Intelligent design v Abiogenesis (The God Debate)

[Edina Street]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God
[QUOTE] The existence of God (or more generally, the existence of deities) is a subject of debate in theology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology), philosophy of religion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_religion) and popular culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_culture). A wide variety of arguments for and against the existence of God (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God) or deities (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deities) can be categorized as logical (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic), empirical (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_research), metaphysical (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics), subjective (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity) or scientific (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science). In philosophical (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy) terms, the question of the existence of God or deities involves the disciplines of epistemology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology) (the nature and scope of knowledge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge)) and ontology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology) (study of the nature of being (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being), existence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence), or reality (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality)) and the theory of value (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_theory) (since some definitions of God include "perfection").

The Western tradition of philosophical discussion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_philosophy) of the existence of God or deities began with Plato (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato) and Aristotle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle), who made arguments that would now be categorized as cosmological (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument). Other arguments for the existence of God or deities have been proposed by St. Anselm (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anselm_of_Canterbury), who formulated the first ontological argument (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument); Ibn Rushd (Averroes) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Averroes) and Thomas Aquinas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas), who presented their own versions of the cosmological argument (the kalam argument (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_argument) and the first way (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinque_viae), respectively); René Descartes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Descartes), who said that the existence of a benevolent God or deities is logically necessary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logically_necessary) for the evidence of the senses to be meaningful. John Calvin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Calvin) argued for a sensus divinitatis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensus_divinitatis), which gives each human a knowledge of God's existence. Atheists (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism) view arguments for the existence of God or deities as insufficient, mistaken or outweighed by arguments against it, whereas some religions, such as Jainism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism), reject the possibility of a creator deity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creator_deity). Philosophers who have provided arguments against the existence of God include Friedrich Nietzsche (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche) and Bertrand Russell (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell)./QUOTE]

The God Debate - Hitchens v D'Souza
<strong>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V85OykSDT8

My stance

I was never brought up religious, and have never truly believed in a Jesus Christ that was born to a virgin, walked on water and died for our sins, but I did have an experience in 2007 that lead me to become a believer in God for a while. I will cut a long story short. Basically, my mother ended up in a coma and was given zero percent chance of life due to kidney failure/liver failure (can't remember which), and I was asked to terminate my mother's life support. I then remembered a couple of born again Christians that claimed to have witnessed miracles, so I asked for 24 hours, and I was granted this, but I was advised that if I had still not made my decision within 24 hours they would simply go to court and get permission to turn my mother's life support off without my permission.

So, I left the hospital and went to visit the born again Christians, however they were not in, and a neighbour told me they had just gone on holiday that day. So I got a pen and paper and posted a letter through their letter box letting them know the situation with my mother and the fact that by the time they return from holiday she will be dead.

I then returned to my flat and I began mourning my mother's pending death. I then went to sleep. Then in the morning I was on the bus to the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary with the intention of signing on the dotted line when I got a phone call from the professor stating that my mother had began passing urine, and this meant that her kidneys/liver were not completely dead afterall, and that this meant that even if I gave my permission this day, they would not be removing her life support afterall. He advised me that my mothers chances had went from zero percent to 2 percent. He then announced to me the small fact that before my mother began passing urine, a couple of born again Christians had turned up at her bedside saying prayers for the last 8 hours.

When I got to the hospital the born again Christians were there, and they told me that they had read my letter, though I do not recall ever receiving an explanation in to why they had cancelled their holiday and returned home. However they promised me that my mother was going to survive.

Next, my mother required a 50/50 tractoctomy, a life or death operation and only I as her next of kin could give permission for this operation to go ahead. Affraid that my mother would not survive the operation I refused to make the decision either way, and the born again Christians advised me to sign my kinship over to them and they would make the decision for me. The decision they made was for the operation to go ahead and that they would be present throughout the operation dressed in medical gear saying prayers. And that is what happened. The operation was a success and my mother gradually began to recover over the following months, and was finally released from hospital after an eight month stay.

Now, after this I did become a believer in a god, though I am still not sure that I believed in Jesus. I also began debating the subject on several platforms, often against hardcore Atheists. To a certain extent the Atheists won. Not to the extent that I became a disbeliever, but to the extent that I admitted that I do not know whether god exists or not, and that it might have simply been the power of love that saved my mother.

After doing a lot of research on the subject, I finally arrived at the philosophy of The Speculative Society, which is more along the lines of agnosticism. My new philosophy became unreligious, but not irreligious. Much for the sake of peace, I stopped arguing about the subject and decided that it does not matter what other people believe, it does not even have to be spoken about. What others believe is their own business, though of course, they can discuss it if they wish to. The subject does not have to be taboo.

It is actually unfortunate that if I was to be honest with the born again Christians that came to my mother's side, and told them what my philosophy is, they would probably denounce me as a Satanist, as I am neither a believer nor disbeliever. My stance is "I don't know either way".

Your opinion

Despite my new philosophy, and my personal belief being my own 33rd degree secret, and respect for other peoples beliefs being of the upmost importance, I still find the subject interesting.

So, I would be very interested to hear your opinion on this subject.

I would also welcome stories of experiences that may have made you wonder whether there is a god or not.

[Stairway 2 7]

If God exists he is a horrible person. So much power yet such horror and pain around, I'm with Stephen Fry


https://youtu.be/-suvkwNYSQo

[JeMeSouviens]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God
[QUOTE] The existence of God (or more generally, the existence of deities) is a subject of debate in theology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology), philosophy of religion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_religion) and popular culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_culture). A wide variety of arguments for and against the existence of God (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God) or deities (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deities) can be categorized as logical (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic), empirical (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_research), metaphysical (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics), subjective (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity) or scientific (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science). In philosophical (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy) terms, the question of the existence of God or deities involves the disciplines of epistemology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology) (the nature and scope of knowledge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge)) and ontology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology) (study of the nature of being (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being), existence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence), or reality (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality)) and the theory of value (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_theory) (since some definitions of God include "perfection").

The Western tradition of philosophical discussion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_philosophy) of the existence of God or deities began with Plato (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato) and Aristotle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle), who made arguments that would now be categorized as cosmological (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument). Other arguments for the existence of God or deities have been proposed by St. Anselm (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anselm_of_Canterbury), who formulated the first ontological argument (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument); Ibn Rushd (Averroes) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Averroes) and Thomas Aquinas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas), who presented their own versions of the cosmological argument (the kalam argument (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_argument) and the first way (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinque_viae), respectively); René Descartes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Descartes), who said that the existence of a benevolent God or deities is logically necessary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logically_necessary) for the evidence of the senses to be meaningful. John Calvin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Calvin) argued for a sensus divinitatis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensus_divinitatis), which gives each human a knowledge of God's existence. Atheists (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism) view arguments for the existence of God or deities as insufficient, mistaken or outweighed by arguments against it, whereas some religions, such as Jainism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism), reject the possibility of a creator deity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creator_deity). Philosophers who have provided arguments against the existence of God include Friedrich Nietzsche (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche) and Bertrand Russell (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell)./QUOTE]

The God Debate - Hitchens v D'Souza
<strong>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V85OykSDT8

My stance

I was never brought up religious, and have never truly believed in a Jesus Christ that was born to a virgin, walked on water and died for our sins, but I did have an experience in 2007 that lead me to become a believer in God for a while. I will cut a long story short. Basically, my mother ended up in a coma and was given zero percent chance of life due to kidney failure/liver failure (can't remember which), and I was asked to terminate my mother's life support. I then remembered a couple of born again Christians that claimed to have witnessed miracles, so I asked for 24 hours, and I was granted this, but I was advised that if I had still not made my decision within 24 hours they would simply go to court and get permission to turn my mother's life support off without my permission.

So, I left the hospital and went to visit the born again Christians, however they were not in, and a neighbour told me they had just gone on holiday that day. So I got a pen and paper and posted a letter through their letter box letting them know the situation with my mother and the fact that by the time they return from holiday she will be dead.

I then returned to my flat and I began mourning my mother's pending death. I then went to sleep. Then in the morning I was on the bus to the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary with the intention of signing on the dotted line when I got a phone call from the professor stating that my mother had began passing urine, and this meant that her kidneys/liver were not completely dead afterall, and that this meant that even if I gave my permission this day, they would not be removing her life support afterall. He advised me that my mothers chances had went from zero percent to 2 percent. He then announced to me the small fact that before my mother began passing urine, a couple of born again Christians had turned up at her bedside saying prayers for the last 8 hours.

When I got to the hospital the born again Christians were there, and they told me that they had read my letter, though I do not recall ever receiving an explanation in to why they had cancelled their holiday and returned home. However they promised me that my mother was going to survive.

Next, my mother required a 50/50 tractoctomy, a life or death operation and only I as her next of kin could give permission for this operation to go ahead. Affraid that my mother would not survive the operation I refused to make the decision either way, and the born again Christians advised me to sign my kinship over to them and they would make the decision for me. The decision they made was for the operation to go ahead and that they would be present throughout the operation dressed in medical gear saying prayers. And that is what happened. The operation was a success and my mother gradually began to recover over the following months, and was finally released from hospital after an eight month stay.

Now, after this I did become a believer in a god, though I am still not sure that I believed in Jesus. I also began debating the subject on several platforms, often against hardcore Atheists. To a certain extent the Atheists won. Not to the extent that I became a disbeliever, but to the extent that I admitted that I do not know whether god exists or not, and that it might have simply been the power of love that saved my mother.

After doing a lot of research on the subject, I finally arrived at the philosophy of The Speculative Society, which is more along the lines of agnosticism. My new philosophy became unreligious, but not irreligious. Much for the sake of peace, I stopped arguing about the subject and decided that it does not matter what other people believe, it does not even have to be spoken about. What others believe is their own business, though of course, they can discuss it if they wish to. The subject does not have to be taboo.

It is actually unfortunate that if I was to be honest with the born again Christians that came to my mothers side, and told them what my philosophy is, they would probably denounce me as a Satanist.

Your opinion

Despite my new philosophy, and my personal belief being my own 33rd degree secret, and respect for other peoples beliefs being of the upmost importance, I still find the subject interesting.

So, I would be very interested to hear your opinion on this subject.

I would also welcome stories of experiences that may have made you wonder whether there is a god or not.


It's a moving story and I'm sensitive to the fact it'll seem I'm trampling over it but ... the problem with personal testimony is so many of us have stories that go the other way. Really good people who suffer horrible illness and/or agonising death despite the prayers of themselves or those around them. Religious people tend to try and live with this by putting it down to mysterious ways, God's extra complex planning etc but I'm afraid to me it just screams random chance. You can't have your cake and eat it.

[archie]

I had an opposite journey. When I was at school a kid in my class got cancer. He eventually died. We had a group that the local minister would speak to. I asked him about the kid - how could that be God's will? His answer (to paraphrase) was that it brought a troubled family together. My leaving of religion started that moment.

Having said that, I really admire people with faith. Not so much the shouty ones, but the people who quietly live their life in a moral and charitable way.

[Stairway 2 7]

I had an opposite journey. When I was at school a kid in my class got cancer. He eventually died. We had a group that the local minister would speak to. I asked him about the kid - how could that be God's will? His answer (to paraphrase) was that it brought a troubled family together. My leaving of religion started that moment.

Having said that, I really admire people with faith. Not so much the shouty ones, but the people who quietly live their life in a moral and charitable way.

Some priest. 80% of marriages end in divorce following the loss of a child. God's will

[Edina Street]

[quote]



It's a moving story and I'm sensitive to the fact it'll seem I'm trampling over it but ... the problem with personal testimony is so many of us have stories that go the other way. Really good people who suffer horrible illness and/or agonising death despite the prayers of themselves or those around them. Religious people tend to try and live with this by putting it down to mysterious ways, God's extra complex planning etc but I'm afraid to me it just screams random chance. You can't have your cake and eat it.

That is 110% fine.

You have not trampled over my story in the slightest as I also am not a believer, despite my experience. I am neither a believer nor disbeliever, and I 100% admit that I do not know either way whether there is an intelligent designer or not.

Thank you for sharing your belief.

[JeMeSouviens]

That is 110% fine.

You have not trampled over my story in the slightest as I also am not a believer, despite my experience. I am neither a believer nor disbeliever, and I 100% admit that I do not know either way whether there is an intelligent designer or not.

Thank you for sharing your belief.

Thanks and you're welcome, even though it's more of a disbelief.

[AgentDaleCooper]

Really interesting OP.

I think that there can be a lot of miscommunication in conversations like this if one doesn't stipulate what one means by the word 'God' from the outset, as there probably thousands and thousands of ways that word can be interpreted. Atheists often imbue the word with the meaning that a fundamentalist would associate it, then attack that - i.e. the god that is depicted in the Abrahamic religions, interpreted literally.

Another thing that atheists tend to do is focus on the harm done by organised religion, which is totally valid as a concern, but not strictly relevant to the question of the existence of a deity, or a number of deities (though it is good evidence, IMO, of specific beliefs about such a deity being nonsense - i.e. believing that 'God' refers to an entity that exists exactly as described by a single doctrine)

One way to think about it more openly - rather than thinking 'God' means 'Jesus' daddy', one can think of it as something very opaque and vague, but roughly referred to by the word, regardless of the religion of the person who is uttering it, sort of like how 'dark matter' means something to us, even though we don't know the specifics of what it refers to.

The mistake that religious people often make at this point is to employ a 'god of the gaps' strategy, basically saying that any time something good happens that can't be explained, then it must be God's work. There are loads of equally (or much more) likely explanations for such 'miracles', with much less speculation required. We know relatively little of how the brain works - when it comes to people waking up from comas, it's much less fanciful to start speculating in the domain of (pseudo) neuroscience - maybe a degree of consciousness exists that's untraceable to brain scanners, that might be sufficient to kick start broader neural activity given the right impetus?

An example from my life - my dad was having strokes and seizures very regularly in his last months while in hospital. When I was with him one day, a stroke/seizure (not sure which it was) started, and I instinctively started singing Gaelic songs to him (he was a native speaker from Skye) - this seemed to immediately stop whatever was happening. It was really weird, and I'm not believer in woo-woo, and know that it may well have been a complete coincidence, but I feel that it's permissible for me to speculate that it might have been caused by some sort of phenomenon in the brain that we don't yet know about.

Many religious people I have met have a definitely non-literal interpretation of all of their scriptures - I even met a CoS minister once that told me it didn't really matter to him whether Jesus existed or not, because what he believed in was the message, the stories, the metaphors and the symbols. In philosophical circles you'd call this 'anti-realism', and it views religion as a means of experiencing the ineffable aspects of life, without necessarily making any metaphysical commitments.

The other idea the I tend towards is that of the 'Spinoza God', or 'pan-theism' - that 'God' is present in all matter and correctly refers to the sum of all things. One interpretation of this idea is that consciousness is essentially a 'non-physical property' in all matter, that only gives rise to sentience when arranged in sufficiently complex configurations. This is fairly consistent with my favourite interpretation of all, from Carl Sagan - "we are the universe's way of experiencing itself".

TL;DR - ****ed if I know :aok:

[Edina Street]

Really interesting OP.

I think that there can be a lot of miscommunication in conversations like this if one doesn't stipulate what one means by the word 'God' from the outset, as there probably thousands and thousands of ways that word can be interpreted. Atheists often imbue the word with the meaning that a fundamentalist would associate it, then attack that - i.e. the god that is depicted in the Abrahamic religions, interpreted literally.

Another thing that atheists tend to do is focus on the harm done by organised religion, which is totally valid as a concern, but not strictly relevant to the question of the existence of a deity, or a number of deities (though it is good evidence, IMO, of specific beliefs about such a deity being nonsense - i.e. believing that 'God' refers to an entity that exists exactly as described by a single doctrine)

One way to think about it more openly - rather than thinking 'God' means 'Jesus' daddy', one can think of it as something very opaque and vague, but roughly referred to by the word, regardless of the religion of the person who is uttering it, sort of like how 'dark matter' means something to us, even though we don't know the specifics of what it refers to.

The mistake that religious people often make at this point is to employ a 'god of the gaps' strategy, basically saying that any time something good happens that can't be explained, then it must be God's work. There are loads of equally (or much more) likely explanations for such 'miracles', with much less speculation required. We know relatively little of how the brain works - when it comes to people waking up from comas, it's much less fanciful to start speculating in the domain of (pseudo) neuroscience - maybe a degree of consciousness exists that's untraceable to brain scanners, that might be sufficient to kick start broader neural activity given the right impetus?

An example from my life - my dad was having strokes and seizures very regularly in his last months while in hospital. When I was with him one day, a stroke/seizure (not sure which it was) started, and I instinctively started singing Gaelic songs to him (he was a native speaker from Skye) - this seemed to immediately stop whatever was happening. It was really weird, and I'm not believer in woo-woo, and know that it may well have been a complete coincidence, but I feel that it's permissible for me to speculate that it might have been caused by some sort of phenomenon in the brain that we don't yet know about.

Many religious people I have met have a definitely non-literal interpretation of all of their scriptures - I even met a CoS minister once that told me it didn't really matter to him whether Jesus existed or not, because what he believed in was the message, the stories, the metaphors and the symbols. In philosophical circles you'd call this 'anti-realism', and it views religion as a means of experiencing the ineffable aspects of life, without necessarily making any metaphysical commitments.

The other idea the I tend towards is that of the 'Spinoza God', or 'pan-theism' - that 'God' is present in all matter and correctly refers to the sum of all things. One interpretation of this idea is that consciousness is essentially a 'non-physical property' in all matter, that only gives rise to sentience when arranged in sufficiently complex configurations. This is fairly consistent with my favourite interpretation of all, from Carl Sagan - "we are the universe's way of experiencing itself".

TL;DR - ****ed if I know :aok:

No, I do not believe your Gaelic songs to your father to be woo woo. Our words definitely make a difference, and you somehow had the intelligence to realise what would give your father strength.

Also I 100% agree with you regarding church ministers. I am not going to reveal which church it was I picked up a ministers wife from when I was a taxi driver, as I do not want to reveal one of my customers identities, however when she was in my car I politely brought up the subject of Jesus and some conspiracy theories I had read on the internet about Jesus being a metaphor for the Sun. I was shocked when she announced to me that this was also her husband's belief. I gasped: "but your husband is a church minister", and she replied, "och, you don't need to believe in a literal Jesus to be a church minister".

I am just wondering if we are talking about the same church minister here.

[Pretty Boy]

I used to get very worked up when the 'does God exist' debate came up. However in recent times I have accepted that it's a discussion in which very few people are likely to shift their view. Arguably people who don't believe are even less likely to do so because faith is ultimately belief without absolute proof and if that is what someone requires to believe then nothing I can say will change their mind.

I do find discussion around prayer interesting though and I think it's an act that is quite difficult to convey to someone who is of no faith. I think many people, both those of faith and not, misunderstand prayer and see God as something of a short order cook who is to be bombarded with requests and serves them up on demand. I can understand why people who 'give it a try' at times of deep upset, stress or worry can conclude that 'it doesn't work' when their problems aren't miraculously resolved. I've always viewed prayer as a step on a path to clarity, understanding and acceptance. There is scientific evidence that those who pray see a relief from anxiety and stress (that's a prayer to any god not exclusively the God of the Abrahamic religions). I attended Eucharistic Adoration very early on Monday morning before work and it's a time I always take great comfort from, the chance to sit in silence with a friend. Obviously that comfort derives from a belief in the real presence in the Eucharist, to someone who doesn't believe a guy sitting in front of a piece of unleavened bread and some candles and finding it deeply moving probably seems a bit mental. It's a time of contemplation though, escapism from worldly problems, a chance to ignore the phone, TV and indeed other people for 30 or 60 minutes and just immerse yourself in the moment. For me that provides a great sense of comfort and acceptance. I don't ask for anything nor do I expect to receive anything. I daresay others derive similar comfort from acts such as meditation or a long walk so it's probably not as alien as it first seems.

On such matters of faith I can only speak for myself, I don't have the right or the inclination to speak for others. A rediscovery of faith has made me a better, happier and more fulfilled person. It has helped me overcome problems and failings in my life and the act of prayer has played a part in that. The question of whether God exists in a literal sense is bigger than me, greater minds than mine on both sides of the argument have put their cases forward. Truthfully I don't know and I'm not even sure it really matters.

[grunt]

Having said that, I really admire people with faith. Not so much the shouty ones, but the people who quietly live their life in a moral and charitable way.
You don't need to have faith in an invisible god to live your life in a moral and charitable way.

[archie]

You don't need to have faith in an invisible god to live your life in a moral and charitable way.

That's true.

[The_Exile]

It’s a licence to print money and nothing more IMO. If it brings peace to people then great, but it tends to cause untold misery for millions though. Religion is dying in the western world as people become more educated so take from that what you will.

I put religion on the same level as psychics, ghosts and ghost stories. Everybody will know of, or had, a spooky thing happen. Even although it’s obviously not a ghost we are all built with the tendency to attribute the unknown to something we can explain, regardless of how mental it is in the cold light of day, we need to be able to explain it and not everybody is capable of critical thinking, therefore we end up with religion/ghosts/some people making billions of bucks.

[Pretty Boy]

You don't need to have faith in an invisible god to live your life in a moral and charitable way.

I don't think it was suggested otherwise.

It's often the case now that when religion makes the news it is in a negative manner. Be that Islamist extremists blowing themselves and others up, Christian fundamentalists attacking the rights of women or LGBTQI people, Hindu supremacists causing carnage in India or the well publicised situation in Israel with Zionism and ultra conservative Judaism. It's not a new phenomenom, the Nazis were marching about with 'Gott mit uns' on their belt buckles in the lead up to and during WWII.

Of course much of the negative press around religion is self inflicted and I have little sympathy for those in the hierarchy or those who's extreme preaching fosters such negative beliefs. I do think though that can lead to a belief, perhaps even an accusation, that having a faith indicates a deficiency of character or intellect or worse suggest a sympathy with more extreme beliefs. In reality huge numbers of people of faith use said faith as a guiding principle for good in their lives. Whilst it's not a reason to believe these people are any more moral or charitable, it's equally fair to acknowledge it doesn't make them any less so. Increasingly I see sentiments expressed that suggests a lot of people do believe the latter.

[grunt]

I don't think it was suggested otherwise.I read it differently to you.

[archie]

I read it differently to you.

I was drawing a distinction between different types of religious people.

[wookie70]

I'd probably describe myself as anti religion and pro faith. That faith doesn't need to be in a higher power though. It could be faith in humanity, karma, luck, family or anything that makes you feel better, happier and more secure. I believe humans have other skills and lost powers that have been evolved away but still exist in some. I remember a documentary where an individual was struck blind and started to use sound as a way of seeing in the same way as bats or dolphins. I wouldn't rule out some telepathy or other powers either but I would suspect it would only be a tiny percentage who would possess these "powers" and many will claim to have them to make some cash. I wouldn't doubt some of the stories in the Bible and other religious works have a start in reality. Not dissimilar to that fish I caught in my youth growing over the years or the 50 thousand Hibs fans that were at Tiny for the 7-0.

Organised religion does more harm than good for me. It creates division where none really exists and is often one of the main factors in the worst wee see in humanity. I think most people know the difference between right and wrong without a book. The issue is we are pretty fragile beings and don't like being outside. That makes it easy for religion, politicians and advertisers etc to manipulate and that can lead to large groups following leaders who take their followers far away from the base values they started with.

It is a fascinating thread though and my attitude to those who are very religious has mellowed over the years. Faith is not a bad thing and I have no doubt prayer and contemplation works in terms of wellbeing just as meditating and yoga etc do. My view is usually if it isn't hurting others then crack on doing what you want. I do think that those with faith need to look at evidence though and the current leadership battle for FM is a good example of the tension between faith and evidence on occasion.
Do I think born again Christian created a miracle no but it wouldn't surprise me if love and faith had become apparent to the OP's mum and that and the pain being felt by the OP to make a decision may have somehow changed his mum's health. You sometimes get a feeling at sports events that something is going to happen, there is energy and that is driving performance to levels never seen before. I have grown more open minded about such things and where I would have thought in my youth that healing hands were mumbo jumbo as I grow older I do feel that humans have the power to self heal and some sort of faith or belief may trigger that.

Some really interesting posts on this thread and thanks to the OP for such a thought provoking OP

Just remembered an example from my family. My mum told a story that she was walking to work and she felt a darkness and feeling of doom. This was pre internet and mobiles etc. She turned around and went the half mile home and as she turned the key in the door the phone rang. It was news that her mum had passed unexpectedly and my mum could never come up with a reason for it but she was incredibly close to her mum

[Paul1642]

For me I just don’t understand how organised religion has survived to such a large extent in the present day. Religion has been around since the beginning of man, probably in tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, different shapes and forms. In the early days (it’s believed even the Neanderthals practiced basic faith) it was basically a way to explain the unexplainable. Why does day turn to night, why did my harvest fail, why does the mountain sometimes explode, why does the ground shake, so on.

We can now answer most of these questions through science with only life after death being the main unanswered one (with a state of nothing being the scientific answer which people can understandably be uncomfortable accepting). As we have answered these questions religion has evolved and we look back at the dead religions as total nonsense (such as the multi gods of Egypt, Greece and Rome who all had a god of near enough everything). Why are these once commonly held beliefs considered to be any less plausible than the accepted mainstream ones. The only difference is that certain historic rulers and their army’s / missionaries spread the modern religions more effectively.

I completely understand why people have faith and if it makes them enjoy their life more then I’m glad for it.

It’s when that faith gets pinned to a particular religion and the rules that come with it including certain intolerances that I become less understanding. That and the financial wealth that seem to come with these religions which according to their own teaching should be used to help the poor.

[archie]

For me I just don’t understand how organised religion has survived to such a large extent in the present day. Religion has been around since the beginning of man, probably in tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, different shapes and forms. In the early days (it’s believed even the Neanderthals practiced basic faith) it was basically a way to explain the unexplainable. Why does day turn to night, why did my harvest fail, why does the mountain sometimes explode, why does the ground shake, so on.

We can now answer most of these questions through science with only life after death being the main unanswered one (with a state of nothing being the scientific answer which people can understandably be uncomfortable accepting). As we have answered these questions religion has evolved and we look back at the dead religions as total nonsense (such as the multi gods of Egypt, Greece and Rome who all had a god of near enough everything). Why are these once commonly held beliefs considered to be any less plausible than the accepted mainstream ones. The only difference is that certain historic rulers and their army’s / missionaries spread the modern religions more effectively.

I completely understand why people have faith and if it makes them enjoy their life more then I’m glad for it.

It’s when that faith gets pinned to a particular religion and the rules that come with it including certain intolerances that I become less understanding. That and the financial wealth that seem to come with these religions which according to their own teaching should be used to help the poor.

I think it's becuse there are so many unanswered questions:'where did we come from', 'what happens when we die', 'what is it all for', why is life cruel and so on and so on. I don't think science does have all the answers. I had a close friend who had a deeply scientific approach to study and life. I was surprised find how religious he was. He felt science couldn't explain how we all came about. And more generally people need hope, even when life offers little.

[WhileTheChief..]

I had an opposite journey. When I was at school a kid in my class got cancer. He eventually died. We had a group that the local minister would speak to. I asked him about the kid - how could that be God's will? His answer (to paraphrase) was that it brought a troubled family together. My leaving of religion started that moment.

Having said that, I really admire people with faith. Not so much the shouty ones, but the people who quietly live their life in a moral and charitable way.

I'd suggest that's the vast majority of us, religious or not.

We certainly don't need faith to live this way.

[WhileTheChief..]

For me I just don’t understand how organised religion has survived to such a large extent in the present day. Religion has been around since the beginning of man, probably in tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, different shapes and forms. In the early days (it’s believed even the Neanderthals practiced basic faith) it was basically a way to explain the unexplainable. Why does day turn to night, why did my harvest fail, why does the mountain sometimes explode, why does the ground shake, so on.

We can now answer most of these questions through science with only life after death being the main unanswered one (with a state of nothing being the scientific answer which people can understandably be uncomfortable accepting). As we have answered these questions religion has evolved and we look back at the dead religions as total nonsense (such as the multi gods of Egypt, Greece and Rome who all had a god of near enough everything). Why are these once commonly held beliefs considered to be any less plausible than the accepted mainstream ones. The only difference is that certain historic rulers and their army’s / missionaries spread the modern religions more effectively.

I completely understand why people have faith and if it makes them enjoy their life more then I’m glad for it.

It’s when that faith gets pinned to a particular religion and the rules that come with it including certain intolerances that I become less understanding. That and the financial wealth that seem to come with these religions which according to their own teaching should be used to help the poor.

Be much the same as the billions of years before you were born I'd imagine.

[archie]

I'd suggest that's the vast majority of us, religious or not.

We certainly don't need faith to live this way.

As I responded to Grunt, it was a comparison between different types of people with faith.

[J-C]

If there's only one God, why are there so many various religions with different teachings and when we had multiple Gods like in the Roman/Greek/Norse religions, why was God not going mad and telling everyone there was only him and no one else. Ask Christians to explain dinosaurs, or ask them about Adam's first wife Lilith and where did Cain and Abel's wives come from, well they were their sisters Calmana and Delbora, later in the 10 commandments laying with your sister or mother was wrong, not so in the beginning of the bible obviously.

Most religions are fables and stories to keep the masses under control, we are more learned nowadays and understand the world a lot more, the younger generations are turning their backs on religion, perhaps not in certain parts of the world where religion plays a large part in their countries but more so in many western countries.

I made up my mind many years ago and did a lot of reading of many religions before realising it's all nonsense IMHO.

[hibby rae]

I find there's 2 kinds of religious people, those born into it, and those who come to it later after some form of trauma.

[Hibrandenburg]

I'm a fan of the black cat in a dark room explanation of beliefs.

PHILOSOPHY is like being in a dark room looking for a black cat.

QUANTUM PHYSICS is like being in a dark room looking for a black cat that is or isn't there.

THEOLOGY is like being in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there and shouting "I've found it".

SCIENCE is like being in a dark room looking for a black cat with a torch.

All have their flaws but some more than others.

[Pretty Boy]

If there's only one God, why are there so many various religions with different teachings and when we had multiple Gods like in the Roman/Greek/Norse religions, why was God not going mad and telling everyone there was only him and no one else. Ask Christians to explain dinosaurs, or ask them about Adam's first wife Lilith and where did Cain and Abel's wives come from, well they were their sisters Calmana and Delbora, later in the 10 commandments laying with your sister or mother was wrong, not so in the beginning of the bible obviously.

Most religions are fables and stories to keep the masses under control, we are more learned nowadays and understand the world a lot more, the younger generations are turning their backs on religion, perhaps not in certain parts of the world where religion plays a large part in their countries but more so in many western countries.

I made up my mind many years ago and did a lot of reading of many religions before realising it's all nonsense IMHO.

Why would Christians struggle to explain dinosaurs? The vast majority would give you the same explanation as your most ardent atheist. The major Christian churches all accept the scientific explanation for the formation of the universe, it was a Catholic Priest who first proposed the big bang theory, and all of them have accepted that the theory of evolution is non objectionable for decades. When you consider the major branches of Christianity (Catholicism, Anglicanism/Episcopalianism and most Lutheran groups) all take this stance then it leaves a tiny number of Bible literalists.

The identity and form of Lilith has long been a debate among Judaic scholars and is one of those scriptural words that has been distorted when translated from Hebrew to Greek to Latin and then the vernacular. There are only 7 references to the word in the Jewish scriptures (including the Dead Sea Scrolls) and only one that hints at a 'first Eve'. It's an equally suggested view that it refers to unclean or wild animals but there is little academic consensus so I'm surprised you state with certainty the belief in the first wife of Adam.

[J-C]

Why would Christians struggle to explain dinosaurs? The vast majority would give you the same explanation as your most ardent atheist. The major Christian churches all accept the scientific explanation for the formation of the universe, it was a Catholic Priest who first proposed the big bang theory, and all of them have accepted that the theory of evolution is non objectionable for decades. When you consider the major branches of Christianity (Catholicism, Anglicanism/Episcopalianism and most Lutheran groups) all take this stance then it leaves a tiny number of Bible literalists.

The identity and form of Lilith has long been a debate among Judaic scholars and is one of those scriptural words that has been distorted when translated from Hebrew to Greek to Latin and then the vernacular. There are only 7 references to the word in the Jewish scriptures (including the Dead Sea Scrolls) and only one that hints at a 'first Eve'. It's an equally suggested view that it refers to unclean or wild animals but there is little academic consensus so I'm surprised you state with certainty the belief in the first wife of Adam.


The point I'm making is that many christians believed that the world is only a few thousand years old, as you say some are now realising this is wrong as we can now explain many things with science but there are still many fundamentalists out there who do not accept these facts. I mention Lilith as these scriptures were older than the writings of the main bible so it puts into question the bible as a fact.

You can pick many holes in every religious scripture, most is as I say are rules to keep the masses under control, I live by the rule of just be nice to people whenever possible no matter who they are or where they come from, we're all the same animal on a planet hurtling through space around a giant sun.

[Stairway 2 7]

Religulous is a great watch. Bill mayer looks at the the main religion's, really funny.

The bible plagiarised so many of the stories of the time, it was just the one that stuck and outlasted the rest. There was loads of stories with virgin births, water into wine, 3 wise men ect.

Goes to different places like Israel and Jesus land theme park in Florida, surprised he doesn't get strung up with some of his questions

https://www.documentarymania.com/video/Religulous/

Can watch here

[AgentDaleCooper]

Religulous is a great watch. Bill mayer looks at the the main religion's, really funny.

The bible plagiarised so many of the stories of the time, it was just the one that stuck and outlasted the rest. There was loads of stories with virgin births, water into wine, 3 wise men ect.

Goes to different places like Israel and Jesus land theme park in Florida, surprised he doesn't get strung up with some of his questions

https://www.documentarymania.com/video/Religulous/

Can watch here

I have to say, I found it to be utterly smug and off putting, much like Richard Dawkins' output. Talk about preaching to the converted.

IMO, these people fall into the trap of assuming that anyone who is religious is more-or-less a literalist, which simply doesn't apply to the vast majority of religious people, certainly not in the west.

If you want to understand why people believe something and terminate your investigations at 'they're idiots', then all you've really done is failed to understand them.

I'm saying all of this as someone who is not religious at all, by the way.

[marinello59]

The point I'm making is that many christians believed that the world is only a few thousand years old, as you say some are now realising this is wrong as we can now explain many things with science but there are still many fundamentalists out there who do not accept these facts. I mention Lilith as these scriptures were older than the writings of the main bible so it puts into question the bible as a fact.

You can pick many holes in every religious scripture, most is as I say are rules to keep the masses under control, I live by the rule of just be nice to people whenever possible no matter who they are or where they come from, we're all the same animal on a planet hurtling through space around a giant sun.

Secular Governments do a much more efficient job as far as that is concerned. :greengrin

[marinello59]

I have to say, I found it to be utterly smug and off putting, much like Richard Dawkins' output. Talk about preaching to the converted.

IMO, these people fall into the trap of assuming that anyone who is religious is more-or-less a literalist, which simply doesn't apply to the vast majority of religious people, certainly not in the west.

If you want to understand why people believe something and terminate your investigations at 'they're idiots', then all you've really done is failed to understand them.

I'm saying all of this as someone who is not religious at all, by the way.

:top marks

[Stairway 2 7]

I have to say, I found it to be utterly smug and off putting, much like Richard Dawkins' output. Talk about preaching to the converted.

IMO, these people fall into the trap of assuming that anyone who is religious is more-or-less a literalist, which simply doesn't apply to the vast majority of religious people, certainly not in the west.

If you want to understand why people believe something and terminate your investigations at 'they're idiots', then all you've really done is failed to understand them.

I'm saying all of this as someone who is not religious at all, by the way.

It's not talking about the people who aren't literalist. He talks to Republican senators in the film, ones that use their pish to take away the right to abortion ect. We would all be fine if people used religion in their own and without consequence to others. Unfortunately that doesn't happen we need to point out how daft what they say is so they can't use it to blow people up, start wars, ban homosexualaty ect

[AgentDaleCooper]

I'm a fan of the black cat in a dark room explanation of beliefs.

PHILOSOPHY is like being in a dark room looking for a black cat.

QUANTUM PHYSICS is like being in a dark room looking for a black cat that is or isn't there.

THEOLOGY is like being in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there and shouting "I've found it".

SCIENCE is like being in a dark room looking for a black cat with a torch.

All have their flaws but some more than others.


there's a few problems with this...

firstly, quantum physics is one of science's two fundamental columns, the other being general relativity. It might contain mad **** that's impossible to bend ones mind around, but it provides very accurate predictions about stuff that relativity can't really lay a finger on.
...also, the cat isn't either there OR not, it's that it is both there AND not there...but you definitely have a torch.

The second problem is that for most people, the analogy simply doesn't describe the functions of what each of these disciplines aspires to, unless you interpret them all in a particular way. Philosophy, these days, is primarily interested with the study of semantics, how words refer to objects, and logic. It actually bolsters science - many scientific projects will have a philosopher on board to iron out conceptual kinks in theories.

Religion, for the most part, isn't looking at the kind of questions that science is concerned with - it's more about the emotional resonances of the 'why' questions, not their mechanical explanations - unless taken literally, which, again, most don't.

The main problem with religion IMO is the institutions attached to it - but this is a criticism equally applicable to a whole host of things in today's society. Religion is highly corruptible when its associated institutions have power over lots of people, but you could argue that economics has become something of a secular religion now, with market fundamentalists and opportunists leading the way in wrecking the planet (not to mention the effective slavery suffered by millions of people across the world as a result of liberalism's brand of soft-colonialism).

ultimately, it's very easy to just call people you disagree with ignorant, irrational and stupid, but in doing so, you risk paving the way to your own ignorance.

[AgentDaleCooper]

It's not talking about the people who aren't literalist. He talks to Republican senators in the film, ones that use their pish to take away the right to abortion ect. We would all be fine if people used religion in their own and without consequence to others. Unfortunately that doesn't happen we need to point out how daft what they say is so they can't use it to blow people up, start wars, ban homosexualaty ect

If Bill Mahar makes anyone change their mind about anything, I'll eat my hat. The man is a sneering, smug prick who just wants to sniff his own pseudo-intellectual farts that engulf any actually good points he happens to make.

Pointing out how daft things are just doesn't work either - if anything, it entrenches peoples' beliefs, especially those who have little else in their lives.

r.e. the bit in bold - the only way to stop this is through inoculating people, by raising standards of living, increasing their exposure to the arts, education and science, as well as other cultures (and religions). Broadening peoples' horizons is the solution, not telling them that their own views are simply stupid, no matter how desolate they might be.

[Paul1642]

If Bill Mahar makes anyone change their mind about anything, I'll eat my hat. The man is a sneering, smug prick who just wants to sniff his own pseudo-intellectual farts that engulf any actually good points he happens to make.

Pointing out how daft things are just doesn't work either - if anything, it entrenches peoples' beliefs.

Don’t underestimate human stupidity, especially that of certain Americans.

[AgentDaleCooper]

Don’t underestimate human stupidity, especially that of certain Americans.

am I underestimating it?

[Stairway 2 7]

If Bill Mahar makes anyone change their mind about anything, I'll eat my hat. The man is a sneering, smug prick who just wants to sniff his own pseudo-intellectual farts that engulf any actually good points he happens to make.

Pointing out how daft things are just doesn't work either - if anything, it entrenches peoples' beliefs, especially those who have little else in their lives.

r.e. the bit in bold - the only way to stop this is through inoculating people, by raising standards of living, increasing their exposure to the arts, education and science, as well as other cultures (and religions). Broadening peoples' horizons is the solution, not telling them that their own views are simply stupid, no matter how desolate they might be.

Magic but that's no use to the people of Iran and America now in the real world. Its nice safe in the west here saying more education and better standards will stop it. I'll tell that to the women of Afghanistan to broaden their horizon, although they can't get an education due to a backwards religion.

[AgentDaleCooper]

Magic but that's no use to the people of Iran and America now in the real world. Its nice safe in the west here saying more education and better standards will stop it. I'll tell that to the women of Afghanistan to broaden their horizon, although they can't get an education due to a backwards religion.

or better yet, tell her she's an idiot! :aok:

it's not religion that has destroyed Afghanistan, Iran and the US, it's utterly rampant economic imperialism. This creates extremely fertile ground for religious fundamentalism to take root, and allows nutters to rise to power - i don't think i'm saying anything here that you don't already know.

[J-C]

https://youtu.be/fQTZpMSVyII

Eddie Izzard's dinosaurs and Jesus sketch

[Stairway 2 7]

or better yet, tell her she's an idiot! :aok:

Nah the Talaban are and she'd agree.

[AgentDaleCooper]

Nah the Talaban are and she'd agree.

So where does calling religion stupid come in useful here? What does it actually achieve materially and who does it help?

[Stairway 2 7]

So where does calling religion stupid come in useful here? What does it actually achieve materially and who does it help?

Well in the documentary he made the senators look like imbeciles trying to use religion to push their bigoted views. The more people see the religion justifying these rules is nonsense the less they can use it.

No one says the person is stupid its the religion. They are getting told nonsense and they won't know its nonsense until someone deconstructs precisely why its nonsense

[AgentDaleCooper]

Well in the documentary he made the senators look like imbeciles trying to use religion to push their bigoted views. The more people see the religion justifying these rules is nonsense the less they can use it.

No one says the person is stupid its the religion. They are getting told nonsense and they won't know its nonsense until someone deconstructs precisely why its nonsense

do you honestly think Bill Mahar does this in an effective and relatable way to people who hold these beliefs?

if you want an example of who i think i good at this, Jon Stewart's recent interview with a republican is an absolute tour de force. He doesn't focus on stupidity - he focuses on exposing cynicism and hypocrisy, whilst displaying clear empathy and concern for humanity, not a raging boner for his own perceived intellectual superiority.

[JeMeSouviens]

Really interesting OP.

I think that there can be a lot of miscommunication in conversations like this if one doesn't stipulate what one means by the word 'God' from the outset, as there probably thousands and thousands of ways that word can be interpreted. Atheists often imbue the word with the meaning that a fundamentalist would associate it, then attack that - i.e. the god that is depicted in the Abrahamic religions, interpreted literally.

Another thing that atheists tend to do is focus on the harm done by organised religion, which is totally valid as a concern, but not strictly relevant to the question of the existence of a deity, or a number of deities (though it is good evidence, IMO, of specific beliefs about such a deity being nonsense - i.e. believing that 'God' refers to an entity that exists exactly as described by a single doctrine)

One way to think about it more openly - rather than thinking 'God' means 'Jesus' daddy', one can think of it as something very opaque and vague, but roughly referred to by the word, regardless of the religion of the person who is uttering it, sort of like how 'dark matter' means something to us, even though we don't know the specifics of what it refers to.

The mistake that religious people often make at this point is to employ a 'god of the gaps' strategy, basically saying that any time something good happens that can't be explained, then it must be God's work. There are loads of equally (or much more) likely explanations for such 'miracles', with much less speculation required. We know relatively little of how the brain works - when it comes to people waking up from comas, it's much less fanciful to start speculating in the domain of (pseudo) neuroscience - maybe a degree of consciousness exists that's untraceable to brain scanners, that might be sufficient to kick start broader neural activity given the right impetus?

An example from my life - my dad was having strokes and seizures very regularly in his last months while in hospital. When I was with him one day, a stroke/seizure (not sure which it was) started, and I instinctively started singing Gaelic songs to him (he was a native speaker from Skye) - this seemed to immediately stop whatever was happening. It was really weird, and I'm not believer in woo-woo, and know that it may well have been a complete coincidence, but I feel that it's permissible for me to speculate that it might have been caused by some sort of phenomenon in the brain that we don't yet know about.

Many religious people I have met have a definitely non-literal interpretation of all of their scriptures - I even met a CoS minister once that told me it didn't really matter to him whether Jesus existed or not, because what he believed in was the message, the stories, the metaphors and the symbols. In philosophical circles you'd call this 'anti-realism', and it views religion as a means of experiencing the ineffable aspects of life, without necessarily making any metaphysical commitments.

The other idea the I tend towards is that of the 'Spinoza God', or 'pan-theism' - that 'God' is present in all matter and correctly refers to the sum of all things. One interpretation of this idea is that consciousness is essentially a 'non-physical property' in all matter, that only gives rise to sentience when arranged in sufficiently complex configurations. This is fairly consistent with my favourite interpretation of all, from Carl Sagan - "we are the universe's way of experiencing itself".

TL;DR - ****ed if I know :aok:

Great post - I think your "God of the gaps" thing is spot on. Religion/myth/legend etc has been there for ever to fill the gaps we can't explain. Meteorological, astronomical, medical, take your pick.

As our knowledge progresses the gaps get smaller but there are still loads of them, especially in the workings of our brains which are ****** phenomenal things. We know surprisingly little about how it actually works. Take something like the placebo effect - you give someone useless medicine but as long as they believe it might work and it has been selected for them by someone who knows it might work, they feel better - widely observed and easily provable but no accepted explanation for a mechanism. Given this, I don't think it's surprising at all that something from early memory like your Dad's Gaelic songs could trigger something. But also, there doesn't have to be anything spiritual about it, or at least spirituality doesn't have to be something that science will never explain, albeit maybe not any time soon. :greengrin

[hibby rae]

do you honestly think Bill Mahar does this in an effective and relatable way to people who hold these beliefs?

if you want an example of who i think i good at this, Jon Stewart's recent interview with a republican is an absolute tour de force. He doesn't focus on stupidity - he focuses on exposing cynicism and hypocrisy, whilst displaying clear empathy and concern for humanity, not a raging boner for his own perceived intellectual superiority.

Was that the one about gun control? When he finishes by telling themin reality they couldn't give a **** about children?

[AgentDaleCooper]

Was that the one about gun control? When he finishes by telling them in reality they couldn't give a **** about children?

yeah, after very clearly demonstrating that they were acting in bad faith, as it were.

[Stairway 2 7]

do you honestly think Bill Mahar does this in an effective and relatable way to people who hold these beliefs?

if you want an example of who i think i good at this, Jon Stewart's recent interview with a republican is an absolute tour de force. He doesn't focus on stupidity - he focuses on exposing cynicism and hypocrisy, whilst displaying clear empathy and concern for humanity, not a raging boner for his own perceived intellectual superiority.

Yes I do. I learnt quite a few new things from it and also laughed like f when Republicans and other grifters were decimated. I like the directors humour though Larry Charles (Bruno, borate, Curb your enthusiasm).

It was well received. Yes its one sided and an attack but so what many of us are pissed off with what people are getting away with due to religion, the other side has 1000 times the propaganda

[Pretty Boy]

yeah, after very clearly demonstrating that they were acting in bad faith, as it were.

It's always worth remembering that evangelical and fundamentalist Protestantism (along with the strength of the traditionalist Catholic movement) in the USA is a fairly recent phenomenon and as much inspired by politics as religion.

When Roosevelt embarked on his new deal he specifically set out to woo urban Catholics and other traditional Christians with emphasis on the Christian values of the approach, the help for the poor and charity principally. The rejection of laissez faire capitalism and other elements of the New Deal actually echoed and drew on works by Popes Leo XIII ans Pius XI. It was a great lesson in diplomacy from FDR as he pulled together religious leaders of diffuse views and fostered support among much of the religious hierarchy.

Of course such radical 'socialism' was a threat to the accepted political landscape in large swathes of the US and whilst it's simplistic in the extreme to say the religious fundamentalism that is a force in much of the US today only occurred as a reaction to the New Deal there is evidence that branches of Protestantism in particular were weaponised to provide 'balance' and counter argument to the declared Christian values of the New Deal. Of course people like Harry Hopkins, Martin Luther King and others affiliated to the social gospel movement also interspersed their politics with their religious beliefs (as FDR did) to further their own causes.

[WhileTheChief..]

I have to say, I found it to be utterly smug and off putting, much like Richard Dawkins' output. Talk about preaching to the converted.

IMO, these people fall into the trap of assuming that anyone who is religious is more-or-less a literalist, which simply doesn't apply to the vast majority of religious people, certainly not in the west.

If you want to understand why people believe something and terminate your investigations at 'they're idiots', then all you've really done is failed to understand them.

I'm saying all of this as someone who is not religious at all, by the way.

Is that really the case?

If someone tells me they will ride a flaming chariot to Heaven to meet Allah, and he totally and utterly believes this, then nah, I’m not going to try and understand him.

He’s just wrong and no amount of discussion will change that.

[hibby rae]

yeah, after very clearly demonstrating that they were acting in bad faith, as it were.

Saw that, brilliant interview. Completely tore them apart by using their own arguments against them.

[AgentDaleCooper]

Is that really the case?

If someone tells me they will ride a flaming chariot to Heaven to meet Allah, and he totally and utterly believes this, then nah, I’m not going to try and understand him.

He’s just wrong and no amount of discussion will change that.

I think it really is the case - you've gone "that's ****ing mental, this person is an idiot", when that almost certainly won't be the cause of their beliefs. In that sense, you've failed to understand their beliefs, because you don't know what's underpinning them. Religious extremism is almost always begotten by some sort of humanitarian and/or cultural trauma, often passed down through generations.

[AgentDaleCooper]

Yes I do. I learnt quite a few new things from it and also laughed like f when Republicans and other grifters were decimated. I like the directors humour though Larry Charles (Bruno, borate, Curb your enthusiasm).

It was well received. Yes its one sided and an attack but so what many of us are pissed off with what people are getting away with due to religion, the other side has 1000 times the propaganda

IMO you learned things because you were open to what he was saying, probably partly because his style makes people who already agree with him feel intellectually superior to the side he attacks.

I like that director's work as well - I just think Mahar is a bell-end, with the most sycophantic audience for his talk show.

He's never going to change someone's mind in a million years. He preaches only to the choir.