Elton John suggests we ban organised religion

[tenchi-fan]

religion is also an excuse for war, not the cause.... in ireland the protestants and the catholics might go at it all the time but thats because they are ********* and has nothing to do with their religion

I think it was you English "*********" that brought religious hatred to Ireland. Britain banned practicising Catholicism and punished Irish people unless they converted to protestantism. Thanks for that!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_Laws_(Ireland)
"The Penal laws in Ireland refers to a series of laws imposed under British rule that sought to discriminate against Roman Catholics and Protestant non-Conformists ... in Ireland in favour of the established Church of Ireland which recognised the English monarchy as its spiritual head."

 

[Psyk]

I think it was you English "*********" that brought religious hatred to Ireland. Britain banned practicising Catholicism and punished Irish people unless they converted to protestantism. Thanks for that!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_Laws_(Ireland)
"The Penal laws in Ireland refers to a series of laws imposed under British rule that sought to discriminate against Roman Catholics and Protestant non-Conformists ... in Ireland in favour of the established Church of Ireland which recognised the English monarchy as its spiritual head."

I assume that law is no longer in effect so why continue fighting?

The scientific method will never provide a means to test the existance/non-existance of a supreme being, that's the point. We may find a means to test it in the future, but it won't be 'scientifically' as it's defined now, and because there's no idea what that theory might be, assuming that it will exist could also be spurious.

The scientific method is firmly agnostic, in that the existance of a supreme being is irrelevant to it. The scientific method is about developing predicitive models, not anything else, therefore it only concerns itself with things that effect the accuracy of the model, which limits it to cause/effect relationships.

It still logically makes some sense to assume there is no god. It doesn't make sense to say that there definitely isn't one, because as you say there's no way to test it. But since there's a lot of evidence to suggest that our idea of god is human in origin, then I see it as very unlikely that god exists. That's what I was trying to get at with the teapot idea. In hindsight I really should have gone with the invisible pink unicorn rather than the teapot. Oh well, hopefully you get my point now anyway.

 

[Vonhelmet]

Meh. He's got an axe to grind because he's gay. Now, admittedly, plenty of religious folk have an axe to grind about gay people, but that doesn't suddenly make his opinion any more valid.

AHAHAHAHA! Just seen the above post. Another thread about religion turns into science versus religion and the scientific method and proof and faith. AGAIN.

A-FLAMING-GAIN!

 

[jtreefrog]

The real stroke of genius in the article is this:

Elton John has said organised religion should be banned because it promotes homophobia and turns some people into "hateful lemmings".

(I added the bold)

Whomever invented that word is a total political genius.

Homophobia:
"If you aren't with us, you're afraid of us"

 

[Dolph]

It still logically makes some sense to assume there is no god. It doesn't make sense to say that there definitely isn't one, because as you say there's no way to test it. But since there's a lot of evidence to suggest that our idea of god is human in origin, then I see it as very unlikely that god exists. That's what I was trying to get at with the teapot idea. In hindsight I really should have gone with the invisible pink unicorn rather than the teapot. Oh well, hopefully you get my point now anyway.

It still doesn't make logical sense to assume there is no god, because you're still implying that evidence would be available to the contrary if there was...

If, on the other hand, you want to say it makes logical sense to assume god is irrelevant and ignore whether they exist or not, I'd be far more likely to believe you.

You're free to your belief, but don't try and claim it's more rational or logical than anyone elses, because it isn't.

I will also point out that I'm talking god in the general, rather than specific, sense. If needed I can break out the rabbits example...

 

[Chronos-X]

The real stroke of genius in the article is this:
(I added the bold)

Whomever invented that word is a total political genius.

Homophobia:
"If you aren't with us, you're afraid of us"

I'm neither gay nor afraid.

 

[Deadly Ferret]

I wish there were no such thing as religion, but I'd no more support a ban than I would Arsenal!

The nerve of the idea. It's all well and good saying religion causes trouble, and it does, but to force people to give up something precious to them for no more reason than the banners' own standpoint would be unjustifiable.

 

[jtreefrog]

I'm neither gay nor afraid.

I mean in the sense that either you're "on their side" or you're afraid of them. Not "if you aren't gay, you're afraid" - sorry for the mixup.

 

[Justintime]

probably a fair few - oil is still an issue outside of religious morals.

also, the otters may decide that thier logical is the only true logic, and that we should infact eat off our bellys. (seriously watch southpark, it makes sense)

praise science!

 

[Psyk]

It still doesn't make logical sense to assume there is no god, because you're still implying that evidence would be available to the contrary if there was...

If, on the other hand, you want to say it makes logical sense to assume god is irrelevant and ignore whether they exist or not, I'd be far more likely to believe you.

You're free to your belief, but don't try and claim it's more rational or logical than anyone elses, because it isn't.

I will also point out that I'm talking god in the general, rather than specific, sense. If needed I can break out the rabbits example...

Really I'm just trying to make it clear why I consider myself to be atheist rather than agnostic. It seems logical to me, but then again sometimes my logic doesn't really make sense to anyone else I guess that's the case here. If I was talking about proper scientific experiments, naturally I would assume the existence of god irrelevant because it is. In scientific terms though, it makes no difference whether you assume there is no god or say it's irrelevant because the outcome is the same. Not that I would add it to my list of assumptions

 

[Calibos]

I'd be a weak atheist too. I don't believe there is a God but I can kind of see where the agnostics are coming from.

I've posted this before but I'll say it again. I still fail to see how having philosophical questions about the existence or non existance of a creator of the universe is the clinching arguement for some people to believe in a cobbled together collection of contradictory stories written by goat hearders in a small desert area in the eastern meditterrainian 3000-2000 years ago.

So basically I am agnostic with regard to a non interventionist creator of the universe but most definately atheist with regard to any religion, spiritualism paranormal supernatural etc etc

Read Dawkins' "The God Delusion"

 

[Dolph]

Read Dawkins' "The God Delusion"

I'd really rather not, he's just another fundamentalist who wishes to force his views onto everyone one.

 

[Calibos]

I'd really rather not, he's just another fundamentalist who wishes to force his views onto everyone one.

No, he doesn't want to force you to do anything other than think for yourself.

Now where is that animated gif with the little stick figure banging his head into a bloody pulp in frustration when you need it.

 

[Dolph]

No, he doesn't want to force you to do anything other than think for yourself.

Please see the thread I've linked to earlier where we discussed Dawkins in detail. He does not want you to think for yourself. He wants you to put all your faith in the scientific method as he does to provide truth, while denying he has faith despite meeting all his own bad ideas about those who preach....

Dawkins is as bad as other religious fundamentalists in demanding that his and only his view can be correct, and everyone else who believes otherwise is deluded/misguided or just an idiot.

Treat Dawkins as your prophet if you want, but don't try and claim you're thinking for yourself.

 

[Psyk]

Please see the thread I've linked to earlier where we discussed Dawkins in detail. He does not want you to think for yourself. He wants you to put all your faith in the scientific method as he does to provide truth, while denying he has faith despite meeting all his own bad ideas about those who preach....

Dawkins is as bad as other religious fundamentalists in demanding that his and only his view can be correct, and everyone else who believes otherwise is deluded/misguided or just an idiot.

Treat Dawkins as your prophet if you want, but don't try and claim you're thinking for yourself.

Yeah can't say I like Dawkins either despite the fact that I essentially believe the same things as him.