Paul ’s Comments (group member since Sep 12, 2010)

Paul ’s comments from the Atheists and Skeptics group.

Hi Stephen

no, my understanding is that you can rank as many or as few as you like. If Abdul Jones-Lewinski (Space Colonisation Party) was the only candidate you were interested in you'd just put a 1 for him and leave the rest blank.

Which does slightly invalidate some of the anti-AV arguments.

Cornered rats have been known to fight.

Cardinal O'Brien will say the enemies of Christianity want to "take God from the public sphere".

Yep, i can't argue with that. Although I think that the only thing that makes most secularists "enemies of Christianity" is that we want to reduce its public and political influence, along with all other religions.

i find it frightening that there are enough of those eejits here to make the venture worthwhile!

awesome links, Madge. Although I am slightly disturbed at the idea of atheists taking rapture christians for $135 to look after their pets when the rapture comes! But maybe that's just because i'm kicking myself for not thinking of it first...

and in that painting of the rapture, is it just me or does it look like those celestial trumpets are giant drinking straws sucking up the faithful? I'm sure Terry Gilliam has a lot to answer for.

i will respond to this as soon as i'm able to pick my jaw up from the floor. un-fucking-believable.

Excellent article!

It's only in the past decade that these three strands of thought have developed into a public campaign against faith – but it wasn't the atheists, according to Grayling, who provoked the confrontation. "The reason why it's become a big issue is that religions have turned the volume up, because they're on the back foot. The hold of religion is weakening, definitely, and diminishing in numbers. The reason why there's such a furore about it is that the cornered animal, the loser, starts making a big noise."

Isn't that pretty much the way medieval christian cosmology worked? Disease and disaster were sent by the devil, if someone was mad it was the devil or did bad things they were either in league with or tempted by satan. I seem to remember that started to change because religious philosophers became worried that people would consider the devil god's equal.

(When I say "i remember", i mean i remember reading; i'm not really that old, honest...)

It's something I made an effort to stop doing some years ago - it's such a part of language, and I do occasionally use "Jesus!" as a curse.

It always annoys me when I hear people thanking god for either their own achievements or in times of crisis; the classic one is the god-fearing claiming a miracle when a single survivor is pulled from the rubble two weeks after an earthquake. when I hear them say "Thank god for this miracle!" I wonder why they're giving him a pass on the earthquake and all the people who didn't survive. All part of the ineffable plan, i guess...

True, Andrea - but to be a Catholic you specifically are supposed to believe in certain things - the actuality of miracles such as the virgin birth, the transubstantiation of the host, and that the pope is god's infallible vicar on earth.

My argument is that my dad, and many people like him, are far closer to being deists than theists and yet describe themselves as, in his case, Catholic.

Dan wrote: "I hope this is where the battle of words between atheists and conservative Christians goes: calling each other fat. And making fun of each other's mothers. "

Yeah, Jesus - yo momma so frigid she was a virgin when you were born.

that Conservapedia article (like everything on the site) is so funny! Those guys should write for the Onion.

Andreea wrote: "My beef with surveys like that is the fact that their wording is very misleading. The question should be 'do you practice any religion?' not 'are you religious?' because 'being religious' can mean very different things to different people. Also worth nothing is that recent EU surveys show that although more and more Europeans don't identify themselves with organized religion, a significant number of those who don't are not atheists, but believe in other forms of spirituality. "

I actually think this is one of the things that has significantly weakened religions in recent decades, that people may claim an attachment to a religion that they don't adhere to. For instance, my father get's very annoyed when I tell him that he either isn't a catholic or is an anglo-catholic, because: A) he doesn't go to church, B) he thinks the pope is an idiot, C) he supports birth control, D) he doesn't believe in the literalness of most of the miracles and E) he believes the host is symbolic.

Basically, he's smart enough to know it's all mumbo-jumbo but feels a cultural attachment to the catholicism he was brought up with, and still insists on describing himself as a practicing catholic even though he only goes to mass at xmas and easter.

I think a lot of Britons who tick the boxes for religions do so for similar reasons - a cultural connection, or the vague belief in 'spirituality' - without actually being adherents. While this makes the numbers of believers look greater than they are i do think that it seriously waters down and undermines religious power.

Xox wrote: "So far, religion that with people openly admit that their religion is based on fiction doesn't really bother me. "

if only all of them would...

Interesting article on the BBC:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-env...

unfortunately, i doubt religion will ever die out - although i do think it's quite possible that the measure of a civilised country will become one in which religious observance is considered nothing more than a rather odd hobby (such as is, i believe, the case in many of the Scandinavian countries)

----------------------

i always make far too much pudding mix, and use the remainder for pancakes. an ex of mine used to mix tomato ketchup into the pudding batter, which made a very tasty, if odd and rather sweet and heavy, pudding.

"...Thomas, who is the executor and sole beneficiary of Seidman’s will..."

this sounds like an episode of Law and Order

Allan wrote: "Data from the 2006 Canada census was compiled with software and hardware sourced from Lockheed Martin the massive U.S. Weapons giant. (courtesy of Canada's current hard right minority government) ..."

Lockheed Martin are running the England and Wales census, too. I would like to say that coincidentally we also have a minority right wing government - although I suspect that the deal was signed by the previous, overly-enamored-with-big-business Labour government.

(and for a truly great Yorkshire pudding, add a teaspoon of English mustard into the batter mix. trust me on this one)

Completely. I've never heard of credible evidence to support 'past lives' experiences. People have incredible imaginations and can pick up on tiny clues, verbal and non verbal, from the interviewer to fill in details. Which is why the police are supposed to to adhere to such rigorous interview techniques, and most modern legal systems consider even a detailed confession worthless without physical evidence to corroborate it.

Thanks, Dutch. I think perhaps people here had given a less than direct response because the word "soul" seems so loaded - I've had conversations with religionists who fall back on saying things like "yes, but none of your science explains the soul!" Belief in a soul seems to be one of the great irreconcilable divides between those with religion and those without.

Scott wrote: "We are but electricity running around in an organic processor. Once that stops, that's it."

And please allow me to preempt the response "Is that all?"

Why should "we" be anything "more" than incredibly complex electrical (and chemical) connections between millions of neurons, which are formed by the interaction of millions of years genetic heritage and the environment in which we live. Imaging can not show neural pathways working when people perform certain tasks (speaking, remembering, playing music, etc, etc) but can show that practicing actions makes new pathways form and strengthen.

Surely the idea of a soul developed to explain people's personalities before we had any comprehension of how a small, squishy organ like the brain could generate thoughts, feelings and passions (although to many cultures it is obvious that this is where we resided, I guess because "you" see out from behind your eyes) but probably also because they had witnessed the effects of organic brain damage. I personally have never understood how a soul differs from our personality, and there is a massive amount of evidence that all of our personality is generated from our brain - such as people who have received brain damage and undergo a change in character, like the famous Phineas Gage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_...

If we have a soul separate from our bodies that is immortal, what form of our personality does it take? Even apart from brain damage we constantly change through our lives, so is it us at age five, or ten, or twenty, fifty, or seventy or whenever we happen to die? What an appalling thought, as so many of us now die ravaged by the brain diseases of old age.

Many (especially "new age") religious people will these days quote the axiom that "energy cannot be destroyed or created", as though this explains anything at all; it is not simply energy that makes our minds, but the pattern that this energy takes. When you burn a piece of wood you are releasing solar and chemical energy that has been stored by the tree over years of growth, and in burning the wood heats the medium about it and this dissipates into the wider universe (for a good demonstration of where this energy goes, pour a cup of hot water into the sea). When a fire goes out it is lost because its pattern - the burning chemicals of the wood - are dissipated; there is no "ghost" or "soul" of the fire (although to many animist religions it is as obvious that there is as that humans have soul to a christian).

So, "what is a soul made up of?" "What happens to us when we die?" The patterns of electrical and chemical energy in our brains cease. Within a few minutes the neurons themselves begin to decay (no point freezing your head, I'm afraid), and we cease to exist. Perhaps religions should be more concerned with this than with souls.

However, the consequences of our actions do not end. Lives we have touched through actions and words spread like ripples on water. Both good and bad effects of what we have done in our lives will affect people for years - or centuries, depending on the magnitude of our actions. You also go on for awhile in the memories of others, if you care about such things.

But I can do no better than the quote Mark Twain:

"I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it."

Bravo! and excellent review.

to be fair, i think if you're surrounded by a support structure - family, church, culture and even the state - which acts as though they are not only true but THE MOST IMPORTANT THING EVER then it takes quite a strong personality to break away from that.

i also think quite a lot of rubbish is talked about the community provided by church. i think the community is provided by more than that, by the wider culture, and when people bemoan the loss of community and cite a binding religion i think they're missing the point.

and in any case, at least some of the community spirit is the tribal us-and-them mentality - see Belfast, Glasgow, Liverpool, Kosovo