When Dawkins says its "child abuse" to raise a child Catholic...

Learn something new every day. Never heard the term before.

 

Ther more religous an area in England is the higher is the crime rate? I would be astonished if this would be true. Bavaria for example is one of the more religious areas in Germany and has one of the lowest crime rates too. Crimes per 100000 inhabitants in Bavaria were for example in 2011: 4.969. The Prussians - Berlin and Brandenburg - have a more atheistic population: Brandenburg: 7.896, Berlin: 14.282 - mixed: 11.089. A quote of 5:11 speaks not for the correctness of your empty phrase.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fqy2XTkVT5k

 

What? Someone who is not collecting stamps knows nearly nothing about stamps because gehe doesn't like to know something about stamps. What for heavens sake are you speaking about? An atheist is not able to know wether god exists or not. If he likes to find a correct answer he had to move outside of the creation - but there is no outside of the creation. This point of view is impossible for human beings on earth and all others who are part of our universe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX8gsxMBSxk

 

I don't think a two years old child has an idea what "to die" means. I don't think a two years old child is able to understand the generalisation "all things die" (what's maybe even wrong in case of the universe itselve). And what I would under no circumstances do is to say to a two years old child with a dead Guineau Pig in the hands "Enjoy your life!".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4insqFNx_M

 

Some of us don't like lies to children. (Or adults for that matter)

It's an analogy Anobsitar.

An atheist lacks belief. You are one in fact. You lack belief in Zeus and Jupiter and all kinds of other gods. You're a theist because you believe in the claims about one god in particular. I just don't believe the claims about one more than you.

 

A trauma of a two years old child is a serios problem - not an analogy.

That's a wrong belief.

I speak about god not gods. That's a completly different thing. Very short: The god of human beings, gods and god is god.

I don't know what a theist is. I'm a Catholic. I believe in god and if god should decide that I'm not able to believe in him any longer then I would also stay to be a Catholic. And if I would be wrong in everything what I would say about god - I would also stay to be a Catholic. Bonhoefer for example said once "The god who is - is not" - and he died for his god and his people.

Don't try to tell me what I believe, Napoleon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70xAsge4pR0

 

And lying to them is a serious act. The analogy I referred to was about stamp collecting.

We obviously disagree about that. I don't find the arguments of theists convincing, so I don't believe them. I lack belief in the existence of god or gods.

I don't know if you've noticed but there is more than one deity that is believed in by multitudes of people. All of them are unconvincing to me.

A theist is someone who believes in a deity or deities.

I'm a Catholic. I believe in god and if god should decide that I'm not able to believe in him any longer then I would also stay to be a Catholic.

 

Sure you can al;ways find local areas that go against the trend but it is certainly true that Atheist Scandanavia, Holland and the UK have far lower crime rates than the catholic mediterrenean and religous USA. Ultra religious africa is utterly crime ridden.

 

You aren;t very intelligent so its difficult to explain things to you. We Atheists don;t know for certain whether there is a god or not- Dawkins readily agrees with this position. Our belief is that there is no God. We have seen no evidence that God exists and see no reason to suppose one exists. hence we don't believe it.

 

Don;t be obtuse

No it isn;t

Whatever this means.

A theist is someone who beleives in a God. You beleive in a God, you are a theist.

Why not-you keep telling us about our beleifs.

 

And now you've mangled what "atheist" means - literally the entirety of what atheism means is "without god". That's the entire etymology too - in greek, 'a-' is the prefix for "without" and "theos" means "god". That includes people who don't understand the concept of God, those who understand it but simply disbelieve, and those who actively believe that there is no god. Do you understand the distinctions between those three categories?

Yes, and there is research to show that there's something in the human brain that predisposes it slightly to believe in some sort of supernatural entities. This does not mean that we're born with a belief in god, or that theism is the natural position. It certainly wouldn't place any particular religion as a natural position.

Care to back that up with anything?

This is perhaps the most asinine exchange I've ever seen. First of all, nobody with half a brain would say that "apes created humans". Second of all, the first thing I'd explain is that the concept of "created" is flawed from the outset. Then there's the important thing to note that there's no need to invoke a god. The correct answer is "I don't know", because we don't know. Although in your example, you could go a whole hell of a lot further back than the apes - we know a lot about the origins of life and the universe.

 

And this is effectively nonsensical. What you're saying makes absolutely no sense.

"Other" being something supernatural, or just other human entities? Because if the former, prove it. I certainly cannot recall any such realization.

 

Hi Anobsitar. Are you aware of the ‘theological’/‘philosophical’ concept that God is not 'aware' of tensed facts?

reva

 

Not only this - I'm sure I can also find areas in the bible belt in the USA where - as long as they make no laws against yodeling - I would sleep very well without any fear of anyone or anything.

It's by the way interesting that this what you think what a trend could be thousands of miles away from your own country and culture is evident for you as if you would live directly in an african sangha of the red Khmer in the hawaian republic of Indonesia. Tell me something about the country where you live in. What's the "trend" in the country of the anglo-saxons? Is the christian gang leader Robin Hood still active in Sherwood forest?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxo-7FqTf4c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WjHU9nwEgE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqgHn27h60c

 

Very easy solution: Don't speak with me then you don't have the problem to ruin your reputation by speaking with idiots like me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xj1LaCiZvc8

 

Truth is the fullfillment of love. What you call "brutal truth" is the fact that you like to define who or what I am - and even this is impossible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d89h5jLF0k0

 

I'm aware god is aware - otherwise he would not ask me: "Do you understand this?" and I would not say "no" to him. Now he's smiling for example - I love it if god smiles. Gives me a good feeling. Is this an answer to your question?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHqR4QKu3KI

 

Your suggested to enforce the traumata of a child who is confrontated the first time in life with the fact "death" in the example where I tried to find out what an atheistic education could be and how this could work and now you call me "obstuse"? That's why you are intelligent, isn't it? By the way: We buried the animal in a wonderful ceremony with friends - even the church bells were ringing in the right moment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtuW08ZIgvg

 

Is that supposed to be funny?

 

Yes, you mostly answererd my questions. I too know the 'good feeling' you mentioned, and suspect God is a personal deity but maybe not as personal as I would like. I would be even more ‘deistic’ if not for what I think was a 'near death experience. It happened' after I crashed my Harley a decade ago, crushing my entire lower extremity, rupturing my spleen, cracking both femurs (one open and commuted pulse was gone etc..however the NDE wasn’t anything as dramatic as those on TV, where there is a tunnel with a brilliant light at the end etc etc. It was dark and I heard a ’voice’ that said "do you want to die without knowing me?" No matter what anyone says I know it was God, wasn’t a dream or my brain dying etc. At the time I was an atheist or agnostic. The NDE changed that!

But what I am talking about is a philosophical view of time (there are two camps) and God which ultimately relates to some stuff this discussion touches on. Even though I love philosophy its difficult, especially when it comes to logical expressions (as in mathematical expressions) etc. Anyway, I digress… Thanks for your reply.

God bless our forum~

reva

 

You are intelligent - I am only an idiot. You could tell me for example something about why the Christians in England are more criminal than all others. The state of Swabia - Germany - reacted for example after 9/11 very fast and did not allow catholic nuns any longer to teach children in their nun clothing - what's in lots of cases the same as to forbid nuns to teach at all. Intelligent people ¿like you? are understanding such a behavior - idiots like I not - specially because I know Swabians. Nearly nothing is more far from their mentality than to do such a nonsense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpYvJ03R3GY

 

I would say an unpathetic sentence like "do you want to die without knowing me?" is typically for god. But you should not forget that our brain is "only" a kind of reality simulator - so it can also be wrong what we imagine. We never will know. But from my point of view you make it the right way: To speak about is always the best. Some will believe that it was god who spoke with you - I do - others will even attack you. It will not make your life more easyier - but maybe you will become more livelier also in the quiet moments of rest. God is a nice guy - dont be worried. God bless you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wP8A9rtg0iI

 

People who are professed atheists commit less crime in the UK than any other group. They are generally vastly better educated which is a massive factor.

- - - Updated - - -

People who are professed atheists commit less crime in the UK than any other group. They are generally vastly better educated which is a massive factor.

 

Aha

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQ4c_bVpDMk

 

These two sentences contain so much "durr" that I was compelled to respond. Compelled.

First off, repeating the tired internet darling comment of "So and so dictator were atheists so atheism is responsible". Checkmate Atheists, right? Hardly.

Hitler was a Christian, but you don't see many, if any, atheists saying that World War II was a religious war and blaming Christianity for it, do you? Mussolini too was a Christian. Pol Pot targeted more than just religion, he targeted the sciences too. Not only that, but he was a buddhist, which is an atheistic religion, but a religion nonetheless. Stalin targeted, literally, everyone.

The burden is on those making this argument to do more than just throw out the word atheism and a few names. You actually have to logically show a connection. You have to outline not just these individuals were all atheists but show, with evidence and complete logic, how atheism itself is responsible specifically. The actions these men took were not done in the name of atheism. This is an association fallacy.

So go ahead, make a real case if you actually can, but we're not holding our breath. You won't be the first to balk and just repeat the words atheism, a few names of dictators, and not ever make an actual case.

Now, on to the second sentence. You are correct that science CAN be based on faith at times, especially with theories that haven't been quite ironed out yet. However, it's important to make a distinction between scientific faith and religious faith(which isn't actually faith and I'll explain why). First off, having faith that science will answer questions about the unknown is based on a real world track record that stretches back thousands of years. In every instance where science and religion have met and disagreed, science wins. Every time. There is not one religious explanation for the natural world that has been proven right. Even Genesis, which would have had to be described to whomever God supposedly told would have had to come from God(or his representative) himself. There were no other humans around to document it. And even Genesis is a joke which contains nothing of scientific value. God is the supposedly the creator of everything, gives an account of that creation to humans, and gets it all wrong. That's like Einstein not being able to explain how E=MC2 works.

So, faith in science is based on quite a long history of scientific methods figuring out the real answer for how and why things are the way they are. "God did it" is and has always been a placeholder term, invoked only when human knowledge is at the limit of it's understanding. So, based on this excellent track record, I have faith that every time a religion and science butt heads over an issue of explanation, science will win. I'd bet my life savings on it, every time. Scientific faith is based on that track record.

Religious Hope on the other hand, is baseless and not constrained by the same things that actual faith is. Hope can be nonsensical. Hope does not need a foundation. Hope can exist for no other reason than what is being hoped for sounds good to the person doing the hoping. This is essentially what religion is. A bunch of people hoping there is a God and a heaven. They have nothing but unverifiable personal anecdotes and what usually works out to be a limited understanding of science. There is no foundation for an actual faith. Think about it this way.

Two competing situations. In one, a trusted family friend is supposed to bring you an important work document. In the other, a complete stranger is. You can have faith that the family friend will get you the document because you have a foundation for that faith. The relationship and history you have with that family friend is the foundation. With the stranger, you cannot have faith, because you know nothing about him. You have absolutely no idea whether he'll bring you the document or not and no reason at all to assume he will. You just hope he will. This is the difference between science and religon. One has a history of being right which is a foundation for faith. The other, religion, does not have a history of being right and expects you to believe it's tenets without any verification or examinable evidence. It's a "because we said so" situation, whereas science can be repeated and verifiable predictions made. Religion has no basis for faith. It is all hope. That's all it's ever been.