Comments by heymrrain

Comment #12361 by heymrrain on December 11, 2006 at 3:45 pm

I can't help thinking that all this talk is fairly futile as far as dyed-in-the-wool 'faith-heads' go.

Every time a religious person is faced with testable scientific fact, their answer is the same. God did it.

If they accept evolution - God created evolution.
If they accept the earth as being 4.5 billion years old - God created it then.
If they accept inconsistencies in the bible - God did it to test our faith.
If they accept that God allows bad things to happen in the world - God is testing our faith.
Presumably, if / when life is found elsewhere in the universe, the answer will simply be that God created that too.

It all boils down to the same thing. None of which is remotely scientific.

It's frustrating, but true that many apologists simply view the situation as one where, unless science can definitively disprove the existence of God, then the only alternative left is that God exists.

And even if science can prove that life can come about without the intervention of a God, God put all the necessary things in place for this to happen.

For the most part, this discussion is an intellectual desert, but it does serve to highlight the essence of the apologist's position, and that is a position of 'you can't definitevely prove the non-existence of God, therefore God exists'.

And that clarity is, in my opinion, as welcome as it is frustrating. It highlights the intellectual dishonesty present in most of the contributors (with one or two notable exceptions!).

And I think that it does go to show that a good scientific education, from a very young age, will eventually yield results for atheists / secular humanists.

It is a straight battle between fantasy and measurable, testable reality.

I would like to think that, eventually, truth will win. The closed minds of many are beyond opening.

There will be some who have been brought up in religion who will reject it, but, in truth, in the open minds of the young is where this battle needs to be fought.

Science can fight this battle with fact and provable theories. Religion has only fantasy and scare tactics.

At the moment, numbers may favour the religious, but science occupies the intellectual high ground.

A scientific and balanced education, based in the real world, is the true enemy of religion.

Let's hope education wins.

2. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #11922 by heymrrain on December 8, 2006 at 7:48 am

David, I did enjoy my lunch, thank you.

I apologise for my comparison of the bible with other books. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but your reply suggests that you may be a biblical literalist - if that is the case I will bear that in mind, and if not, I'm sure you'll correct me.

And I don't dismiss the Gospels out of hand, as you suggest I do. However, I also don't judge them as 'good historical evidence' as you clearly do.

Many fictional books nowadays are based in and around real places, sometimes involving real people, and real events. That doesn't mean that they are a good historical evidence of something that actually happened.

Furthermore, we know from the sustainability of modern 'urban myths' that many people hold things true because they have been told them. These things need not have happened long ago. That does not mean that they are true.

Just because a story is presented as non-fiction, does not mean that it is true (the film 'Fargo' being a memorable example for those who like fims!)

People may write about things as if they're true simply because they believe that to be the case.

The Gospels may or may not have been written by people who believed that what they were writing was true. That doesn't make it so.

3. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #11900 by heymrrain on December 8, 2006 at 4:46 am

David, I read your latest piece with great interest, but I have to say, also, with increasing amusement. I'm sure someone else on here with more time than I will address all the inconsistencies and plain assumptions in your reasoning.

However, as a starting point, I did enjoy the following:

"You [Richard] then go on to declare "In any case, as I said, there is no good historical evidence that he ever thought he was divine";"

You then disabuse Richard by saying "The historical evidence for the claims that Jesus made is quite clear. The Gospels make it explicit."

If your standard of 'good historical evidence' is simply something that is written in the bible, then that really is quite pathetic.

I may as well contend that there is good historical evidence of the existence of fairies because I read it in Peter Pan, or that there is good historical evidence of Hobbits because I have read Tolkien.

For someone who has bothered to write as long a piece as yours on this, I find this and many more of your arguments laughably weak.

I'm sure others will cover some more here, but it's time for my lunch!

4. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #11758 by heymrrain on December 7, 2006 at 5:56 am

I think maybe some people are being a little unfair on Tom here. He put forward his point of view, and asked some logical questions from someone holding that point of view.

If he genuinely wants to learn about what the beliefs (and I don't mean supernatural, in case someone misquotes me!) of atheists are and why they hold those beliefs, then I can only see that as a good thing.

Bear in mind, also that he has said that he is only 16, and by the sounds of it has been brought up in a religious family.

To accuse him of being stupid or ignorant is to ignore the fact that he may not have had exposure to the ideas and beliefs of any other group than that to which he and his family belong.

I have no truck with religious people being on here. Mark raised the question of whether RD's position on debating creatiionists has changed. I don't really see how that matters. Whether he debates with them or not is his prerogative. People do not come to this site expecting to blindly follow everything RD says and does.

I am quite happy to discuss my atheistic position with someone who holds the diametrically oppsed view. My one proviso is that it is done in a logical and rational manner.

To Mark and Tom, I am sorry if any insults have been directed at you. I think all people, religious or not, deserve the right to put their views forward on here, and provided they do not resort simply to 'The Bible says is so you're wrong' type arguments, then they deserve to be treated respectfully.

However, once certain boundaries are crossed, specifically deserting logic and reason in your arguments, then you're on your own!

Unfortunately, the experience of most on here is that it doesn't take long for the religious to abandon logic and reason! I pray (in a non-religious sense!) for that to change...

5. When Atheists Have Their Say (5 Letters)

Comment #11646 by heymrrain on December 6, 2006 at 7:56 am

David, it would seem that you reject most of what the average person (whomever he or she is, probably he) considers as religion, or at least the concomitants of believing in the commonest forms of religion.

So, a God that cares about humans is out. A God that is interested in prayers is out. A God that comforts people is out. A God that cares whether people believe in him or not is out. An afterlife is out.

You seem to disagree with mainstream religion on many points, and, presumably (forgive me if I'm wrong) feel that its followers are woefully misguided in many of their beliefs?

It seems we have much in common, although I am an atheist and you are a theist. Indeed it would seem to me that you have more in common with most atheists than with most theists, but I could be mistaken. I accept that the reasons for reaching your conclusions are different to mine, however, in many cases, although by no means all, the conclusions are similar, if not the same.

Do you spend as much time trying to put your viewpoint forward to other theists as you do to atheists?

I must admit that I am intrigued though, by some of, what you put forward as your 'knowledge'. For example, 'God simply has reached an unemotional objective conclusion that the human experiment has failed and has now run its course and must come to an end'.

Now, it intrigues me to know how you are aware that God has reached this conclusion, but intrigues me even more to read that you know that he reached this decision unemotionally.

Can you tell me whether he reached this conclusion standing up or sitting down too?

Now you may consider that to be a facetious question…and you'd be right. But when you claim to know the mind of God, and furthermore claim to know the basis for his reasoning, and how he reached that decision, then I can reach either one of two conclusions:

1) You're guessing or
2) You're God.

Now, I'm in no doubt that it's not the latter, so if it's the former, you may as well guess as to whether God was sitting or standing when he made the decision.

6. Atheists for Jesus

Comment #11517 by heymrrain on December 5, 2006 at 7:46 am

David,

But, you see, 'Atheists For Jesus' puts forward the point of view of real people, some atheists, whereas 'Jesus Loves Atheists' is putting forward the point of view of a fictional character.

I may as well have a T-shirt with 'Ronald McDonald Loves Tennis', or 'Oliver Twist Loves Kenny G', it would mean about as much as 'Jesus Loves Atheists'.

Admittedly, I've not read Oliver Twist for many years, so there may be some point in the book where he professes a fondness for 'smooth jazz', and it's just slipped my mind.

But I doubt it.

And by the way, no, I can't prove that Ronald McDonald doesn't like tennis. But that doesn't mean he does.

7. Atheists Agonistes

Comment #10418 by heymrrain on November 28, 2006 at 4:53 am

Religious people who believe in an omniscient and omnipotent God can't have it both ways.

David stated "Science created this mess and science bears full responsibility for giving humans the means of destroying the earth".

But if you believe in an omnipotent and omniscient God, then you believe that God gave us the means to discover science, and therefore the means to destroy the earth. And what's more, he knew what he was doing when he did it, he knew where it would lead.

And anyway, it's rubbish to refer to science in this way. How can "science bear full responsibility"? Science isn't a person or an entity, it's a concept.

Science is a way of thinking, a way of critically analysing the world around us, a method of pursuing understanding through rational, logical thought.

Even if you change that and blame scientists, you are either suggesting that God knowingly gave us the abilities to become scientists, or God has no power over what happens in the world.

Either way, the conclusion must be that:

1) God is responsible for science, and he must bear responsibility;
2) God has no power to change things or stop what scientists do...in which case he's not much of a God;
3) God doesn't exist.

Your choice David, is God to blame, is he powerless, or does he simply not exist?