Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

There is plenty of evidence, Floo.

Where?

[Alan Burns]

So let me amend that to: it meets no rational person's criterion of evidence.

So are you suggesting that every Christian is irrational in their thinking?

[BeRational]

So are you suggesting that every Christian is irrational in their thinking?

On the topic of Christianity, absolutely yes.

Are you rational when you evaluate the claims of Thor or Zeus, I would expect so.

[Nearly Sane]

So are you suggesting that every Christian is irrational in their thinking?

I'd go further, we all are.

[torridon]

So are you suggesting that every Christian is irrational in their thinking?

So are you suggesting that every Muslim is irrational in their thinking?

[ippy]

There is plenty of evidence, Floo.  It is up to you whether you accept it or reject it.

Funny Alan, when challenged none of you godheads can ever come up with this evidence you keep on saying you have.

The next thing we get after that is that somehow there are some of us that have some kind of superior comprehension of the world about us then followed by crude and rather unsubtle blunt hints that the spiritual can only be appreciated by believers in one or the other of the various religions.

The other mystery is where people like you say things like, "There is plenty of evidence, Floo, It is up to you whether you accept it or reject it", it'd be good if we were presented with the said evidence in the first place so that we could accept it or reject it.

You're a fraud living in cloud cuckoo land Alan and I don't see that there's a lot of hope for you and yours.

ippy 

[Brownie]

Ippy said:
The next thing we get after that is that somehow there are some of us that have some kind of superior comprehension of the world about us then followed by crude and rather unsubtle blunt hints that the spiritual can only be appreciated by believers in one or the other of the various religions.


Ippy, I do not believe that any of us has a hotline to God.  For those of us who believe in God there are times when we are aware of His guidance - even his protection - but it isn't something we can prove, no doubt it can be explained away rationally and it doesn't necessarily make us special.  So no believer should be arrogant about their faith.  I feel very sorry that so many have experienced that sort of attitude from Christians.  The ''I have something you don't have'', sort of thing.  Often accompanied by a patronising smile.  Very off putting indeed.  Thankfully not every believer does that.

[floo]

Funny Alan, when challenged none of you godheads can ever come up with this evidence you keep on saying you have.

The next thing we get after that is that somehow there are some of us that have some kind of superior comprehension of the world about us then followed by crude and rather unsubtle blunt hints that the spiritual can only be appreciated by believers in one or the other of the various religions.

The other mystery is where people like you say things like, "There is plenty of evidence, Floo, It is up to you whether you accept it or reject it", it'd be good if we were presented with the said evidence in the first place so that we could accept it or reject it.

You're a fraud living in cloud cuckoo land Alan and I don't see that there's a lot of hope for you and yours.

ippy

There is no evidence that is verifiable. If there was we would all be believers.

[SusanDoris]

Brownie

It sounds as if  you believe in this God then, without one single fact to support the  belief. As quite a few of us have said before, one single fact would, ata stroke, turn all atheists into believers.

[Nearly Sane]

There is no evidence that is verifiable. If there was we would all be believers.

There are those who don't believe in the moon landings, though there is evidence for them. Or that Shakespeare didn't write the plays, though there is evidence for that. And there are such things as hung juries. So it would appear that your statement is evidentially wrong.

[floo]

Assuming god exists, I can't understand why it doesn't make its existence beyond any doubt. As an apparently omnipotent deity that should be easy peasy to achieve.

[Maeght]

Brownie

It sounds as if  you believe in this God then, without one single fact to support the  belief. As quite a few of us have said before, one single fact would, ata stroke, turn all atheists into believers.

I don't think that would actually happen.

[Brownie]

It doesn't bother me whether people are atheist, agnostic or believers.  Not because I don't care about them, before someone says that.  I just think people have to find their own way in this life and not have pressure put on them.  I don't like pressure put on me, never did, to believe or not believe in a certain way.  Made me run a mile.

[floo]

It doesn't bother me whether people are atheist, agnostic or believers.  Not because I don't care about them, before someone says that.  I just think people have to find their own way in this life and not have pressure put on them.  I don't like pressure put on me, never did, to believe or not believe in a certain way.  Made me run a mile.

Same here.

[BeRational]

It doesn't bother me whether people are atheist, agnostic or believers.  Not because I don't care about them, before someone says that.  I just think people have to find their own way in this life and not have pressure put on them.  I don't like pressure put on me, never did, to believe or not believe in a certain way.  Made me run a mile.

I am and agnostic atheist.

An agnostic is not someone who is not sure, it is not a half way between theist and atheist.

[floo]

I am and agnostic atheist.

An agnostic is not someone who is not sure, it is not a half way between theist and atheist.

I am an agnostic because no one can be 100% sure no deity exists.

[ippy]

It doesn't bother me whether people are atheist, agnostic or believers.  Not because I don't care about them, before someone says that.  I just think people have to find their own way in this life and not have pressure put on them.  I don't like pressure put on me, never did, to believe or not believe in a certain way.  Made me run a mile.

I appreciate your post Brownie, the main thing that annoys me more than anything else about the religious is as I have said before it's the dinging this religious stuff into the heads of the very young children before they achieve the ability to challenge, which  averages out around the age of seven.

Alan is like when you see stones sticking up in the middle of a fast flowing river, their's always a few, I can live with that.

The atheist approach is to encourage very young children to think for themselves in any suitable way that fits in with whatever their age happens to be.

It seems to me the religious equivalent is to ding in dogma as soon as possible and as though they're doing these very vulnerable young children a favour, I think the atheist approach is of a far higher ethical and moral standing compared the the average religious minded Joe, on this particular point.

I still can't see any rational reason to believe in these so obviously man made god ideas, there is one way I and I guess would make most other atheists change their minds, the odds on that well, what do you think Brownie?

ippy

 

[ippy]

There are those who don't believe in the moon landings, though there is evidence for them. Or that Shakespeare didn't write the plays, though there is evidence for that. And there are such things as hung juries. So it would appear that your statement is evidentially wrong.

How about this then N S, "There is no evidence for religious beliefs that is verifiable, If there were, the very large majority of people that are non-believers at the moment would become believers", (Is that precise enough)?

Everybody else almost to a person, I am sure, understood what Floo was expressing, I mostly agree with your points of view but I really can't see why you seem to have this need to be so ultra precise, this post of yours is quite a good example of this tendency of yours, to be excessively precise.

ippy

[jjohnjil]

I appreciate your post Brownie, the main thing that annoys me more than anything else about the religious is as I have said before it's the dinging this religious stuff into the heads of the very young children before they achieve the ability to challenge, which  averages out around the age of seven.

Alan is like when you see stones sticking up in the middle of a fast flowing river, their's always a few, I can live with that.

The atheist approach is to encourage very young children to think for themselves in any suitable way that fits in with whatever their age happens to be.

It seems to me the religious equivalent is to ding in dogma as soon as possible and as though they're doing these very vulnerable young children a favour, I think the atheist approach is of a far higher ethical and moral standing compared the the average religious minded Joe, on this particular point.

I still can't see any rational reason to believe in these so obviously man made god ideas, there is one way I and I guess would make most other atheists change their minds, the odds on that well, what do you think Brownie?

ippy

 

I agree with you about the very young being conditioned to be Christian here - and Muslim in other parts of the world - before they can rationalise for themselves, but those who were so conditioned as children must find it very hard to think (to them) the impossible.

It must be far harder than trying to give up fags, drink or other drugs because their beliefs are so much more comforting than our way of thinking.

I lost my only brother when I was eleven - on Friday the 13th.  Even now at 81, I worry when I go out on that particular day.  I know it is just another day and the date means nothing at all, but that makes no difference to how my brain reacts to it.  It must be exactly the same to religious believers, ippy, so I think you have to make allowance for the fact that they were indoctrinated and you wasn't.   

[Nearly Sane]

How about this then N S, "There is no evidence for religious beliefs that is verifiable, If there were, the very large majority of people that are non-believers at the moment would become believers", (Is that precise enough)?

Everybody else almost to a person, I am sure, understood what Floo was expressing, I mostly agree with your points of view but I really can't see why you seem to have this need to be so ultra precise, this post of yours is quite a good example of this tendency of yours, to be excessively precise.

ippy

Ah, correct is excessively precise in your world. You atheists are just so unable to take criticism. Have a zwieback!

[ippy]

I agree with you about the very young being conditioned to be Christian here - and Muslim in other parts of the world - before they can rationalise for themselves, but those who were so conditioned as children must find it very hard to think (to them) the impossible.

It must be far harder than trying to give up fags, drink or other drugs because their beliefs are so much more comforting than our way of thinking.

I lost my only brother when I was eleven - on Friday the 13th.  Even now at 81, I worry when I go out on that particular day.  I know it is just another day and the date means nothing at all, but that makes no difference to how my brain reacts to it.  It must be exactly the same to religious believers, ippy, so I think you have to make allowance for the fact that they were indoctrinated and you wasn't.

Jjohn, yes I can empathise with that, losing someone close is no small matter.

It's breaking the circle that's the difficulty with this, the indoctrinated are as a part of their indoctrination persuaded to indoctrinate the next lot with their locked in indoctrinated ideas, fortunately indoctrination will only ever work on a percentage of people and now with all of our accumulated and easily acquired knowledge combined with all of the world on the other end of a keyboard etc., is making life for these would be indoctrinators, the likes of the Alans of this world, far more difficult.

ippy         

[ippy]

Ah, correct is excessively precise in your world. You atheists are just so unable to take criticism. Have a zwieback!

Thank you N S for yet another example, you make my point for me.

ippy

[jjohnjil]

There are those who don't believe in the moon landings, though there is evidence for them. Or that Shakespeare didn't write the plays, though there is evidence for that. And there are such things as hung juries. So it would appear that your statement is evidentially wrong.

I wonder what it would take to convince the average atheist if JC did return (assuming he came once before).

I, for one, would be very sceptical because of the fantastic illusions such as David Copperfield can orchestrate. 

As Shaker says, if he was just another Billy Graham type character none of us would even listen.

[Brownie]

Ippy, don't you think religious indoctrination of children is dying out now?  It certainly is in schools where kids are taught about religion and ethics but not told, ''This is how it is''.

I didn't come from a religious-church background like floo, my parents didn't go to church except for weddings, I did however receive Christian religious education at school and I liked it.  I loved the Bible stories, drew pictures inspired by them and remember we used to 'play', ie act out, some of the stories.  Then I came home and thought no more about it, it was just interesting stuff on the same level as English Literature and some History, appealing to my imagination which was pictorial and colourful.   So - I suppose I was taught about the Bible and felt that I knew, and liked, Jesus but there was no pressure on me to join a church or take it any further than that.  It would have been wonderful to learn about other faiths, what a store of knowledge I'd have had at a young age but I had to do my own research on them when I was grown up.

Now I can't remember what I was intending to say.  I'm sure I didn't mean to talk all about me  .  I got carried away, sorry  .

Oh yes, you said it was wrong to indoctrinate kids and I agree with you, I don't think I was indoctrinated, though I knew about religion, and I certainly didn't indoctrinate mine.  It's far better for children to find things out for themselves and we have to respect their right to have their own ideas and make their own decisions.

I've known very few people of my age who have forced beliefs onto their kids.  Those that do are the exceptions and they usually belong to a narrow and strict belief system or they are Catholics who have always been told to bring their children up in the faith.  However most Catholics that I've known haven't pushed their kids that much, especially if they were so pushed themselves.

The Church no longer has a hold on communities in this country.  It's a different world, and a better one.

[Nearly Sane]

Thank you N S for yet another example, you make my point for me.

ippy

And you mine. You are hopelessly biased and use double standards .