blonde poker forum

Has anyone else read this?

I'm a quarter of the way through and intrigued.

not yet - picked it up the other day and it's next on my list.  I'll report back for discussion in a week or so!

I've nearly finished it.

As you may guess, he's preaching to the choir with me but he is very good at stating things in a clear manner.

I can only agree. His arguments are to me, most importantly, in a very logical sequence for such a broad discussion. And I'm not even one of the choir.

He does seem particularly zealous though at points though. That is my only complaint.

Read it and enjoyed.

That's actually the major (and, I think, welcome) change in, for want of a better term, 'atheist thinking' recently.

Previously there was a very passive approach taken by atheists. They didn't want to try and convince others to their way of thinking (essentially evangelising about atheism) because that seemed to be too 'religious'. They were content to simply not be religious (sometimes quite smugly, looking down upon the religious). There was also an acceptence that they were 'winning' as society become more enlightened and secular, so nothing more was required.

Dawkins and others (Christopher Hitchins and Sam Harris, among others) have realised that taking this passive approach is not good enough in these dangerous times. The religious nutcases are driving world events these days - they've got to be stopped otherwise they'll lead to the deaths of many, many more people. And the best way to do that is convince the general population of the folly of their beliefs. Hence all the atheist literature of late.

Good post.

I just think the style will turn away as many readers as it intrigues. The writing is almost "religious" in it's style.

His points are more than good enough (of what I've read so far) to not need the zealousness.

I understand why he's done it - I'm just not sure it's the best route.

worth a read for a fristrated atheist then?

Read this a while ago and just confirmed everything i 'believe'. He has a great way of cutting through all the crap that is spouted. Have a look at some of the videos of his lectures on his website - very good.

Definately.

read it and thought it was alright..he is preaching to the choir with me aswell but just didn't like his writing style

To me, not only is religious belief bollocks, but it is so blindingly obviously bollocks that I can't imagine how anyone could not think about it for more than, ooh, three seconds without realising that.

And yet, religion is so widespread in society that it must be being sold to people very well, because they're buying it. Therefore, these same techniques should work well for atheism.

Some have noticed that the latest wave of atheist literature could be labelled a 'crusade' to 'convert' people away from religion, with all the associated meanings those terms have. Maybe a religious approach is the best way to get through to religious people?

Someone who is already an atheist won't get as much out of it, as it's a book which isn't really for us. 'The End of Faith' by Sam Harris is better for an atheist because it examines how organised religion encourages terrorism in a way I haven't seen before, which obviously has great relevance in this day and age.

I have no problem with religious people...Yes I disagree with them but I have no problem with it in principle. The problem I have is with the "extreme" believers..who think they are the only ones that are right and that they should lay down the law for everyone else. Also teaching creationism in schools as an alternative to evolution is VERY dangerous and simply not on.

The religious right in America is now organising themselves in a way that can only be described as extremely unhealthy. they have set up universities that ONLY teach Creationism and teach them how they can succeed in business/law and politics and so change the entire political and social landscape of the US (and thereby the world) something has to be done to counteract this movement.

what Atheists have to understand though is that with these people you can not have a "conversion" chat. they aresimply not willing to listen..anyone who actually believes the world is only 6000 years old can not be reasoned with so there's no point in wasting your energy trying. what does need to be tried though is preventing other people from joining that group.

You're probably right. It's most likely the exact reason he's written it in that style.

I guess for me personally it's juat a taste thing. I can't stand being forced to think something. At times it feels a bit like that.

His writing about the US is both amazing and worrying though.

He's trying to get you to think for yourself. Once you look at things logically and rationally, religion just falls away in front of you.

Yes totally, but he doesn't always come accross that way.

I haven't read the book but saw his series on the telly and was impressed.

I do think there is a better way of going about it though. Telling religions that we are right and you are wrong ain't gonna to change them. After all, that's what most religions are guilty of doing.

Instead, I think we should be asking the religions for tolerance of all other religions (and also atheism). Respect other's beliefs and they might just accept yours.

Can't we just all get along? :)

if anyone's inspired to get a copy get down to your local Sainsbury's - 2 for £7 on all chart paperbacks :D

Not going to church is a serious mistake, especially for poker players. By your 30's, women outnumber men in churches by 3:1, this is the only way I can compensate for the atrocious lack of females in your average live poker circuit.

I, like Dawkins, grew up in a very religious environment, and as he says, it's difficult for a young mind to use logic to see past what you are taught by those who reared you. Funnily enough, Dawkins reckons forcing religion on kids like this is a form of abuse. Well, I flirted with religion on and off for ages. Then I read 'The Selfish Gene' by Dawkins, I dunno, everything started changing for me from then, I developed a growing sense that the religion I had been taught was just a whole load of crap from start to finish. Like Dawkins, I'm actually pretty bitter about my religious upbringing, you do feel an urge to tell religious types just how deluded they are. Of course, to religious types, this seems like lack of tolerance. But if your mate believed that his salvation was in the flying spaghetti monster that orbited Mars, you'd probably not keep your opinion to yourself either....'What shape is green?' asks the blind man: an atheistic/agnostic perspective only makes sense when you start washing religion out of your head. Human beings weren't built to *know* they were built to survive, and in an environmental niche of cultural learning, that means you have a survival advantage if you believe what the **** you're told.
I can see where he's coming from with the whole 'religion is a big cause of fighting' blah blah, but for me it's much deeper than that. People should be liberated from this crap that they're forcefed from an early age, from before they can even decide for themselves. And they're taught by people who for the most part only have a vague idea about the notions (if any) that support their far-fetched beliefs.

p.s. Dawkins is famous for all this anti-religion stuff, but apart from that the guy is a shit hot evolutionary biologist, right at the top of his field. His books are worth reading in their own right, especially 'Selfish Gene' and 'Blind Watchmaker'.

Yeah but church-going women don't put out...

rotflmfao

Not read it but my impression of Dawkins is that he is a bit full on but nuff respect to the man for slamdunkin' the irreducible complexity argument in that ID court case, in the future I could see that being the modern day equivalent of the Scopes trial. I'd agree that atheism in the US needs to pull it's fighting boots on, The Discovery Institute that kicked off the whole ID thing had a document leaked that outlined their 'Wedge' strategy that highlights their political aspirations. To be honest I find this scarier than anything that is going on in the Middle East cos if they take over the whole show is going to the ponies.

It is more difficult, for sure, but I love a challenge. That said, the only decent tottie I've seen in the last fortnight has been 'thenun's' avatar....

Both Bush and Blair admitted to going into Iraq based on divine inspiration, let's not forget that.
Intelligent design should not be knocked though. 200 Million americans can't be wrong, surely? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIwiPsgRrOs

This subject really winds me up.

How anyone can believe in religion is one thing although if it gives someone comfort to have some faith in something then good luck to them. How anyone can believe in creationsim though just drives me nuts.
Bunch of ******* ******* *******

The main problem is how religions just dont tollerate each other and for thousands of years have tried to obliterate all other religions.

I reckon all us athiests should get together, form a cult and go round blowing up all Non non-believers. Howzat for a solution.

Lets start with Alabama

For anyone who hasn't seen it on the BBC..try to get your hands on "A brief history of Atheism" by our friend Richard..it is top class telly.

Flushy for God

Just wait till the second coming........ ;hide;

WRONG, so very very wrong

*what 'Flying Pig' said*

Alot of people fail to remember that for all its faults, alot of the moral laws on which society and justice are based today have grown up around religion, the ten commandments are early writings of how humans should behave towards one another, etcetera. Certianly it is pretty obsolete in modern society, though people who genuinely draw happiness from it should be allowed to do so, whatever modern "atheists" think about it's dangers. I've read the End of Faith and thought it was highly thought provoking, but I think some of the views that religion must be got rid of ASAP is rather hurried and idealistic, without giving much thought to how this would happen or the consequences, pretty unusual from the school of realism. Agnostic is a far better term to use by the way, atheism is a huge profession of believing something nobody is really intelligent enough to have any idea about, nor most likely ever will be. Many facets of religion can be disproved by science, the boundaries of our science are limited and cannot explain everything, we are too ignorant. That said I'm going to read Dawkins because you've piqued my interest, it all sounds rather one sided though, try "Mere Christianity" by C.S.Lewis for the other point of view before we all jump head first into professions of beliefs that only really succeed in undermining others. By the way this is not an attack on atheists or the views previously expressed, I would however love to know how you think you can jump to conclusions about the existence of supreme beings when using science as your basis which still falls rather short in explaining much about the universe.

Faith.

People do not so much have a desire to *know* as much as a desire to *just have answers*. While science cannot answer everything, it does not therefore follow that we can fill in the gaps with stuff we just make up.

That is a really really good post, tragic, and I will ponder on what you have said, I think much of it is true. I do not believe in the judeo-christian god, but neither do I believe in the type of 'universe' that Dawkins/Bertrand Russell ultimately believe in: a universe, without mystery or cause or goal, that is just 'there', from which life emerged certainly at random. If this IS the universe, I'd rather be deluded! Dawkins wrote a couple of books that tried to rescue his project from being perceived as 'nihilism': "the purpose of our lives is the purpose we each give them.' **** off, pal. That's no kind of purpose. You know fine well what we mean by purpose, humans of every age and civilization have had this bug in their head to extrapolate from the here and now to the Here and Now, don't try and cheapen that urge by saying we can just elastoplast it with some self-made 'purpose'. Unlike Dawkins, this gripe I have with him is the same gripe I have with modern religions: I don't reject modern religions because I reject their questions (who are We, where are we From, why are We, where are We going?), I just think they are all ultimately say 'We don't think We can ever find out, so let's drug ourselves with this incense and bullshit faith meantime'.
Actually, science (like cosmogeny and quantum physics) already hint that the universe/Universe may be far more weird than we ever imagined, so I'm pinning my hopes on there being some answers through that door....

Dawkins deals with all these points in his book - I'm not going to spoil your read by countering them here.

As for being 'one sided', well, sometimes something is completely and utterly wrong. I bet you don't read a maths textbook and say 'It seems a bit one sided with its insistence on 2+2=4. I think I'll read a book which offers a different opinion'.

Thats a bit unfair  ,,,, 2+2=4... That will always be, but how many times has science got it wrong,,,, It is forever continually getting thigs wrong...

That is precisely the point. Science does gets things wrong, but admits its errors and always seeks improvement. Scientists never try to prove theories correct (as that is impossible). They try to prove that they are wrong, and if a theory continually fails to be proved wrong, then it is a good indicator that there's something to it.

When Rutherford conducted an experiment which showed that there was an internal structure to an atom, he didn't think 'All this evidence I have collected must be wrong, because Democritus said the atom was indivisible back over 2000 years ago. It says so in this book I've got in my library'.

When religion is able to be tested scientifically, it fails. An experiment was conducted to find out if praying for sick people helped them get better. It was a double-blind experiment, under strict conditions, and the results showed there was no difference between the health of someone who had been prayed for and the health of someone who hadn't.

Science doesn't offer all the answers, but religion offers none.

It did get some things wrong. What alternative type of enquiry would you recommend?

Somethings are above explanation...Somethings do not require investigation....

When science thinks it has the answers, it finds a million more questions...Science cannot defintively say there is no God....It can question the existence yes, but cannot and should not dismiss it....

Continue to live in the dark ages.

Did you get married in a church? Will you have your children Christened? Will you have your children make holy communion and confirmation?

Did you yourself go through any of these experiences?

Religion does not offer no answers, because religion is not the same as science, they are not *currently* designed to achieve the same ends. You cannot argue that in many cases religion provides solace, spiritual fulfilment, call it what you will, some people find happiness in life because of religion, this is unquestionably a good thing. Science itself by its own negative nature has failed to provide any serious replacement for meeting these needs some humans have. Serious religion evolved a long time before serious science as we know it today, sadly religion is overly fixated with its roots and therefore has failed to evolve in quite the same way as science. However many enlightened religious people now appreciate evolution, and do not look to take to bible as the inerrant word of God; religion, despite in many cases being constrained by ultraconservatism, has itself evolved. I agree there may be a limit to this evolution, just as there may be to our own. Harris used this example: "Chemistry was not an "alternative" to alchemy; it was a wholesale exchange of ignorance at its most rococo for genuine knowledge. We will find that, as with alchemy, to speak of 'alternatives' to religious faith is to miss the point."
He soon goes on in his book that one day science will provide a new less obsolete way of providing spiritual fulfilment? Sounds like a modern alternative to me...
Science does not keep people happy, nobody can go to sleep at night relieved because 2+2=4 and therefore everything is O.K. Science is a structural part of human evolution, just as religion has been, while one may be becoming ever more prevalent and important, until satisfactory replacement for the benefits religion provides to many communities has been found in the realms of science, it will continue to have its uses. Science isn't exactly infallible either. Religion is not the only cause of violence in the modern world, but everyone is using explosives...

we got a live one

 ;popcorn;

I fail to see what that has to do with anything.

I am from a Catholic background and was christened and had communion, but I didn't really get a say in any of that. At five weeks old I wasn't able to fully weigh up whether I wanted to be baptised.

What's your point?

Tragic, religion is simply humanaity's security blanket. Something which provided comfort when we were new in the world but something which is to be discarded as we grow up.

We have now grown up.

Whilst you may use your religion as something harmless to help you sleep at night, others use it to spread hatred, subjugate women, inhibit free thought and scientific progress and further their own selfish aims.

Will you go through any of these 'rituals' with your children?

I'd have thought the answer to that that was fairly obviously no.

Again, what's your point?

His point (I hope) is how religion has shaped much of our modern custom and moral value in society, religion has provided something that has kept communities together and enabled people to coexist peacefully. Of course religion by now has largely fallen away as such custom has come accepted without the need to remember exactly where it came from. Evolution. I should stress at this point that I am in no way religious. Any viewpoint can be used as a vehicle for violence, not just religion, it is conflicting belief, not specific to religious belief, that causes conflict, just as a devout "scientologist", or whatever, may one day decide the only way to assert his correct views is to kill all religious people. Nationalism, socialism, facism, far more modern ideas, equally if not more destructive. We are continuously growing up, you may not like it but "people" in their communal sense require "security blankets" be that belief, or entertainment, perhaps a mindless addiciton to poker? :).

sorry tragic crossed post.

This is a must read, hilarious and pretty accurate imho:

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

Actually, his point is the exact opposite. If you bother to read the holy texts, you'll find that their advice on how to lead our lives is horrific and barbaric, and that even religious people don't live their lives like that.

Have we though?

I mean what is religion being replaced by?

People now worship David Beckham or Jade Goodie more than Jesus Christ. I'm not a particularly religous person but I don't see that trade off as a good thing.

Yes attendances at Churches all over Britain have been dwindling for years now but as a society are we any better off? Are people happy?

Some people have gone the other way however. The rise of Muslim extremists in the middle east & Christian Fundamentalists in the USA is very scary

Argument from fat racist BB contestant.

Jade Goodie is a poor replacement for Jesus Christ.
Jesus was cool
Therefor God exists.

Take that Shilpa! Thwak.

I am a Catholic, I am neither barbaric or live in the dark ages... I chose my belief, I do not force it upon anyone else. Nor am I stupid for choosing it.

I really honestly think that there are such a small amount of atheists & agnostics who do not practice religious rituals......

Of course, as I said I have read 'The End of Faith'. But you are simply examining the flaws and ignoring the good advice. For something written two thousand years ago there's alot of decent moral advice. Religion has questioned these violent passages and gone, yeah, O.K. that's a bit silly. Science has done the same, it doesn't make science wrong because Ptolemy got the earth's diameter seriously wrong does it? You are imagining a word where everyone is above average intelligence, obviously impossible, and where everyone wants the same thing. Your views are based on realism provided by scientific fact, but your proposed implementation is not. Everyone's utopia is different, as is every Christian's vision of heaven. Society will hopefully continue to evolve but you cannot for a second realistically believe the world could drop all it's "ignorant" beliefs and become purely scientific?

Do you think if you had been born into a muslim family and brought up in the islamic tradition you probably would have reached your teens, seen the light, and converted to Roman Catholicism?

Lol. Another good point though, everyone is a product of their social background in the main, and therefore views will differ based on our own experiences. Therefore to expect to impose a uniform solution is impossible, religion is actually quite remarkable in its influence and has obviously provided something useful and uniting. Do not think for a second I condone any kind of terrorism, but modern Britian minus religion has hardly provided a nation of peace loving teenagers hoping to transcend the gloomy confines of ignorance.

The uninvestigated life is not worth living. I'd rather live like an informed pig than an ignorant king.

Of course you would, but do you deny alot of people are happy just experiencing their own means of enjoyment?

None of that means God exists, though, does it?

'The Bible has some non-violent passages, therefore, God exists.'

And none of it doesn't :). And so agnostic not atheist.

I believe in a God... I choose to do this via Catholicism...

All religions generally believe in the same thing.. A grand architect of the universe....And we practice it via different principles and methods.....

If you were to have a percentage of the people in the world who believe in some form of higher being, I wonder what the percentage would be?? I will guess between 80-90....

Alot of me believes that religion does more harm than good, and alot of me believes many people take immense comfort from religion. Alot of me believes it's bloody interesting thinking about it and trying to reason with it, and alot of me believes I might as well do what I do most evenings and go and get wrecked and forget about it all and just enjoy life at a simple level. I'm still too ignorant to decide and probably always will be, but I don't think that criticism of people who do use religion for "good" is the way to go.

But if you were a bookie and priced up the 'Does God exist' race, what odds would you give?

Again, what's your point?

Nobody has ever proven to me that the tooth fairy dosn't exist so I must agree with Tragic here.

The last bit was a question... Why are you so defensive?? I was only asking a question.......

What do you think the percentage would be??

46% of Americans believe God created the earth around 6000 years ago, you aren't backed by the most influential of groups. You are not offering proof and nor should you feel the need to, whatever makes you and those close to you happy is good enough, but it doesn't make Andrew wrong that he is of a minority, and it is always useful to question.

Can any body here prove that David Ike is not the son of god ?

Hah, I would say that the likelihood of a divine being, being similar to anything any religion on earth has suggested is almost certainly zero.

I'm not defensive, I'm just trying to understand what you're bringing to the discussion.

The percentage is probably quite high. So, what relevance does that have?

Did you here the one about the dyslexic priest, he dosnt believe in dog any more.

Anyone dare make the mohammed delusion? I think not.....

I think if everyone worshipped the tooth fairy we'd all be alot more relaxed, although there would be alot more dentists.

Quite high... Do you think possibly 80-90 ...lower...or possibly higher?

He'd get a knighthood..............

What is this - Play Your Cards Right?

Get to the point.

and most of them are Muslims so the Catholics, Protestants and the Atheists are wrong ?

Most of them are not muslims surely? China and India...

As Richard Dawkins says, we're all atheists.

It's just some of us are atheist about one more god than most other people.

Most Americans do not know where Iraq is on a map......

Andrew, you still have not answered the question...

Christianity: 2.1 billion

Islam: 1.3 billion

Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion

Hinduism: 900 million

Chinese traditional religion: 394 million

Buddhism: 376 million

Didn't expect that. Sorry Sikhs and Jews and whatever else, apparently you suck.

That's my point on this Dawkins chap, we aren't all atheists, by his very own methods he should realize the very idea of atheism is anathema to what science is trying to get across.

A web search reveals that the five biggest religious groups (Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and adherents of Chinese folk religions) account for between 69-78% of people.

So, what's your point?

There was no point... It was just a question...

There is enough feeling and belief of a higher being for more than half of the world to accept this, therefore it should not be discounted out of hand.

Atheism is a detachment from superstition, a recognition of there being no credible evidence of a higher being...By that I cannot imagine a true atheist...

I have no problem with anyone being an atheist...As long as the ateists have no problem with me being a catholic..

We don't.

Now, why is Tesco shut at 8pm on a Sunday?

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/WhyAtheism.htm

Read this from the link above makes perfect sense to me.

As an example, let’s talk about belief in Santa Claus.  Don’t we have more respect for a child who figures out that Santa doesn’t exist, and says so, rather than continuing to lie so he can get more presents?  It’s a sign of growing integrity and maturity for children to stop believing in Santa.  Similarly, adults can give up belief in a god when they realize that there’s no real evidence for their god.

Providing the said atheists aren't women wanting abortions, homosexuals or people using condoms as a form of birth control ?

Yes it can - Dawkins explains why. Why shouldn't more than half the world be wrong?


I have no idea what that sentence means.

All shops were shut on Sundays, this has mellowed over the years... And it will not be long before it is allowed to open 24hours 7 days a week.

But it is the way it is now becasue the country was/is predominately Catholic and Sunday is a day of rest. The owners of Tesco may not want to open up on a Sunday for 24 hours..

Nobody can comprehend how the universe came into existence, of course there was the big bang that's fairly certain, but again, where did all this come from, nobody knows, and nobody can comprehend, therefore to rule out a possibility by subscribing to atheism is tantamount to all this "there is no real proof God exists", you are expressing a belief for or against something nobody can realsitically have a f**king clue about.

They may be wrong, but it should not be discounted...Only when it is proven beyond doubt that God does not exist should it be discounted, and that will not happen.

You have no idea what that sentence means???

As I said earlier, most atheists will Christen theie children, get married in a church, and are in some way superstitious.

But then you are basing your life on something that has not been disproven beyond reasonable doubt, but has had no proof whatsoever offered for it, rather than sticking to things at least to some extent grounded in reality.

Arguing about the existence of God is pointless, one side questions the proof in faith, the other side questions the faith in proof. It's like the old question about a tree falling in a forest when no-one is there - it can never be answered because the question denies an answer. So you say you believe in God, fair enough, I can't disprove that, but when you say I believe in a Christian God who says you shall not do this, you shall not do that, you shall not do 8 other things, my question is where do these specifics come from, why the belief in this one view. By taking it from the general to the specific you take it to a place where it can be questioned and when it is it is found to be shot through with inconsistencies and failings in internal logic.

Good post. It may be pointless but it is quite interesting, and if it's interesting maybe it isn't pointless...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russel%27s_teapot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russel%27s_teapot)

It would be nice if we could all get along. Sadly,I feel that the divide between each of the religions is only going to become greater.  I am 100% non religious, but I come from a background where faith plays a part up to a point.  Up until recently I couldn't understand how a person could believe in God, but I am beginning to see why it can be a comfort for some people.  We live in an uncertain World and if a person can take the good parts of whatever religion they favour then that is great.  I will continue to operate from the corners of my own mind and live by my own code though. 

The main thing that irritates me about religion are those who feel they are the Number 1 believer.  An example of this is the 'Worst Family in America' who criticise other Christians because they are not worshiping in the correct way. It is hard for me to understand religious belief, however from an outsiders viewpoint surely part of religion is taking the areas that can make a benefit to ones life.  Why does it always have to be followed so exactly?

I am going to get this book from the library next week.

I dont find my belief in God a comfort or hard.. I know where you are coming from with your post..

Most religios people are okay wth other religious beliefs, and the people who believe in them.. Its the minority as always...




 

Spooky, I'd just gone to Russell's Teapot to look at the 'Know your bible' bit.

The Catholic church categorically declares that should someone (especially a catholic) declare that the existence of God cannot be known by reason alone and without any act of faith (faith being a 'divine gift') then that person should be declared a heretic and excommunicated from the Church, anathema sit. The acceptance of the existence of a Divine Creator is not a matter of faith for catholics, but is achievable by reason alone. Unlike, for example, faith in Jesus as the Son of God.

This reasoned conclusion of the existence of God is established through various means, such as the cosmological argument, etc.

The entire basis of these arguments for the existence of God, the facts on which the arguments are based, have been demonstrated emphatically to be wrong.

So the (misunderstood) atheist's rationale goes something like this:

-The belief system of those who declare that there is a God, an intelligent Mind who created the universe, is flawed, based on the reasons they themselves give for that belief.
-The atheist does not need to demonstrate the lack of existence of a god. The notion of god was declared by those who state that he exists, the burden is on those who declare this to provide reasons for doing so. Atheists declare that the reasons given by the believers for the existence of god are flawed.

You, as a christian, probably do not accept my belief that the earth was created by a flying spaghetti monster that orbits Mars. You cannot demonstrate to me that there is no flying spaghetti monster that orbits Mars. Would you declare yourself unreasonable in refusing to hold my beliefs?

I think that most belief systems actually rest ultimately on a flawed understanding of the scientific basis of atheism/agnosticism.

Lastly, much of the declared evidence on earth for intelligent design, for example functional organs and the order of things, life, etc etc, have since been shown attributable to other causes, facts not available to those who brought Christianity and other such myths into being.

Right I am going play some poker...... May god be with you....... ;boltpp;

Yea, unfortunately the minority are often the cause of the problems.


I was thinking more of the many times we hear individuals who say things such as  "My faith in God helped me"  or " I owe my thanks to God".    It is a common theme through every belief system and religion.  It always has been and always will be.  Like Sword says, it is sad we can't all just get along.  We all believe in basically the same thing, it is just tiny differences that cause the problems.

 The non believing golf pro says  " I won this for my Kids " , The golf pro who attends church and is a believer says  " I won this for my Kids and God helped me today ".   They are both the same, it is just a tiny difference in their thought processes.  I know people who argue over these small differences.  I say, let people believe what they want to.

Rubbish isn't it :). Good topic though cheers for everyones opinions, think I might take FlyingPigs advice for a bit now haha. Book should be here Tuesday so Dawkins can be happy at least he's getting some more cash, maybe that will keep him warm at night where God doesn't.

The people who cause the problems are the ones with no respect.

Regardless of everything, stripped to the barebones, that is about respect. Regardless of religion you should tolerate and most of all respect and value difference..


Edit --- I am really going now,,,, Poker and Glastonbury has my 100% concentration now.

FYP, in homage to the late Dave Allen

Amen to that... :)

LOL....

I dont mind him being with you all........

It's in human nature, to its very core, to be suspicious of those who are different in matters that are important to us, and for the in-group to be hostile to the outgroup. People will get on, civilization will thrive, and humanity will survive if people learn to celebrate and concentrate on what they have in common. Religion amplifies the differences. As long as religion is around, there will be war and intolerance, hatred and people prepared to blow themselves up in the name of what they believe, to take out the other guy.
Either you take out religion, or you genetically re-engineer the human race not to be prone to tribal conflict. No other way.

FYP

So can any of you prove that your god exists.




 

Yes, he scored 173 goals for Celtic

hail hail

:)

I can't add too much to this thread, so don't expect proof, or otherwise, of a divine being in this post. I just wanted to say how fascinating the thread has been so far. Contributors have proven one thing at least, during the debate encompassing theological and philosophical issues, and that is so many of our members, with some noticeable exceptions, are blessed with a more than adequate ability to reason, argue and discuss difficult issues. Furthermore, it has been carried out in a relatively good spirited manner.

I think I first came across Dawkins in Royal Institute lecture series, many moons ago and he is "blessed", and the word is used advisably, with an innate ability to communicate and deliver his facts in an understandable and fascinating manner. It is not surprising, therefore, that he became the first Professor of Public Understanding of Science at Oxford Uni. Whatever you think of his "teachings" they are remarkably well reasoned.

Personally I don't know, for sure, whether he is right or wrong. I was bought up as Catholic and went through the altar boy stage and then developed full bloodied atheism, time has mellowed me, I hope, now, I am wrong. I still look for proof of "God", whatever that may be. I remain a disbeliever and, for now, accept Marx as being correct when he talks of religion being the "opium of the masses", for  majority of the human race need a way of answering the unanswerable questions and also need the comfort of believing the is more to life than "this". As I spend so much of my life looking at facts, perhaps I need factual proof of a Deity but that is unlikely unless (a) there is a "further" resurrection or (b) I see a damn great father figure after I die who says "I told you so".

Excellent thread,


The problem I have is with people who claim to 'choose' their faith.  Flying Pig, I can guarantee you that if you were born in a non-catholic country - your belief in 'God' would be through the belief system that you were born into, unless of course at some point you would decide to convert into catholicism that your clam of 'choice' would be more valid.

This in itself can be an argument that one's belief in 'God' and the interpretation of the 'God' is pretty arbitrary.  Like language is arbitrary but its meaning not so.

Basically depending where you are born and into what culture will determine your beliefs. There is nothing wrong if one is comfortable and happy in being catholic/muslim/jewish and so on, but i object to saying that the choice is completely free.

Are you trying to suggest that God isn't british? Is that what you're really saying?
?????????????????

Scholars have long debated the exact ethnicity and nationality of Jesus. Recently, at a theological meeting in Rome, scholars had a heated debate on this subject. One by one, they offered their evidence........

THREE PROOFS THAT JESUS WAS MEXICAN: 1. His first name was Jesus 2. He was bilingual 3. He was always being harassed by the authorities

But then there were equally good arguments that.... JESUS WAS BLACK: 1. He called everybody "brother" 2. He liked Gospel 3. He couldn't get a fair trial

But then there were equally good arguments that.... JESUS WAS JEWISH: 1. He went into His Father's business 2. He lived at home until he was 33 3. He was sure his Mother was a virgin, and his Mother was sure he was God

But then there were equally good arguments that.... JESUS WAS ITALIAN: 1. He talked with his hands 2. He had wine with every meal 3. He used olive oil

But then there were equally good arguments that.... JESUS WAS CALIFORNIAN: 1. He never cut his hair 2. He walked around barefoot 3. He started a new religion

But then there were equally good arguments that.... JESUS WAS IRISH: 1. He never got married 2. He was always telling stories 3. He loved green pastures

But perhaps the most compelling evidence..... THREE PROOFS THAT JESUS WAS A WOMAN: 1. He had to feed a crowd at a moment's notice when there was no food 2. He kept trying to get the message across to a bunch of men who just didn't get it 3. Even when He was dead, He had to get up because there was more work = to do.....

*abandons atheism, takes up Tantrumism*

 ;applause; ;applause; rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao


Post Of The Week, tantrum.

I've read the Gospels, end to end, with my own eyes. Jesus spoke in English, without exception.

ps. Don't tell George W Bush that he's fighting a holy war on behalf of an Arab-born jew with dark skin, born into a poor single parent family from the Axis of Evil....

Pure brilliance Lady T.

LMAO.

Geo

Disclaimer- i did not write this btw, but thought I will share with you all.

Good post.

I really recommend this as reading if this thread has interested you as Dawkins covers 90% of what has been brought up as points here by either side.

I have now finished the book and still feel his "style" is off putting. There is no room to manouvre on his part.

Very good book though, and a fascinating way of seeing things.

Big fan of his work, and of that of Bertrand Russell. 

I honestly feel that this book should be made part of the religious studies curriculum and made a mandatory book to study.  Of course, this will most probably never be the case.

We all recognise the problem of religious fundamentalists, but I also have an issue with religious moderatism as well.  It's a breeding ground for the perpetuation of outdated traditions and 'cultural memes' that are essentially divisive and discriminatory.

You're born in Indonesia - you're most likely to be brought up as a Muslim.  If you're born in Ireland - probably a Catholic.  Israel - a Jew.  What does this tell you?  That religion is fairly arbitrary. 

However, this doesn't produce a benign state of multi-cultural bliss.  It divides, it breeds hatred and differences where none exist.  A Jewish child might be brought up to hate Muslims, and a Muslim child to hate Jews.  That's actually fundamental to these religions who all boast of the 'one true god'.  The idea of living alongside other religions and believers of other faiths is a relatively new and liberal attitude - not one fostered by religion.  Dawkins actually mentions the original meaning of 'Love thy neighbour', and it wasn't intended to mean the same as it's widely accepted now (you only have to look at the vengeful wrath of the jealous god in the bible to see that neighbour meant exactly that, those who were from the same place, who therefore had the same religious beliefs - the others were there to be destroyed.). 

There's the long-standing joke that two men from Northern Ireland are talking, and one asks the other what his religion is.  He replies that he's an atheist.  The other asks, "OK - but are you a Catholic atheist or a Protestant atheist?"  It would be funny if it was only a joke and that no one had ever been persecuted, killed, discriminated against, etc., on the grounds of the religion that was 'forced' upon them by their families.

On top of that, moderate religion legitimises and provides a fertile breeding ground for the more radical thinkers who abuse their power to brainwash the confused and easily manipulated into carrying out 'acts on behalf of their religion'.

What's the difference between a cult and a mainstream religion?  I can't see any difference myself.

This bit I wasn't too sure of. There is a huge difference between the way God is portayed in the different testaments. "Love thy neighbour" wasn't said in the Old Testament.

As for religious moderates, I don't really see the problem. It's easy enough to list a lot of places that have suffered due to religious diversity. But you could similarly argue that many places live in religious harmony.

You could also mention dozens of conflicts/massacres that have started because of race differences, land issues or purely out of something primal like fear or revenge. Rwanda is a good example. If the tribes in Rwanda were Jewish and Muslim of course we could rest easy knowing religion was the cause. I don't buy religion as the cause in half of the examples used by the non-religious to help their arguments.

As long as the believers remain moderate in their views what's the problem?

Yes, people are liable to start wars with people they view as different. So why introduce another, arbitrary, difference between groups and give them something else to kill each other about?


Because you can't guarantee they will all remain moderate. And it only needs a tiny minority of radicals to cause a lot of trouble.

It was, in Leviticus.

I see - sorry though you were quoting hey zeus!

By this school of thought should we have seperate countries? Why have another arbitrary difference between groups that can give them something to kill each other over?

Some people, right or wrongly, see religion as part of their identity. I will always argue (except in extreme cases) that you cannot take that away from them.




You can't guarantee anyone will remain moderate - religious or not. Again, for me anyway, it's too easy and conveniant to just blame religion on the world's issues.

I think one of the main differences is that you have to pay to be in a cult.

In the fullness of time, hopefully not. Europe used to be regularly ravaged by war but now, as national borders have come down, and we realise our similarities are greater than our differences, we've stopped killing each other.

Not read the whole thread - the word "god" in the title kind of stopped me from opening it until now. So would you recommend the book to someone who is religious but can't see things from an atheists prospective?

Babymonkeyboy's mum wants to get him christened and i have no objection, she wants me to be at the service but then she starts getting all funny when i say that i will be at the church for his christening but that i wont take part in the service. She's also asked me to pick someone to be his godfather and again started being funny with me when i said that i couldn't.

She tells me that she's asked her sister to be babymonkey's godmother and she's accepted despite the fact that she's an atheist so why couldn't i?!?!?!?! (it probably wasn't a good idea to laugh in disbelief at this point but i did which probably didn't help the situation! :D)

Interesting situation.  Me and the missus have had similar discussions.  She wants our children (when we have any) to be christened - I don't.  She isn't religious, but doesn't see the harm in it and she was christened and it didn't do her any harm.  I don't really see that as a reason for inflicting a label on our child - and like Matt, I certainly couldn't stand up there and say that I promise to bring the child up as a christian, etc.  (Well, I could stand there and lie - it wouldn't be the first time, I just don't see the point though).

It's amazing the hold that christian rituals and the 'fear of god' that is instilled in many people in this country.  They aren't believers, but 'just in case' they want to abide by the church's strange rules and customs. 

I went to a christening recently, it was a good friend of mine and he's not really religious, but he's following the traditions within his family I guess.  The service was particularly interesting, and as someone who was made to go to church when I was young, it (now as an adult) amazes me to see and hear people worshipping and singing in strange verses to a god who seems to demand constant praise.  The sermon was the highlight, where the vicar (who was very pleasant and seemed like a decent fella) told the congregation that the world of the bible was the word of god - and it's not for us to decide which parts to ignore and which to adhere to.  I wanted to stand up and challenge him on some passages, but managed to control my tourettes. Most amusingly, seated to my right was a fella in a dog collar.  He passed me a hymn book when it was obvious I wasn't joining in - and I told him I'd rather not. 

As for the book, I'd recommend it to all.  Religious, atheist, undecided.  Very easy to read (I think The Baron would agree with this even though he's not the biggest fan of Dawkins' writing style), and only £5 in paperback now in the local supermarket.

neither of my kids are christened and my wife is happy with that too thank god.  ;)
I tell my seven year old that god is made up but santa is real. presents are proof and, until there's evidence to the contrary santa is a good theory.
My daughter loves to sing and when I catch her singing a song she's picked up at school, thanking jesus for her house or the food on her table I tell her she wants to be praising me as it's me providing those things. now, go and get daddy a beer from the fridge

;D

POTW!

See, that's the number one reason for having children - beer slaves.

When I was a little boy, I asked my dad if god existed and he refused to tell me. He knew that whatever he said would be what I would believe to be true.

He said "Make your own mind up first, and then we'll discuss it."

 rotflmfao

corker.

Here's a good piece on Christianity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBZQfAYfH7s

I love the American Beauty skit. Some good stuff on evolution at the end, and it is the closest idea we have yet of how the Big Bang occurred.

------
I agree that the Dawkins books are good, actually I think they are a must read. I would also recommend 'Masks of the Universe' by Edward Harrison, an astounding read: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Masks-Universe-Changing-Nature-Cosmos/dp/0521773512/ref=sr_1_3/202-4649354-5991850?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182855617&sr=8-3

There is plenty of stuff on the web also:

http://www.infidels.org/library/

-------------
When embarking on a relationship I think it is important to make sure you are both on the same track, religiously. I met a couple recently, quite young, with 3 kids. Everything had gone well. Last year, however, she had turned into a total religious nut. You could see the pain on the poor guy's face. Church every day and regular religious home schooling. Statues everywhere and holy water in all the rooms. Despite her husband not having any religious convicitons. Apart from wanting to crucify his wife.

My Dad goes to church every Sunday, he believes in God. I went to Catholic schools and was brought up a Catholic.

Very Siminlar to Red not once has my Dad talked to me about God or religion, he's very private about it and does not impose his personal believes on anyone else. I respect him for this and just wish everyone else was the same.

Let me run this one by you. Your wife's mum is very religious, and is aware of the above arrangement (non-christening). She and grandad offer to look after the kids one Saturday. Then, they take the kids away in secret to a pre-arranged church and have them baptized without you knowing about it. How would you react?
This happened to someone close to me. I would be pretty enraged, to say the least.

I don't think I'd ever talk to them again - absolutely bang out of order.

I was brought up catholic and my husband was brought up methodist.  Neither of us are religious now, and both describe ourselves as atheists.  When our daughter came along we opted for a civil naming ceremony, so she could have her special day.  In place of godparents, we had 'supporting adults' and we chose hubby's sister and husband for this role.  I was pretty peeved, given that we had clearly chosen to have no religious aspect to the day, that the present our daughter got from her 'supporting adults' was a book of bible stories.  To me that was an insult, and akin to me buying their child a copy of the god delusion as a Christening gift :D

Suffice to say I've not read any of the stories to my daughter yet, but if she does pick up the book and show an interest in it later on I'll explain religion to her and what some people believe and give her the facts.  She can make her own mind up when she's old enough whether she chooses to believe in God or not.

There's nothing wrong with the Bible as a work of fiction. The Old Testament in particular is like an X-rated Eastenders - great soap stories.

The fact that I said "countries" is arbitrary. We should have nothing that seperates us into different groups just in case...

Biblically

i agree, and i'm sure there are some good morals to be learnt from some of the stories, but still an inappropriate gift for the occasion I thought.

I suppose it would be like me giving a copy of the God Delusion to a child as a communion gift.

Which would be exactly the sort of thing I'd do :)

And there are only really good morals in the New Testament - the Old Testament has the morals of a sociopath.

To be honest, I haven't ever looked inside book my daughter was given, but would kind of hope that as a children's book it would only have the nice stories in it :)

Been thinking more about the situation above with the grandparents arranging the secret christening - it really would make my blood boil and I don't think I'd let my kids have much, if anything, to do with them in the future - they certainly wouldn't be seeing them unaccompanied ever again.

I am also, frankly, amazed that any priest or minister would agree to conduct such a ceremony without the parents' consent.  A strongly worded letter would be winging it's way to them too.

It certainly was endorsed by the church in the past.

In Italy, Jewish families didn't like employing Jewish nannies to look after their children because they wouldn't work on a Saturday. So they hired Catholic nannies instead. It was quite common for the nannies to whisk the baby away for a secret baptism by a priest or even for the child to be taken away permanently to be raised a Catholic.

In fact, you don't even need a priest to baptise someone - any baptised Catholic can do it. A few holy words, a little sprinkle of water and voila, instant Catholic.

Technically, I could be a freelance baptiser of heathens.

Instacatholic - surely?

The instant Catholics broke away from the Instacatholics following a schism in 1476.

Split pot? 

FYP

It was a high/low schism. The losing catholics were hung, drawn and the pot was quartered.

lol Sacra-ments

I would go absolutely feather spitting mental

rotflmfao


rotflmfao



I'm loving the direction this thread is going!

http://blondepoker.com/forum/index.php?topic=24979.new#new