A thread to bully all hypocritical atheist twunts ...

[doodab]

Aethiests believe their is no God - but you can't prove there is no God however much you try.

The existence or otherwise of god was never the question as far as I'm concerned. My beliefs originated in a desire to answer metaphysical questions and understand my place in the universe and I see no reason to presume the existence of a god and hence no need to prove there isn't one.

The only vaguely godlike concept that ever made any sense at all to me as an explanatory force came from equating the word god with "the totality of the universe and the laws that govern it" and as I tend to call that "the universe" and accept that it is what it is I see no reason to use a word that comes with a vast amount of baggage and a list of contradictions as long as your arm.

[xoggoth]

Tell you what, let's settle this reasonably on an impartial basis. Christians get to keep bishops in the house of Lords if atheists also have a guaranteed quota of peers. Christians get to keep gays out of their B&Bs if atheists can similarly exclude the devout from theirs. Christians can have prayers during official council meeting times if atheists can have a lesson of similar length. Muslims can refuse to sell alcohol in their employer's shops if non believers can refuse to sell Halal, Sikhs can wear turbans and knives if non -believers can also wear strange garb if they feel strongly enough about it. etc etc etc.

All very fair I would think.

But of course the religious will not agree to such very reasonable measures. They demand to have all these various rights by virtue of their beliefs while atheists, who might also have firmly held beliefs about various issues, should have none. They discriminate against women and gays and then call it discrimination if they are not freely allowed to do so. Employers with rational reasons for not wanting to take on a woman, that she might get pregnant or put her family first, are obliged to ignore such concerns, while the C of E can freely do so because of medieval ideas that are not even in the Bible.

[xoggoth]

Aethiests believe their is no God - but you can't prove there is no God however much you try

Quite. A form belief that there is in no god is not rational. Not about the existence of god as far as I'm concerned but the existence of the god espoused by established religions who cares about the fate of individuals and the idea of an afterlife based on our actions in this one.

[d000hg]

Tell you what, let's settle this reasonably on an impartial basis. Christians get to keep bishops in the house of Lords if atheists also have a guaranteed quota of peers. Christians get to keep gays out of their B&Bs if atheists can similarly exclude the devout from theirs. Christians can have prayers during official council meeting times if atheists can have a lesson of similar length. Muslims can refuse to sell alcohol in their employer's shops if non believers can refuse to sell Halal, Sikhs can wear turbans and knives if non -believers can also wear strange garb if they feel strongly enough about it. etc etc etc.

All very fair I would think.

But of course the religious will not agree to such very reasonable measures.

Sounds good to me, I don't give two hoots about religion in politics, except where it directly contradicts actual biblical teaching... which is not the case in the kind of examples you post, those are all frippery. Reserve it for discussion of abortion laws, etc, which are actually important.

[NotAllThere]

There are already atheists in the Lords. They're the modernist bishops.

[Old Greg]

Quite. A form belief that there is in no god is not rational. Not about the existence of god as far as I'm concerned but the existence of the god espoused by established religions who cares about the fate of individuals and the idea of an afterlife based on our actions in this one.

I believe there is no god, in the same way that I believe there are no angels, goblins, gnomes or any of the othrt infinite feasible supernatural entities for which there is no evidence. It is perfectly rational.

What is not rational is to believe that there is no possibility that angels etc. exist.

[xoggoth]

I believe there is no god, in the same way that I believe there are no angels, goblins, gnomes or any of the othrt infinite feasible supernatural entities for which there is no evidence. It is perfectly rational.

Nowt wrong in not believing, can be a pragmatic necessity, you have to choose a path in life to live at all. I really meant an absolute certainty that god does not exist is just faith. A disinterested creator, which I admit as a possibility, would not be apparent in any way, unlike that of the established religions, who supposedly takes an active interest in man. Funny how he has appeared less as superstition has dwindled and vanished altogether since cameras came along. Shy I geuss.

PS Not sure you can equate belief in goblins etc to belief in god, goblins are limited beings and you can almost disprove their existence by the lack of any physical evidence for them, like something constantly hiding your reading glasses. Hang on a minute!

[TimberWolf]

Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water, goblins definitely exist.

[NotAllThere]

Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water, gobbling definitely exists.

FTFY

[amcdonald]

Quite. A form belief that there is in no flying spaghetti monster is not rational. Not about the existence of the FSM as far as I'm concerned but the existence of the FSM espoused by established religions who cares about the fate of individuals and the idea of an afterlife based on our actions in this one.

FTFY