So...why is it religions hate each other and atheists?

by Boudica Mon Oct 29, 2012 11:41 pm

First topic message reminder :

Having given the topic some serious consideration, I have no idea why the religious hate each other and the irreligious. And vice versa, of course.

Despite being collective worship coordinator at my secondary school, I am an athiest. Not proudly so, I might add - I just don't have faith in a deity or multiples thereof. Having said that, I have no issue with anyone who does. Harnessed in the right way, it can be an astonishing force for good.

I suspect the umbrella I would fall under is humanist, although I have never chosen a banner for myself. I believe in people: the family and friends around me; my students and colleagues; members of the human race in general.

The thing I object to is the evangelising fraternity who,when I politely reject their view of the universe, choose to label me as ... well, all sort of insulting and unfair nonsense. At this stage, please believe that I find Richard Dawkins as irritating as any ayalloah, church elder or priest.

Ultimately, if your religion fascilitates your ability to be a good, kind and humane person, brilliant. If you can be the same without a god, more power to your elbow.

So why can't we leave each other to get on with it?

by stuart torr Fri Apr 17, 2015 4:19 pm

You may be waiting some time Sheldon, certainly do not put your dinner on hold for the answers.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Apr 17, 2015 4:36 pm

stuart torr wrote:You may be waiting some time Sheldon, certainly do not put your dinner on hold for the answers.

I suspect either he or I will be cold meat before then stu. Very Happy

It's a shame he'll never realise he's wrong, as when he gets his "reward" he'll be oblivious to it. Still nothing to fear there, I was oblivious from the dawn of time until 1965, and I don't recall any of it being any great trial.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Apr 17, 2015 4:41 pm

Boudica wrote: The thing I object to is the evangelising fraternity who,when I politely reject their view of the universe, choose to label me as ... well, all sort of insulting and unfair nonsense. At this stage, please believe that I find Richard Dawkins as irritating as any ayalloah, church elder or priest.

Really? He always strikes me as witty urbane and charming, though of course I've not even met him so can't say for sure, but he never preaches hatred or intolerance of anyone, he only comments on ideas that he finds unreasonable or dangerous after all. Compare that to some of the worst preaching and ideas of the main religions and I'm not sure how you arrive at your conclusion to be honest. Most of the things I read about Professor Dawkins are so obviously lies or misrepresentations of what he's said I take it with a pinch of salt as I until I hear him make such comments himself or unequivocally in print it seems too implausible.

by stuart torr Fri Apr 17, 2015 4:46 pm

Richard Dawkins has never seemed that irritating to myself either Sheldon, it is mostly what is said about him that is irritating to myself?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Apr 17, 2015 4:57 pm

stuart torr wrote:Richard Dawkins has never seemed that irritating to myself either Sheldon, it is mostly what is said about him that is irritating to myself?

I always think it's rather telling that he's attacked so dishonestly by so many angry theists, who clearly not only have no cogent answer to his ideas, but very quickly drop the veneer of moral ascendancy. I should hasten to add that I'm not referring to the opening post of this thread that I just responded to, as it seemed a reasonable post even if I don't necessarily agree with some if it, but am speaking of the more rabid apologists who resort to endless ad hominem against Professor Dawkins.

by stuart torr Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:05 pm

It seems just the name Dawkins seems to make the religious side angry for some reason does it not? Why?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Apr 18, 2015 2:15 pm

stuart torr wrote:It seems just the name Dawkins seems to make the religious side angry for some reason does it not? Why?

Well beyond the obvious, I'd say having their power neutered means they can no longer burn and excommunicate him. many of them long for "simpler times" when the church and the religious claimed just such rights for anyone that dared repudiate their dogma, or even in a lot of cases people they just took a dislike to or whose land and property they coveted and wanted to legitimately seize, as they did under the specific sanction of the RCC during the inquisition.

by stuart torr Sat Apr 18, 2015 2:30 pm

So they cannot burn the poor bugger these days so make up lies about him? is that so?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Apr 18, 2015 3:17 pm

stuart torr wrote:So they cannot burn the poor bugger these days so make up lies about him? is that so?

I think they try to destroy his character by defaming him, and his scientific credibility by misrepresenting him. Not all of course, but we've both read the kind of vitriolic ad hominem many have tirelessly directed at him. One has only to look at the tone and content of polyglide's responses on here when his views are challenged. He gives the false impression of pious friendly humility until someone seriously challenges his beliefs and claims, then turns quickly and repeatedly to personal attacks.

by polyglide Mon Apr 20, 2015 5:06 pm

Dr, Sheldon,
I have never mentioned denying scientific facts.

Many experiences I have encountered need no scientific explanation even if there is one.

Scientists study their chosen subject and 90% of the time the general public are not in the least interested in anything they do unless it affects them directly.

Just as very few would be interested in how to lay bricks just so long as they had a house to live in.

I am afraid you get so mixed up in scientists and having learned the meaning of hypothesis that you are no longer in the actual world we live in.

regards.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Apr 20, 2015 5:52 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon, I have never mentioned denying scientific facts.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Thanks for the heads up, though why you're telling me this I don't know. You have however denied scientific facts again and again, as anyone can see from multiple threads.

Many experiences I have encountered need no scientific explanation even if there is one.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:That's your opinion, and we all read your hilariously stupid fried egg analogy, so you'll forgive me if I totally disagree. If you paid due deference to science you might not post so much idiotic nonsense. though there is no guarantee of course.

Scientists study their chosen subject and 90% of the time the general public are not in the least interested in anything they do unless it affects them directly.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Yes they are (hitchen's razor - slash)

Just as very few would be interested in how to lay bricks just so long as they had a house to live in.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Again the science involved would still need to be explained or else that house wouldn't exist, you're analogies are just making it clear that you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

I am afraid you get so mixed up in scientists and having learned the meaning of hypothesis that you are no longer in the actual world we live in.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Coming from someone who lives in a delusional state that involves bronze age superstitions about demons, magic apples and talking snakes, that is again as hilarious as it is stupid. Again we can all see perfectly why you want to denigrate science, because it discovers facts that have never ever once validated your superstitious beliefs, and indeed has thoroughly debunked much of it. You're shooting the messenger...

Science is by far and away the best method for gathering and validating evidence humans have ever created, get over it.

by polyglide Tue Apr 21, 2015 11:49 am

Dr, Sheldon,
Last night from the mouth of a scientist.

Scientists have used unnatural means in many cases to attempt to prove a theory.

In doing so they have created many monsters some of which threaten all mankind.

It matters not if a person is aware of how, or why or when, in most instances if you asked how the ball point pen they were unsing came about they would not have a clue adn why on earth should they.

To suggest that because science was used in the process makes no difference whatsoever, they just get on with writing etc;

It is this type of basic illogical thinking that makes your replies standard rubbish.

When you learn to understand what is actually implied and you reply in a proper manner then I may consider you have grown up enough to debate in a logical manner, look logical up.

Only then wil I reply to your scientists theories.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Apr 21, 2015 12:40 pm

Polyglide.

Again it's impossible to determine what point you're making. Your reference to the personal opinion of one scientist is meaningless as you don't reference any research, don't cite any peer reviewed work, you don't even name the scientist. I suspect that like many of your ad hoc unevidenced claims it's a completely made up lie.

Only someone with no understanding of science and it's methods would think this was evidence of anything other than rank stupidity.

If you don't want to discuss the thread topic stop responding. If you do then please try and stick to the point. What theories you're referring to I have no idea since you don't say, but just why you think I'd want your opinion on scientific works is beyond me, you can't even master basic spelling and grammar and think it's valid to cherry pick which scientific facts you accept based on bronze age superstitions.

Your pen analogy is yet again bewildering nonsense, what's the point you're trying to make with it and how is it germane to the thread?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Apr 21, 2015 12:49 pm

Professor Dawkins in TGD when discussing what he labelled "memes" religious ideas that live and evolve in the collective human mind, discusses how monotheistic religion was a game changer. How monotheism was a far more agressive theology as it had very dangerous consequences for those who worshipped any other deities.

This might be a clue as to why they're so intolerant of each other in a contemporary setting.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Apr 21, 2015 8:03 pm

polyglide wrote: Evolution provides theories that do not stand up to close examination and are just that theories.

Evolution is a scientific theory, and it has stood up to over 150 years of scientific scrutiny and never been falsified. It's also worth noting that religions are extremely motivated to disprove evolution, and in America the creationist lobby pour billions of dollars into their attempts, and of course have not only failed to falsify Darwinian evolution, but have never managed to get one single piece of evidence for creationism validated by the same rigorous scientific scrutiny.

Polyglide wrote:Scientists can prove that evolution takes place and I agree that it does but not that it is responsible for life itself and that is the important point.

What's important is that your disagreement is utterly meaningless as the scientific evidence proves what evolution does and does not do. Darwinian Evolution does not make any claims about the origins of life, it explains the diversity of life we now see, and a great deal more besides. The enormity of the medical research that every year is conducted based on evolution is astounding, and tackles all manner of illness, diseases, treatments and medicines.

Here is a simple explanation of the peer review process:
http://www.senseaboutscience.org/data/files/resources/116/Embargoed_until_00.01Feb8th2013_IDKWTB_web.pdf

"Did you know?
There are around 28,000 scholarly journals that use the peer review system. A high
proportion of these are scientific, technical or medical journals, publishing over 1.8
million research papers each year."

Yet not one paper evidencing creationism has ever been published in a peer reviewed scientific journal, and since it claims supernatural causation and is not falsifiable it never ever will, as it is unscientific .

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Apr 21, 2015 8:55 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon, Last night from the mouth of a scientist. Scientists have used unnatural means in many cases to attempt to prove a theory.

No real scientist would say this as they'd know how erroneous a statement it is. Firstly science is defined quite specifically as the study of the natural or physical world and universe, so suggesting it can use something "unnatural" is demonstrably false. Though of course you don't define what is meant here by unnatural, you don't cite any research data, or peer reviewed work, you don't even name any scientists, so even if this claim were genuine, which I have every reason to doubt, it would still only amount to nothing more than personal opinion. Secondly a scientific theory is never proven, it is always tentative and open to scrutiny and new evidence, a scientific theory is not a fact, it is used to explain facts, as I have tried to explain to you innumerable times.

by polyglide Fri Apr 24, 2015 11:09 am

Dr, Sheldon,
Just this once I will explain what unnatural means.

Not in accordance with nature.

If you use anything that is not in accordance with nature as intended it is unnatural.

Scientists use many methods using matters not in accordance with their natural usuage or there would be no science.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Apr 24, 2015 2:22 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
Just this once I will explain what unnatural means.

Not in accordance with nature.

If you use anything that is not in accordance with nature as intended it is unnatural.

Scientists use many methods using matters not in accordance with their natural usuage or there would be no science.

I thought you were still sulking?

Since you've provided no evidence for your claim, AGAIN, I am simply going to reject it - Hitchen's razor - slash.

Science.
noun
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Your trolling lies are not getting any less transparent are they. Very Happy

by stuart torr Fri Apr 24, 2015 3:56 pm

You are going to wind him up again Sheldon. Laughing

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Apr 24, 2015 3:59 pm

stuart torr wrote:You are going to wind him up again Sheldon.

Well the truth, evidence, and facts do seem to bring on some fairly astonishing histrionics from him, but as I have said this is a public forum and if he makes claims and statements on here that are un-evidenced and or demonstrably false then I'm going to keep pointing it out and referencing real evidence that supports my view. You can't make an omelette etc..

I mean who thinks they can just make claims about science and scientific research without any attempt to evidence that actually is refuted by the very definition of science. Then when his idiotic claim is exposed starts to obfuscate with a ridiculous and pompous rant about the definition of the word natural, as if anyone other than him has misrepresented the definition of words.

by stuart torr Fri Apr 24, 2015 4:04 pm

The saying goes you cannot make an omelette without breaking an egg, correct Sheldon?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Apr 24, 2015 4:11 pm

stuart torr wrote:The saying goes you cannot make an omelette without breaking an egg, correct Sheldon?

Indeed, imagine poly's ridiculous claims are the eggs, and posting the truth to expose his lie about science is the omelette. I was being facetious but it's true.

by stuart torr Fri Apr 24, 2015 5:09 pm

I know, but why?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Apr 24, 2015 8:57 pm

stuart torr wrote: I know, but why?

Why does he make up obvious clumsy lies? Or why did I use my egg and omelette analogy? I was being facetious for no particular reason, but I can only guess as to why he makes up false claims and tries to pass them off as sagacious facts that show him as scientifically knowledgeable when they are so risible they have the exact opposite effect.

by stuart torr Fri Apr 24, 2015 9:29 pm

Probably Sheldon, but he has no scientific knowledge does he? Laughing

by polyglide Sat Apr 25, 2015 10:36 am

Hi, Stu,
Ignorance does not wind me up, it just makes me feel sorry for those unable to realise fact from fiction.

Just consider Dr, Sheldon's last reamrks regarding Natural.

You do not have to understand very much to realise the error of his understanding of Natural.

Science is the study of all things that one may wish to persue.

In doing so you must use unatural methods.

The scientist I referred to previously was the one who was the instigator of the GM of our food supply etc;

He was asked if it was not an unnatural activity and his reply, [a top scientist in his field] was, that all scientists use unatural methods to achieve there aims.

Just consider the process of making cheese, the milk is natural the method used includes many things that have been invented etc. that are not natural and the same applies to nearly everything else manufactured by man, they can only use that which has been created.

Dr, Sheldon, cannot understand the simple things because he is so wrapped up on things he thinks he knows when a realistic consideration of same implies he has not a clue.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Apr 25, 2015 2:31 pm

Polyglide wrote:Science is the study of all things that one may wish to persue.

It's pursue, and that is not even remotely close to the definition of science, and I've already posted the dictionary definition several times, so why you're posting such a clumsy lie I don't know, but here it is again.

Science.
noun
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Polyglide wrote:In doing so you must use unatural methods.

That's another demonstrably false claim, what science is used for may be considered unnatural, but that has nothing to do with the scientific study. Besides this seems like pedantry to me, where would you draw the line, are dried mushrooms natural, or frozen peas?

It seems Polyglide is showing his usual penchant for redefining words. On top of which he doesn't seem to grasp that science is not responsible for what it teaches us being misused. Humans are fallible animals and so don't always consider the ethical consequences of their actions, science is a process for gathering knowledge, it's humans who abuse it.

If you wanted to be pedantic you could claim anything that humans alter is therefore unnatural, so out goes cooked food for instance, how about spices, and weaved fabrics of course so clothes would be unnatural. Instead of jumping from extreme pedantry to ridiculous semantics why not just admit you hate science because it keeps providing answers that don't require your beliefs to explain the world and universe?

It's an irrational hatred of course, but then religious superstition is irrational anyway, so it's no surprise really.

by Norm Deplume Sat Apr 25, 2015 6:47 pm

polyglide wrote:
Just consider the process of making cheese, the milk is natural the method used includes many things that have been invented etc. that are not natural and the same applies to nearly everything else manufactured by man, they can only use that which has been created.

Manufacturing cheese is an entirely natural process - no magic ritual, sorcery or prayer is involved.

You say 'created' . I say 'exists'.

Oh, and blessed are the cheesemakers.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Apr 25, 2015 10:16 pm

polyglide wrote:Hi, Stu, Ignorance does not wind me up

Just as well really as you seem unable to understand what capital letters and commas are for, or when to use them despite having it explained again and again. A little tip here for you Polyglide, if you're going to sententiously derogate the intellect of others try advancing your spelling and grammar beyond the level of a trained chimp. Also if you're going to proffer arguments based on word definitions then you might want to actually make sure you know the dictionary definition before you make an utter plank of yourself.

by stuart torr Sun Apr 26, 2015 7:56 pm

Just leave him to it Sheldon, if he wishes to carry on as he is then let him. We can all smile to ourselves can we not?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Apr 26, 2015 10:49 pm

stuart torr wrote:Just leave him to it Sheldon, if he wishes to carry on as he is then let him. We can all smile to ourselves can we not?

If nothing else stu we get to see some textbook religious apologetics of the worst kind, really clichéd nonsense, and it's important to refute this stuff if only to re-examine the arguments objectively. The ad hominem stuff rolls off me to be honest, and just shows how poor an argument must be if you have to resort to such stuff.

by stuart torr Sun Apr 26, 2015 11:00 pm

I'm afraid so my friend, but what can we actually do to be honest?

by polyglide Mon Apr 27, 2015 1:56 pm

Norm Deplume,
It would be impossible for cheese to come about naturally for the simple reason it is not a natural product but an attificialy produced one.

Anything that can be called natural exists without any outside influence, in human terms.

by polyglide Mon Apr 27, 2015 1:58 pm

Sorry about the spelling.

by stuart torr Mon Apr 27, 2015 2:03 pm

Maybe if you prayed hard enough your non-existent god may help you with it?

by polyglide Mon Apr 27, 2015 2:32 pm

Stu,
I thought sarcasm was Dr, Sheldon's strong point.

A lap dog only ever ends up with the odd bucuit.

by stuart torr Mon Apr 27, 2015 2:44 pm

I do not like biscuits polyglide. Laughing

by polyglide Mon Apr 27, 2015 3:08 pm

Stu,
Then I am sure you would be offered a trifle.

by stuart torr Mon Apr 27, 2015 3:22 pm

Much too sweet thank-you.

by polyglide Mon Apr 27, 2015 3:26 pm

Hi Stu,
Do you mean BITTER SWEET?.

by stuart torr Mon Apr 27, 2015 4:02 pm

No polyglide,if I meant bitter sweet,I would have written bitter sweet would I not? AS I know what I am writing.!!!!

by Sponsored content