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 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 polyglide Mon Apr 27, 2015 4:07 pm

Stu,
Then why do you not answer a post properly?.

by stuart torr Mon Apr 27, 2015 4:45 pm

I did it was you that did not,as you went from the thread.

by Norm Deplume Mon Apr 27, 2015 4:50 pm

polyglide wrote: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.

This is a curious and idiosyncratic definition of 'natural', and leads to some ridiculous conclusions. Humans can't be natural because we are conceived and born through outside influence and didn't just pop into existence. If you have the belief that the universe was created, then no part of it can be considered 'natural'.

by boatlady Mon Apr 27, 2015 7:51 pm

It would be impossible for cheese to come about naturally

As a girl, living in a very impoverished household, I remember sour milk being made into cheese. The process was very simple - take your sour milk, strain off the liquid, add salt, spread cheese on bread

Nothing unnatural there methinks

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Apr 27, 2015 8:00 pm

polyglide wrote:Stu,
Then why do you not answer a post properly?.

So...why is it religions hate each other and atheists? - Page 16 Th_irony

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Apr 27, 2015 8:06 pm

boatlady wrote:It would be impossible for cheese to come about naturally

As a girl, living in a very impoverished household, I remember sour milk being made into cheese. The process was very simple - take your sour milk, strain off the liquid, add salt, spread cheese on bread

Nothing unnatural there methinks

By Polyglide's definition harvesting salt would be unnatural, as would flour, leather clothing and shoes, or how about tea and coffee. As I said in my earlier post if you take such an arbitrary or pedantic stance then it becomes farcical. One could be equally pedantic in response and point out that since nothing has been evidenced to exist outside of nature then everything is natural. I'm not sure how dealing in such absolutes helps explain anything though.

by stuart torr Tue Apr 28, 2015 4:31 pm

Sheldon, I am afraid where PG is concerned, anything that has a human touch to it whilst in it's making is not natural, and by adding salt boatlady you have made it unnatural in Polyglides eyes, only knows what he actually eats?

by polyglide Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:51 am

boatlady,
Could the process have come about of it's own accord?

That is the ultimate test of what is natural.

by stuart torr Wed Apr 29, 2015 12:54 pm

Told you boatlady.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Apr 29, 2015 1:14 pm

polyglide wrote:boatlady,
Could the process have come about of it's own accord?

That is the ultimate test of what is natural.

If you making absolute definition then yes. This would mean that things like shoes clothing and nearly all our food is unnatural. Just as an example of where such pedantry leads. Your original point here was that science uses unnatural methods, you offered no evidence of course, and now having repeatedly defined all manner of words subjectively you're trying to to use pedantry in place of evidence. No one will be fooled.

by stuart torr Wed Apr 29, 2015 1:21 pm

Well Sheldon in the mind of polyglide,nothing in this world really is natural is it? as it has all needed a human touch at some point or other as it not?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Apr 29, 2015 11:17 pm

stuart torr wrote:Well Sheldon in the mind of polyglide,nothing in this world really is natural is it? as it has all needed a human touch at some point or other as it not?

Well the problem as I see it here is that he made a statement that science MUST use unnatural methods, and of course he can't evidence the claim as it palpably untrue. So now he's using pedantry over the definition of unnatural to broaden it to include anything and everything to justify his comment. Why doesn't he just list a few of the unnatural methods science uses if he can. Given how often he has tried to reject ignore or change the dictionary definition of words on here it's more than a little ironic as well.

I have pointed out that the definition of science actually contradicts his claim.

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

by stuart torr Thu Apr 30, 2015 4:24 pm

No more conversation Sheldon from myself regards Polyglide, as I do not wish to be accused of bullying him,I may answer staightforward questions from him,if directed to myself or through you, apologies.

by stuart torr Thu Apr 30, 2015 8:25 pm

if this is the 404 that will not show when tried time after time why?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri May 01, 2015 7:04 am

Boatlady wrote: As a girl, living in a very impoverished household, I remember sour milk being made into cheese. The process was very simple - take your sour milk, strain off the liquid, add salt, spread cheese on bread

Nothing unnatural there methinks

Polyglide wrote: boatlady,
Could the process have come about of it's own accord?

That is the ultimate test of what is natural.

Wouldn't this make eating unnatural? Conception would also be unnatural of course. Come to that walking and running would be unnatural if we applied this arbitrary criteria.

We still eagerly await these unnatural processes that polyglide says science must use, but I think any initial surprise at the claim has been dimished as we see the arbitrary criteria set to define unnatural.

by polyglide Fri May 01, 2015 10:22 am

boatlady,
Natural, not acquired.

This covers everything including running, reading or anything else.

These things have to be learned, including eating etc;

If they come naturally, they are natural, if not, they are not natural.

Only someone with a childish attitude could think otherwise.

Scientists use any number of experiments using all kinds of aids which are not their natural applications.

But when someone thinks they know what a scientist will or will not say ???????.

by stuart torr Fri May 01, 2015 12:12 pm

Do we not have to be taught everything we do from birth? so technically speaking surely all we do is unnatural is it not?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri May 01, 2015 12:27 pm

polyglide wrote:But when someone thinks they know what a scientist will or will not say ???????.

Only you have claimed this, all everyone else has done is to ask you to name the scientist. You can't though, odd that, almost as if you made it up. You were also asked if this claim was part of any peer reviewed research, your silence again speaks for itself.

So everything learned is unnatural you claim? That makes your beliefs, religion and deity unnatural then.

Food for thought indeed when indulging pedantry of this sort.

You still haven't managed to name one single unnatural method that science MUST use? Again your reticence is more edifying than your response on this.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri May 01, 2015 1:47 pm

Polyglide wrote:boatlady, Natural, not acquired. This covers everything including running, reading or anything else.

So how are these harmful? Your original claim was that science MUST use unnatural methods and that these were harmful, since you're now using an arbitrary definition that pretty much rules everything humans do as unnatural, including incidentally making up religious beliefs and believing in deities, how are these methods harmful? You see you never said what these methods were, not one of them, despite multiple requests, are we to assume your pedantry is again just an embarrassing use of obfuscation to avoid answering the question when you know you can't?

Hmmm

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri May 01, 2015 1:53 pm

polyglide wrote:boatlady, Natural, not acquired. This covers everything including running, reading or anything else. These things have to be learned, including eating etc; If they come naturally, they are natural, if not, they are not natural.

Only someone with a childish attitude could think otherwise.

Or someone with some intelligence, who understand how word definitions can occasionally have nuanced meanings in different contexts. You do remember claiming that the dictionary definition of homosexuality contained the terms pervert, abnormal, and unnatural I take it?

It's odd how you can go from violating a word's true meaning, even making up complete lies about it how the dictionary defines it, then try to claim anyone who doesn't share your pedantic and somewhat arbitrary view on the meaning of natural is childish. I'm not an expert like Polyglide, but is this really how experts debate, by constantly calling those who disagree unintelligent, or childish?

by stuart torr Fri May 01, 2015 1:57 pm

As I said in an earlier post Sheldon, his religion against our atheism do you think? or plain ignoring the truth?

by stuart torr Fri May 01, 2015 2:07 pm

Definition of Homosexuality from my dictionary Sheldon== 1,Sexual attraction towards a person of the same sex.2.Sexual relations between persons of the same sex.
Now there was nothing regarding pervert, unnatural,or abnormal in my dictionary.

by Norm Deplume Fri May 01, 2015 7:55 pm

stuart torr wrote:
Now there was nothing regarding pervert, unnatural,or abnormal in my dictionary.

There really ought to be, Stu. All of my dictionaries have entries for them.

Wink

by stuart torr Fri May 01, 2015 8:04 pm

Mine have Norm but not under Homosexuality. Wink

by stuart torr Fri May 01, 2015 9:12 pm

yes it was me that visited

by polyglide Tue May 05, 2015 11:43 am

boatlady,
You will no doubt note that when someone is shown to be stupid they call others childish.

I have said all I have to say about homosexuality.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue May 05, 2015 1:05 pm

polyglide wrote:boatlady,
You will no doubt note that when someone is shown to be stupid they call others childish.

I have said all I have to say about homosexuality.

Would you like me to quote your post claiming you would no longer be responding to my posts because you claimed I was childish?

Doubly ironic really as you never properly respond to anything but either simply repeat your previous claim or resorted to ad hominem. As you are doing here again by calling people stupid. Far better if you actually tried to address what people post. As it would indicate you have some interest in debate, rather than a one sided discussion which negates any critical thoughts on your own religious beliefs.

by stuart torr Tue May 05, 2015 5:33 pm

Polyglide changes his mind more often than david Cameron.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed May 06, 2015 1:14 pm

polyglide wrote:boatlady, You will no doubt note that when someone is shown to be stupid they call others childish.

Your post from above on this page is rather revealing then.

by polyglide on Fri May 01, 2015 11:22 am
Only someone with a childish attitude could think otherwise.

Ahem....

by stuart torr Wed May 06, 2015 2:30 pm

Oh dear Sheldon, case proven I BELIEVE.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed May 06, 2015 9:32 pm

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

It occurs to me that we can at all dog breeds to the list, as only wild dogs and wolves would satisfy Polyglide's bizarre criteria for natural here. While we're at it every single domesticated animal would be unnatural. All of Polyglide's tampering with bird breeding - unnatural the more I think about this arbitrary misrepresentation of what is natural the more laughable it becomes. I still haven't seen a single example of the unnatural methods scientists must use either?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed May 06, 2015 9:39 pm

polyglide wrote:boatlady,
You will no doubt note that when someone is shown to be stupid they call others childish.

Polyglide wrote:Post by polyglide on Tue Apr 14, 2015 5:17 pm
Dr, Sheldon, I do not answer some of your posts because they are childish. Like I said, stop being childish and grow up.

That's from page 14 of this thread. Wink

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed May 06, 2015 9:55 pm

polyglide wrote:Sane peple consider all the relevant facts - I have asked those who think evolution is the answer to explain how a beehive has honeycombs the shape they are - Now all I want is an answer as to where all the round and oblong and square honeycombs are before nature decided on the present shape?

https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/the-evolution-of-honey-comb

by stuart torr Wed May 06, 2015 10:10 pm

You will go on forever Sheldon,had a reply yet?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed May 06, 2015 10:34 pm

stuart torr wrote:You will go on forever Sheldon,had a reply yet?

He never really replies stu, just read this thread from the start, all he does is preach, and obfuscate, and then hurl ad hominem at people. He thinks his questions about evolution represent a serious challenge to evolution, but they're actually well known creationist clichés. The bee honeycomb was actually answered by Darwin himself, so he's 150 years out of date.

by stuart torr Wed May 06, 2015 11:04 pm

I know he lives in pre-victorian times Sheldon, as his answers prove do they not?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Thu May 07, 2015 10:25 am

Well to claim a question is unanswerable when theologians used it pre Darwin and Darwin dedicated a great deal of time to researching and answering it, is either extremely dishonest or indicates he's simply parroting creationist lies that he hasn't bothered to research himself. Then he makes grandiose claims that he's aware of all the scientific knowledge on the subject when he quite obviously is not, and makes pompous attacks on other posters for not examining all the facts, claiming that he does.

As I said earlier read the thread and you'll see that right from the start he's simply repeated the same dishonest claims ad nauseam, and each time someone has taken the time to point out his errors he's resorted to ad hominem, Sharing, Tosh, Oftenwrong, myself, Norm, and Mrs S have all had the same treatment.

Then best of all he claimed to be an expert debater, and tells others that they're childish for not agreeing with him. The mind boggles....

by polyglide Mon May 11, 2015 3:15 pm

Stu,
You will find in life that when a person is so wrapped up in himself and thinks he is the only one who knows everything you need to actually consider the manner in which such a person replies.

As I have said previously, I have considered Darwin's thoughts and also the evidence and theories regarding evolution, they are all there at the click of a switch.

What some people cannot comprehend is that I am not in the least interested in experiments that apparently confirm certain aspects of life, past or present, what my only concern is, is the origin of life.

It is obvious to anyone that there have been many changes since the formation of the universe and many of these can be confirmed by scientists and anyone interested can find out just what is involved.

That is not the point, none give any clue as to the origin of the universe nor what existed prior, if one believes in the facts that all life forms came about by chance with no intelligence involved [ yet you would not believe a car came about by chance] then you should offer an intelligent and step by step manner in which any animal existed without all it's vital organs, every animal must have been complete at any one time and the explanations to date are sadly lacking in common sense and I do not need any web sites regarding this matter as none explain anything step by step with proof of each particular stage of evolution, from one animal to a completely different animal.

by stuart torr Mon May 11, 2015 4:04 pm

Oh Polyglide I really do feel sorry for you honestly, because you may have the computer at hand,that gives you all the knowledge you seek,so why do you not use it correctly? there was nothing in the spaces that our planets now fill except a multitude of gases,the origin of the universe came about due to the BIG BANG,now surely you have heard of that? 13.8 billion years ago.
The motor car did come about by chance actually, because mr ford or mr minor did not sit down one day and say I know what to do today to pass the boredom we will invent a 4 wheeled machine that carries passengers and we will call it a car.
You have not thought that when the universe first existed,it took Earth quite a few years to get in it's current position? and it was mostly covered in ice?
it wasn't until the regular orbit around the sun that it melted and it has got to the state now where even the north and south poles are reducing in size.
There are evolution stages for many animals changing from one to another if you look hard enough and in the right places,have a good look through that computer of yours and then get back to everybody .

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon May 11, 2015 4:16 pm

polyglide wrote:Stu,
You will find in life that when a person is so wrapped up in himself and thinks he is the only one who knows everything you need to actually consider the manner in which such a person replies.

Well that's very interesting, but since you and you alone have claimed to be 100% certain on here it's something of an own goal. Wink

by Sponsored content