Always a contentious thread this. Suggest people treat any perceived insults with tongue firmly in cheek.

regards

g.man

Me too, unless you want to be smited.

djchump wrote:

... social conservatism is the cause of homophobia.

And what causes and propagates this "social conservatism"?

FEAR!

Fear of, you know, liking it.

Gonzo wrote:

To blame only religion is to miss the point.

Well, quite, but who's doing that? Leaving it completely blameless is to be asleep on the job though, innit.

Meanwhile, I want to a. get back to mod's post about his church experience, because that was a great post. I do know what he's getting at, what with mum being a priest and all. Have been to church a half a dozen times for reg services in the last few years. And would certainly agree that there's defo a difference in the feel of a regular service to a wedding etc, where people aren't there by choice (if you know what I mean). Although I don't know that I had some of the assumptions that mod had. Anyhoo, I'm tired as fuck and need to post properly on that later.

b. Also want to get back to Ozno's post on the page before about islamic conceptions of God and ish, because that's some good meat to dig into. But I won't until I've had a good night's sleep.

c. And I'll have to repeat what I said about use of words and their meanings. Seriously. There's some absolute piffle being spouted up in here. The word Faith itself seems to be copping most of the abuse at the moment.

Anyhoo, must sleep.

Tempy made me cry.

Tempy wrote:

Anyway, do carry on, I just felt like rambling a non sequitur. I'm sure many of the more thorough thinkers here will find a lot wrong with it. As you were.

I like the sentiment. I think most (not all) of the time arguing about God is pretty pointless, we're unlikely to come to a definite conclusion or change the way we live our lives in any real way.

Tempy wrote:

I can't be doing with it as my Dad is gay and certainly not evil,

Really? How did he . . . y'know.

The ancient Greeks and Romans were bummers though right?

Gonzo wrote:

It's certainly what chump is saying. "Religion am cause everything."

Not it's not. 
Strawmen really are the last gasp of the desperate Gonz.

Mod74 wrote:

I think I probably am. I've always been and still am an agnostic atheist , but my girlfriend has been on a spiritual journey (for want of a better term) and is being confirmed this Sunday. Because of this I've accompanied her to church twice and was very surprised in the difference between what I thought it would be like and what it was actually like. Whenever I'd been in a church up till now they were always empty (apart from the other tourists) and silent. Or it was a wedding/funeral and almost nobody else wanted to be there either. Going to a service that people actually want to be at, and the atmosphere that creates is very different to what you experience on a tour bus. I wonder how many of the staunch atheists here have ever attended a normal service? I've always thought I understood why people chose to believe in God but not how they managed to do it on a daily basis. I think now I understand how they do it much better, but understand why they do it a little less. The reasons I thought they did it have become less important/obvious somehow. i.e. I don't see people desperately searching for something that rationalises unknowns or the promise of an afterlife. I've sat there and listened to what the speakers say and whilst there definitely hasn't been a Jake Blues moment of divine inspiration I have thought, yeah, you know what, this isn't as bad as I thought it would be. These people aren't stupid, they just believe in something I don't, and are..well, just ordinary people.

I expect had you not have been with your girlfriend with her apparent new found enthusiasm for religion your perception might have been very different.

Given that I was brought up with religion attending services every week since before I can remember until I was 18 (despite having given up any believe in god when I was 11/12), I was even an alter boy for a few years, I think of it very differently. Most of the people weren't there because they believed in something, but rather because they'd been indoctrinated into believing something, it was normal and so no-one had to ever question their belief because everyone around them was doing the same thing. It really didn't help going to a catholic school that spends more time teaching you why your religion is right than teaching about other religions.

So yeah, not often you'd to go to a service and find a whole lotta people having great discussions about why they believe what they believe. It's easy to preach to the choir when they've already accepted it.

Now i'll admit, my perceptions could have tainted how I see the services but I have some quite religious family members and I can quite clearly see the power of indoctrination.

Hello
I was thinking of posting this as a general introduction after the OP, but I thought I'd float it here first.  Let me know what your entitled opinions are:


This thread is a revival of the God thread from the old Edge forum which I would link to if it still existed in its 250+ page glory, and kudos must go to Pie for starting it (though I'll refrain from making any statement about who finished it).




That does lead nicely to the point that this sort of discussion is old so many of the points raised will likely have roots into past examinations and while the existence or non existence of a possible deity is not something that can currently be concluded, the ramifications of believing one way or the other (or neither) can certainly be evidenced and discussed to useful ends. Hell, we've even talked about impossible deities, though not everyone listened.




We are likely well educated people who understand how a forum works, and while I am not interested or able to maintain rules about how people chose to post I might point out that if you are planning to partake in the wonders of the God thread, whether a newcomer or veteran, there are some things that are useful to keep in mind:




Someone is likely to disagree with your opinion, it's almost a given that someone will. Unashamedly, forcefully, with disrespect to your beliefs and feelings, and in acrid tones. That being said, they might also do it in as nice a way as possible ... and maybe a god exists. You get the picture. Vitriol and Ad hominem attacks are your choice, and they certainly do keep things lively, but try to couple them with substance as well, on pain of looking like you cannot actually back your claims up with evidence and rationality. No one here will be shocked if that happens, I assure you. I may even engage in some unshocking vitriol of my own.




Being clear is important. Poorly defined points, and misuse of terms lead to misunderstood claims and semantic fallacies. It is very difficult to be clear and concise at the best of times, and the failure to do so has led to the majority of disagreements in the past. Seriously, I dare say 90% or more. You are not the first person to come along as say 'All atheists am faithful because they beleev that their am no god', without any understanding that not all people who legitimately identify with the atheist label actually believe this, or 'All agnostics am just teh people who haven't made up there minds' without any understanding that there are people in the world who legitimately identify as agnostic who happen to also believe in a god. Language is a fluid and evolving tool, and just because you assume that a word means something does not mean that it does, and expecting that other people will somehow magically intuit what you mean when you use a word that can imply something else, does not mean that they will. You are not the boss of language, but you are responsible for making your point clear. If you need to clarify your position because someone doesn't understand then do, and if someone catches you out in a semantic error (especially equivocation, don't get me started on equivocation; rationalizing does not mean you are being rational) acknowledge the problem and accept that you need to qualify your statement and understanding of the matter. Define your terms, or be an obtuse, obfuscating and lazy asshat who adds nothing to the conversation and is likely ignorant of the problems with their own position – the choice is yours.




Logic, get educated about it and be interested in how it works. The nature of the discussion means that conversations tend to revolve around theoretical models and conclusions that can be drawn from them. If you do not understand how to draw logical conclusions from a given premises then you will have a hard time talking about them meaningfully and will likely not develop the tools to distinguish the rational from the irrational. If you're thinking about making a post about how being rational is not rational then I am talking to you. Save face now. The only way we can reach a mutual understanding of things and assess claims is by applying logic to them and seeing if they hold up. People who make irrational claims appear to think irrational thoughts.



Glean from that what you will, and see you inside

Duly noted.

I can berate people for using words incorrectly and then state that people identify with terms in different ways, especially when they use words incorrectly by making blanket statements that assume only one meaning that displays their ignorance of the fact that people identify with terms in different ways.  Like for example here:

cockbeard wrote:

Also can we draw a line between Atheism (irrational faith in complete lack of higher power) and agnosticism (meh, we'll find out)...
I'd like to draw that line through every use of the word atheism where it's used alongside terms like science, ration, evidence, non-mentalist and then replace that agnosticism

"Every use" you say? It would rather seem like you want to be the boss of language to me.  Shall we just discard the people who identify with Atheism as a lack of belief in a deity, and those who identify with agnosticism as the belief that the nature of god cannot be know?
What words do you propose we use for them?

Being atheist means you do not believe in god.

You can be atheist and think there is probably no god.

You can be atheist and think there is definitely no god.

Two different points of view that can both fall under the term atheist.

Oh so it's just about people not wanting to be wrong. That kinda flies in the face of the principles of scientific investigation does it not?

Also you may have used agnostic one too many times, or I really don't understand your post

Gonzo wrote:

djchump wrote:

It's certainly what chump is saying. "Religion am cause everything."

Not it's not.  Strawmen really are the last gasp of the desperate Gonz.

the record here is clear. See your post about social conservatism. I find on the internet, simpletons retort with "strawman" with alarming frequency. Might wanna watch that.

Oooh insult.

Cause I'll enjoy watching you wriggle out of it, here's the post.

djchump wrote:

Gonzo wrote:

... social conservatism is the cause of homophobia.

And what causes and propagates this "social conservatism"?

So me asking you a question has somehow been turned into me making an unequivocal statement of my beliefs has it?

Nope - you're drawing conclusions from my questions that are unwarranted, hence construction of a strawman.

I never stated that I believe religion is the single and only cause of homophobia - so your assertion that I did is false.
Neither did I state that "social conservatism" (whatever that is) is *not* one of the causes of homophobia; I merely asked you to elucidate on the causes and propagation of this "social conservatism" (as I have an inkling that religion will play a not insubstantial role).

So perhaps you could answer the questions, or even ask some of your own if you actually wanted to find out my opinion on a matter - instead of putting facile words in my mouth and arguing against those. That's kidstuff gonz, you can do better.