plays the part of a cynical disbeliever, who finds the reality of the monster beyond the scope of his reality. His Damascene moment in the film arrives in a conversation with the innocent, Nessie spotting child. He tells her that if the monster is real then he has to see it to believe it. 'No' she tells him, 'you have to believe it to see it'.

So there's the argument in a nutshell for me. You're either a gullible shill at the altar of the Church of Nessie, or you're a shrill and aggressive atheist with an agenda.

Night night, suckers, don't forget to say your prayers.

[TepidT2O]

You put it in a certain way but I'd rather say I believe in intellectual honesty.

So if a religion's proof texts are genuinely open to an interpretation that makes it inline more with a particular vogue then of course that's not intellectual dishonesty.

The problem of intellectual dishonesty that some Church leaders are being confronted with through external pressures to change classical understandings and unambiguous texts is something that I cannot support.

When an external or even internal body starts changing a religion then that religion has is no longer the same religion.

Oh come come.

Unambiguous texts? You should be stoned for working on the sabbath then?  There are umpteen unambiguous  prices of the bible that are utterly ignored.
Female preachers are far less unambiguous than that, far less.
But they are also a necessity. Given the lack of male clergy and their problems in interacting appropriately with the youth in their parishes, female clergy will stop the church from withering on the vine.

[Twelfth Man]

 Prof Bruce Hood's studies point to the *primitive human brain being hardwired for a belief in the supernatural.

*corrected

[KiNki]

Church leaders are being confronted with through external pressures to change..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18702908

[zero zero]

But they are also a necessity. Given the lack of male clergy and their problems in interacting appropriately with the youth in their parishes, female clergy will stop the church from withering on the vine.

  To put it mildly

[Max_powers]

Oh come come.

Unambiguous texts? You should be stoned for working on the sabbath then?  There are umpteen unambiguous  prices of the bible that are utterly ignored.
Female preachers are far less unambiguous than that, far less.
But they are also a necessity. Given the lack of male clergy and their problems in interacting appropriately with the youth in their parishes, female clergy will stop the church from withering on the vine.

Its funny that Church doesn't campaign for stoning people to death any more. In western society that punishment pretty much been abandoned whereas in Bible that is preferred method justice against everything from blasphemers to adulterers. Must be those ambiguous texts like

"If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city"

"And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him"

[MichaelA]

You put it in a certain way but I'd rather say I believe in intellectual honesty.

So if a religion's proof texts are genuinely open to an interpretation that makes it inline more with a particular vogue then of course that's not intellectual dishonesty.

The problem of intellectual dishonesty that some Church leaders are being confronted with through external pressures to change classical understandings and unambiguous texts is something that I cannot support.

When an external or even internal body starts changing a religion then that religion has is no longer the same religion.

Proof texts? Classical understandings? Unambiguous texts? Huh? Can you provide the empirical evidence to support the 'proof tests'  of these religious texts you're referring to?

[LondonRapLondon]

Religions have always been changing. If that is your benchmark then there isn't a religion out there with any credibility. For example Christians don't stone kids for being disobedient, they also don't threaten to kill people who suggest a heliocentric solar system . Many Hindus don't follow a caste system anymore, Muslims don't go around killing non believer's(well vast majority of them). Are these bad things?

I think you clearly do not understand the religions you speak about. In Hinduism, the act of Sati, as far as I recall was a cultural practice rather than a scriptural teaching. I'm not sure what stoning of kids you refer to but I assume whatever you have in mind comes from the OT which is seen as abrogated as a practice with the coming of the NT according to Christian theology and as for Muslims...there's context - the Islamic texts (Quran and Hadith literature) are something that have contexts.

However, if you wish to further know about a particular passage then go to the relevant scholar/religious leader and ask them.

Are religions always changing? I think if a religious textual body has scope for a certain opinion and that opinion is sincerely arrived at by the relevant theologians then that is not necessarily a change in the religion.

The issue here is not about accepting a certain opinion in a spectrum of theological opinions concerning a certain text but rather whether somebody is being intellectually honest.

There's an interesting book by Dr Jonathan Brown on this type of topic.

[TepidT2O]

I think you clearly do not understand the religions you speak about. In Hinduism, the act of Sati, as far as I recall was a cultural practice rather than a scriptural teaching. I'm not sure what stoning of kids you refer to but I assume whatever you have in mind comes from the OT which is seen as abrogated as a practice with the coming of the NT according to Christian theology and as for Muslims...there's context - the Islamic texts (Quran and Hadith literature) are something that have contexts.

However, if you wish to further know about a particular passage then go to the relevant scholar/religious leader and ask them.

Are religions always changing? I think if a religious textual body has scope for a certain opinion and that opinion is sincerely arrived at by the relevant theologians then that is not necessarily a change in the religion.

The issue here is not about accepting a certain opinion in a spectrum of theological opinions concerning a certain text but rather whether somebody is being intellectually honest.

There's an interesting book by Dr Jonathan Brown on this type of topic.

It's not born out of any intellectual honesty, it's born out of necessity first and foremost.

[Alan_X]

No it's not the default position. That's just another one of those slogans that Atheist Apologists present to their crowds.

 Prof Bruce Hood's studies point to the human brain being hardwired for a belief in the supernatural.

So a belief in the supernatural doesn't come from God - it's a physical and biological thing linked to our bodies.

[LondonRapLondon]

Proof texts? Classical understandings? Unambiguous texts? Huh? Can you provide the empirical evidence to support the 'proof tests'  of these religious texts you're referring to?

The problem here is that you saw the word 'proof text' and misunderstood it, hence why you began asking for empirical evidence.

In theology, proof texts simply refer to the texts a theologian derives his rulings and theology from.

That comment is not an argument for a religion but just discussing the intellectual honesty and even intellectual dishonesty when using such texts to conform to or reject a particular idea (say for instance female religious leaders).

[TepidT2O]

So a belief in the supernatural doesn't come from God - it's a physical and biological thing linked to our bodies.

If its a biologically predetermined mindset, then the only intellectually honest position is atheism.

[Chakan]

You put it in a certain way but I'd rather say I believe in intellectual honesty.

So if a religion's proof texts are genuinely open to an interpretation that makes it inline more with a particular vogue then of course that's not intellectual dishonesty.

The problem of intellectual dishonesty that some Church leaders are being confronted with through external pressures to change classical understandings and unambiguous texts is something that I cannot support.

When an external or even internal body starts changing a religion then that religion has is no longer the same religion.

Quick question, is there a passage in the Bible that says women can't be Bishops? I'm not Christian so I honestly have no idea.

[TepidT2O]

Quick question, is there a passage in the Bible that says women can't be Bishops?

Probably is ..... It's debatable, but I would say it comes down against female preachers (as a neutral so to speak)...

Then again there's a pretty good argument in favour to....an intellectually honest argument at that...


Ah fuck it.  Some say yes, some say no.  Who's to say who is correct? Typically wooly nonsense.

[Max_powers]

I think you clearly do not understand the religions you speak about. In Hinduism, the act of Sati, as far as I recall was a cultural practice rather than a scriptural teaching. I'm not sure what stoning of kids you refer to but I assume whatever you have in mind comes from the OT which is seen as abrogated as a practice with the coming of the NT according to Christian theology and as for Muslims...there's context - the Islamic texts (Quran and Hadith literature) are something that have contexts.

So its okay to be hypocritical and self contradictory?

I never said anything about Sati. I was talking about the Caste system, in modern India people certainly don't limit there field of work based on their caste.

[electricghost]

Quick question, is there a passage in the Bible that says women can't be Bishops? I'm not Christian so I honestly have no idea.

I doubt they even considered it a possibility....

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."

Corinthians 14.34 and 35

[TepidT2O]

I doubt they even considered it a possibility....

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."

Corinthians 14.34 and 35

Playing devil's advocate, there were no churches when the new testament was written, so that's taken out of context.

[Corkboy]

I always feel Atheists feel insecure due to their repetition of slogans such as that.

I am gravely offended by that statement. My beliefs and my faith have been insulted. My convictions are so weak that a throwaway post by a stranger on the internet can rock them to the core. It's about time the Mods did something about this bullying and abuse.

[Chakan]

Playing devil's advocate, there were no churches when the new testament was written, so that's taken out of context.

Ok in the new testament is there a passage that says no to women being a Bishop?

[Corkboy]

Playing devil's advocate, there were no churches when the new testament was written, so that's taken out of context.

Yes and nailing somebody to a cross through the palms of their hands won't support their weight. They would have done it through the wrists.

[LondonRapLondon]

Atheism is a product on the complete lack of evidence of a God.

Another Apologetics slogan.

You just shifted the burden of proof. That's all you did.

[TepidT2O]

Yes and nailing somebody to a cross through the palms of their hands won't support their weight. They would have done it through the wrists.

But the shroud of Turin!

When the shroud said messiah, but the label said liar, carbon 14 made it come clean.

[TepidT2O]

Another Apologetics slogan.

You just shifted the burden of proof. That's all you did.

No, he asked for some evidence.  He shifted the burden of proof from no evidence to some evidence.  An intellectually honest point of view I'm sure you would agree?

[macca888]

Pragmatism rather than dogmatism, in my view. In arguments like this, I always fall back on what I refer to as the 'Liam Neeson Defence'. In the chronically crap film 'Loch Ness' Mr Neeson plays the part of a cynical disbeliever, who finds the reality of the monster beyond the scope of his reality. His Damascene moment in the film arrives in a conversation with the innocent, Nessie spotting child. He tells her that if the monster is real then he has to see it to believe it. 'No' she tells him, 'you have to believe it to see it'.

So there's the argument in a nutshell for me. You're either a gullible shill at the altar of the Church of Nessie, or you're a shrill and aggressive atheist with an agenda.

Night night, suckers, don't forget to say your prayers.

Dear God/Russell's teapot/Fowler

Please make Michael get cramp in his fingers for a couple of hours so he'll stop winding people up on the internet.

And if it's not too much trouble, do you think you could give him the same good taste in films as he's got in music and clothes, because to be honest, "Loch Ness" is fucking woeful. Not as bad as that shite with Keira Knightley playing a bounty hunter, but not far behind.

A lottery win would be nice too.

Cheers me old mucker,

Macca.

[Max_powers]

Another Apologetics slogan.

You just shifted the burden of proof. That's all you did.

Oh the irony. I bet you are also a follower of Xenu because hey why not? There is no evidence he doesn't exist.