By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Why are there so many "religious" players now? on 09:34 - Sep 14 by giant_stow
Haven;t read this thread - just this page of you holding off the hoards of barbarians and heathen - keep up the good fight Chico. Has anyone mentioned the scientists who find faith through their research? In the absence of proof, of course atheism is just another belief!
Why are there so many "religious" players now? on 09:34 - Sep 14 by giant_stow
Haven;t read this thread - just this page of you holding off the hoards of barbarians and heathen - keep up the good fight Chico. Has anyone mentioned the scientists who find faith through their research? In the absence of proof, of course atheism is just another belief!
I have to admit that I'm quite disturbed by some of these answers.
Why are there so many "religious" players now? on 09:45 - Sep 14 by redrickstuhaart
Its very clear you haven't read the thread...
Not believing in something is not a belief
Same as not collecting stamps is not a hobby.
I wasn't being entirely serious tbh and should have stayed out as I don't have time to debate today. Shame, as it meaty stuff (which I'm pretty sure we've done before re Dawkins?)
Has anyone ever looked at their own postings for last day or so? Oh my... so sorry. Was Ullaa
Why are there so many "religious" players now? on 09:52 - Sep 14 by giant_stow
I wasn't being entirely serious tbh and should have stayed out as I don't have time to debate today. Shame, as it meaty stuff (which I'm pretty sure we've done before re Dawkins?)
I wish I'd stayed out of it - in fact I which I'd not seen it frankly. I find it all quite depressing when I think of the state the Earth is in.
Good work by Philogene...... GREAT WORK BY PHILOGENE!!!
Anyone who says atheism is a belief system that is similar to a religious faith is a loony thicko. I know you didn't quite say that of course ;)
It’s not my fault these people hate me but also know I’m right. Insults is how they deal with their dissonance.
In the spirit of reconciliation and happiness at the end of the Banter Era (RIP) and as a result of promotion I have cleared out my ignore list. Look forwards to reading your posts!
Anyone who says atheism is a belief system that is similar to a religious faith is a loony thicko. I know you didn't quite say that of course ;)
Indeed.
Happy for anyone to have their own faith, it doesn't harm me in anyway, but my atheism isn't a belief. That would imply a level of commitment to the cause that I simply don't have.
I was born underwater, I dried out in the sun.
I started humping volcanoes baby, when I was too young.
Why are there so many "religious" players now? on 09:42 - Sep 14 by leitrimblue
Exactly! Everyone knows the world was invented 6 or 7 thousand years ago by God with a little help from Adam and Eve. Anyone who doesn't believe this is obviously an idiot..
If we are all descended from Adam and Eve, doesn’t that make us all inbred?!
Why are there so many "religious" players now? on 09:54 - Sep 14 by NthQldITFC
I wish I'd stayed out of it - in fact I which I'd not seen it frankly. I find it all quite depressing when I think of the state the Earth is in.
Well if we have to switch to eating insects instead of a nice fillet steak, and drive Chinese electric cars instead of a burbling German v8, the planet probably isn’t worth saving…
It’s not my fault these people hate me but also know I’m right. Insults is how they deal with their dissonance.
Up to now I'd assumed good faith (no pun intended) on your part in this debate, but now I'm starting to wonder if you're just stirring the pot for the hell of it. Your argument is fallacious; the burden of proof lies entirely with those making the positive claim. Atheists make no claim. It's up to those who believe there is a god/gods to prove it. Atheists can just sit back and say 'ok, prove it'. If I can use the analogy of a court room, the accused has no obligation to offer a defence, the onus is entirely on the prosecution to convince the jury of their guilt. And that requires (convincing) evidence. Present your evidence.
Up to now I'd assumed good faith (no pun intended) on your part in this debate, but now I'm starting to wonder if you're just stirring the pot for the hell of it. Your argument is fallacious; the burden of proof lies entirely with those making the positive claim. Atheists make no claim. It's up to those who believe there is a god/gods to prove it. Atheists can just sit back and say 'ok, prove it'. If I can use the analogy of a court room, the accused has no obligation to offer a defence, the onus is entirely on the prosecution to convince the jury of their guilt. And that requires (convincing) evidence. Present your evidence.
How do you prove the literally-unprovable? And since when did you decide who the burden of proof lies with you arrogant commissar?
In the spirit of reconciliation and happiness at the end of the Banter Era (RIP) and as a result of promotion I have cleared out my ignore list. Look forwards to reading your posts!
Why are there so many "religious" players now? on 08:11 - Sep 14 by redrickstuhaart
Entirely wrong on two counts. Though let's be careful with the language to avoid confusion. The word atheist is sometimes used for someone who actively asserts that there are no gods / higher powers. Mostly, however and imo, it is used as a description for people who reject the religious propositions that have been made. The semantics dont matter so long as we are all talking about the same thing.
Arguably, a positive assertion that there are no gods etc could be considered a belief system.
The atheism most people are talking about in this thread and generally though, is not. It is the rejection of religous propositions. A- theism. Absence of theism (theism being belief in a conscious god).
To say that the beliefs are equally valid though, is absurd. The belief that a particular religion has not met its burden of proof is an entirely justifiable objective position. The belief that a man was born who is god, or part of god ,or related to god, who then sacrificed himself to himself to act as a loophole in the rules which he himself set, and achieve an eternal life which makes no sense, is clearly not (whatever you think of it) objectively justified. It requires "faith" in the "belief without evidence" sense.
I profoundly disagree with your last paragraph at multiple levels! To go from a so called god straight to 'sacrifice' without any mention of his life is a huge mistake! If The Christ hadn't done the things he was reported to have done - the miracles - you would have a point; he is nothing without out those credentials. To imply that belief in The Christ requires 'faith in the Faith without evidence sense' isnt correct. It is the very presence of evidence that many of us who seek to follow him find compelling. Just putting this out there in the interest of balance to the the debate. Im not poo pooing others beliefs, just asking for balance and recognition that genuine Christian belief is precisely because of evidence rather than in spite of it.
Up to now I'd assumed good faith (no pun intended) on your part in this debate, but now I'm starting to wonder if you're just stirring the pot for the hell of it. Your argument is fallacious; the burden of proof lies entirely with those making the positive claim. Atheists make no claim. It's up to those who believe there is a god/gods to prove it. Atheists can just sit back and say 'ok, prove it'. If I can use the analogy of a court room, the accused has no obligation to offer a defence, the onus is entirely on the prosecution to convince the jury of their guilt. And that requires (convincing) evidence. Present your evidence.
Chickers doesn't engage in any debate in good faith. Like here, he doesn't address any of the good points made, just replies to the thread saying everyone's out to get him because he's right. You can't debate with that.
How do you prove the literally-unprovable? And since when did you decide who the burden of proof lies with you arrogant commissar?
Now who's throwing around insults...?
I didn't decide that. It's just how it works when you make assertions.
'How do you prove the literally-unprovable?' Well, quite. And that's the point - that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
7
Why are there so many "religious" players now? on 10:28 - Sep 14 with 557 views
Why are there so many "religious" players now? on 10:24 - Sep 14 by Vic
I profoundly disagree with your last paragraph at multiple levels! To go from a so called god straight to 'sacrifice' without any mention of his life is a huge mistake! If The Christ hadn't done the things he was reported to have done - the miracles - you would have a point; he is nothing without out those credentials. To imply that belief in The Christ requires 'faith in the Faith without evidence sense' isnt correct. It is the very presence of evidence that many of us who seek to follow him find compelling. Just putting this out there in the interest of balance to the the debate. Im not poo pooing others beliefs, just asking for balance and recognition that genuine Christian belief is precisely because of evidence rather than in spite of it.
You can profoundly disagree all you wish. But your reasoning doesn't work.
A summary of a core tenet is not invalid just because there are other bits you think are important.
And the compelling or contemporaneous evidence is non existent outside of the bible which is an overtly religious collection of anonymous writing. Of course it requires faith in the sense I refer to. There is no good evidence. The claim is not evidence of itself. The bible contains claims.
Why are there so many "religious" players now? on 10:28 - Sep 14 by redrickstuhaart
You can profoundly disagree all you wish. But your reasoning doesn't work.
A summary of a core tenet is not invalid just because there are other bits you think are important.
And the compelling or contemporaneous evidence is non existent outside of the bible which is an overtly religious collection of anonymous writing. Of course it requires faith in the sense I refer to. There is no good evidence. The claim is not evidence of itself. The bible contains claims.
That's not actually correct - but I havent time to work this through at the moment. I know thats annoying, so apologies.
Been a while since we've had a good old Bible debate here on the football section!
Why are there so many "religious" players now? on 10:24 - Sep 14 by Vic
I profoundly disagree with your last paragraph at multiple levels! To go from a so called god straight to 'sacrifice' without any mention of his life is a huge mistake! If The Christ hadn't done the things he was reported to have done - the miracles - you would have a point; he is nothing without out those credentials. To imply that belief in The Christ requires 'faith in the Faith without evidence sense' isnt correct. It is the very presence of evidence that many of us who seek to follow him find compelling. Just putting this out there in the interest of balance to the the debate. Im not poo pooing others beliefs, just asking for balance and recognition that genuine Christian belief is precisely because of evidence rather than in spite of it.
What exactly are you using as evidence?
I think there's some great philosophy associated with the original, uncorrupted stories of most or all of the various linked and unrelated religions. Are you talking about evidence for the supernatural, or evidence of one particular philosophical movement of 2,000 years ago. I can get on board with the latter.
Good work by Philogene...... GREAT WORK BY PHILOGENE!!!
Why are there so many "religious" players now? on 17:20 - Sep 13 by positivity
creationism isn't a central tenet of christianity/judaism or islam, the creation story isn't intended to be read as a scientific textbook!
people can believe what they want to believe in my book, it's only a problem when it affects someone else negatively. i don't think anyone should be judged as being self deceiving without living the life that has led them there.
i think all fundamentalists, whether they be jews, atheists or communists can improve by being more tolerant of other people and understanding their positions
What really boils my p re the organised religions of any kind, is the sheer hypocrisy shown by so many of their followers who regularly act completely contrarily to the tenets of their faith - lying, stealing, cheating etc.
That's before even considering the extremes of murder by whole sects of some religions, and child abuse by a minority of appointed "staff".
Why are there so many "religious" players now? on 10:55 - Sep 14 by Ryorry
What really boils my p re the organised religions of any kind, is the sheer hypocrisy shown by so many of their followers who regularly act completely contrarily to the tenets of their faith - lying, stealing, cheating etc.
That's before even considering the extremes of murder by whole sects of some religions, and child abuse by a minority of appointed "staff".
hypocrisy and acting against your stated beliefs/values is definitely not limited to religious people! it's human nature
Why are there so many "religious" players now? on 11:02 - Sep 14 by positivity
hypocrisy and acting against your stated beliefs/values is definitely not limited to religious people! it's human nature
I know, but the topic we're talking about here is religion.
Atheists and agnostics* don't claim to belong to an organisation whose 'rules' tell them that they should live their lives *not* lying, stealing or cheating etc.
*I never know whether to call myself an atheist or agnostic - if I have a religion/god, it's 'Mother Nature'.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
