Atheist and the nativity

erichamster

fawd1 wrote: »

Faith is also demonstrable in every day life, you're just not looking for it.Look at the people that spend their days handing out food to the poor, building homes etc. They aren't all doing it for the money. And when someone can disprove or prove faith clinically then I'd like to know.

They aren't doing it because of religion either. Religion doesn't have a monopoly on morality, if we got our morals from the bible we'd all be homophobic, misogynistic, sado-masochistic racists with slaves.
Thankfully are morals are evolved, just like the rest of us.

daska

ktb wrote: »

I am an atheist and I don't personally spend my time trying to convince people with Faith of anything. It would mostly be a losing battle as, if they won't accept arguments of rational fact, where do you go from there?! I know I don't believe and they know they do.... it is an impasse.

On a slightly separate note though, I do strongly believe that state funded education should be completely separated from Religion. I find the idea that Faith schools get state funding pretty abhorrent, especially as they are allowed to be 'selective'. Dawkins has plenty of interesting stuff to say on this subject and I highly recommend his documentaries on youtube.

Not just that but free transport for their pupils as well where pupils of non-faith schools don't benefit. I thought the human rights act stated that discrimination on the basis of religion was a no-no!?

erichamster

fawd1 wrote: »

For the last time I will say, I am an agnostic, I believe in no religion. BUT, how can you honestly say you've never heard of anyone surviving something they shouldn't. Inevitably, the people around them will say they've prayed (to whomever). You reckon that's just luck, or are you just waiting for your turn to ask for help?

What does "surviving something they shouldn't" mean? Surely the fact that they've survived it necessitates that they should? That's a nonsensical statement. Are you a child?

fawd1

GracieP wrote: »

Is English your first language? Because you don't seem to understand what a lot of words and terms mean. Of course people having faith is demonstrable, but in a lot of cases what they have faith in, is not.

No love, it's my second out of seven. No wonder you feel superior. You must be so proud of you mediocre ability in just the one (might want to learn to read though)

fawd1

Robinred wrote: »

Oi! Father Christmas is real isn't he?!

If it makes you feel better, then why not?

erichamster

daska wrote: »

Not just that but free transport for their pupils as well where pupils of non-faith schools don't benefit. I thought the human rights act stated that discrimination on the basis of religion was a no-no!?

Ah but this is discrimination based on a lack of religion which is fine right?
As George Bush famously said, atheists aren't to be considered citizens, or (presumably if that's well received and if the fundamentalists have their way) humans.

starrystarry

fawd1 wrote: »

If it makes you feel better, then why not?

That's the problem though, just because something makes you feel better doesn't make it real. It provides motive for believing in something but it doesn't make it real. I'm sure a lot of people believe in religion because they want to, not because they've made a rational decision about it.

daska

fawd1 wrote: »

Faith is also demonstrable in every day life, you're just not looking for it.Look at the people that spend their days handing out food to the poor, building homes etc. They aren't all doing it for the money. And when someone can disprove or prove faith clinically then I'd like to know.

People also do these charitable acts without the benefit/affliction of faith. If faith encourages more people to act selflessly then that is, of course, a good thing. But to imply that faith alone is responsible for selfless acts is ludicrous.

milliebear00001

Gosh, long thread - mostly unread by me, but couldn't resist my two-pennorth...

Every argument put forward for the existence of God, could also be applied to the tooth fairy and Father Christmas.

I am a rationalist. I believe in the scientific method and the 'balance of probabilities'. As a philosophy grad, I would say this makes me agnostic (although I would like to say an athiest) because there is alway the tiniest possibility that I am wrong in my belief. For me, this tiny, tiny possibility means I choose the belief that the most rational explanation for the existence of the Earth, and all in it, is the scientific, rather than the supernatural, one.

It has nothing to do with individual faiths and eveything to do with the lack of evidence for a supernatural creater.

I have no argument against faith, because faith is not (by definition) based on reason - it's a non-starter.

dirtysexymonkey

fawd1 wrote: »

not at all, it's because of free will. Great if you know what to do with it, but not great if you don't. If you don't believe in a God, then you can't keep blaming him, you'd just have to accept that some people are capable of horrific things, with or without god

not god - religion. god has very little to do with religion.;)

you still dont get it, do you?

when religion is used as an excuse for bigotry, murder, discrimination etc etc, then you can bet your !!!! that itll be attacked.