Religion

[I'm With Stupid]

You are Ricky Gervais, and I claim the £10.

Gervais ripped it from Dawkins, to be fair. Who probably stole it from somewhere else.

 

[bluejon]

Gervais ripped it from Dawkins, to be fair. Who probably stole it from somewhere else.

It's a good argument, simple as, primarily because it's true.

 

[Elbow beards]

Gervais ripped it from Dawkins, to be fair. Who probably stole it from somewhere else.

Dawkins nicked it from me :)

 

[JASR]

Dawkins nicked it from me :)

No, Dawkins created it, the meme, QED he is god of all the memes that followed.

Meme - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[I'm With Stupid]

It's a good argument, simple as, primarily because it's true.

It's not my favourite argument, because it's possible to believe that a god exists but that other people's interpretations of it are wrong. In which case, you're not really an atheist about their god, you just don't accept their claims about the nature of the god that you both accept exists.

But this is where religious people often find it difficult. It's quite easy to argue for something that is so ill-defined that it's effectively meaningless ("I believe in something" is a genuine statement that so many people come out with). When you start making specific claims about said god, it becomes more of a challenge, which is why religious types make sure those things rarely come up in these debates.

 

[Elbow beards]

No, Dawkins created it, the meme, QED he is god of all the memes that followed.

Meme - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I believe it took him 6 days then he had to have a rest.

 

[Elbow beards]

It's not my favourite argument, because it's possible to believe that a god exists but that other people's interpretations of it are wrong. In which case, you're not really an atheist about their god, you just don't accept their claims about the nature of the god that you both accept exists.

But this is where religious people often find it difficult. It's quite easy to argue for something that is so ill-defined that it's effectively meaningless ("I believe in something" is a genuine statement that so many people come out with). When you start making specific claims about said god, it becomes more of a challenge, which is why religious types make sure those things rarely come up in these debates.

I agree you can argue that point about other monotheistic religions but not polytheistic ones.

 

[bluejon]

It's not my favourite argument, because it's possible to believe that a god exists but that other people's interpretations of it are wrong. In which case, you're not really an atheist about their god, you just don't accept their claims about the nature of the god that you both accept exists.

But this is where religious people often find it difficult. It's quite easy to argue for something that is so ill-defined that it's effectively meaningless ("I believe in something" is a genuine statement that so many people come out with). When you start making specific claims about said god, it becomes more of a challenge, which is why religious types make sure those things rarely come up in these debates.

Just finished an incredible book, Systeme de la Nature by Baron d'Holbech. Written in the mid 1700s and a complete evisceration of religion. Primarily aimed at religious institutions as opposed to individual faith, but the point is hammered home repeatedly and clearly. The religious have been trying to define 'god' since humans could talk, and as yet there is exactly zero agreement, even between people of the same religion. Yes, there can be some vague hand wavey "you know, it's god" stuff, but as soon as you start to pin down how god can even exist, not happening. It's been the most discussed question of human history and the reason for no definition is simple. Because god does not exist. And if he/she/it did exist though, he/she/it is not loving or kind. Who creates creatures, sends them out into the world with passion and desire, and then burns them for eternity if they don't behave exactly how their creator wants, whilst leaving zero definitive instructions as to what they are supposed to do? That isn't a god, it's a tyrant.

 

[Marklr]

I am a Christian, a medical doctor with an interest in science..there are many issues that perplex me..DNA and chirality..the suggestion that such a complex molecule developed in a primitive broth, statiscally is improbable..Miller-Urey produced a few amino acids in the lab but hardly enough to form DNA..the Sumerians and Akkadians had similar stories of floods and even the Moses story well before biblical times..Then of course we have the precambrian explosion which no-one can explain..I can not explain matters, but have my own belief and respect others opinions. There are so many other matters that could be discussed ,but due to the woke world we live in these are best not touched upon. Please remember that whilst acceptable to denegrate the Christian faith, doing the same for other faiths would certainly result in a ban or even worse.

Most of us here grew up under the bullying of Christianity. No other religion has had any effect on my life at all.

 

[Berts Neck]

Most of us here grew up under the bullying of Christianity. No other religion has had any effect on my life at all.

My wife is from Northern Ireland, was taught in a convent, and she has no respect for the church..she had a bad experience with a priest, a family member.. I can not argue with that or with you because you are right.