John Cuthber

Fundamentally, it's not that I don't recognise that people derive solace from their religion, but that I think it's not enough of a benefit to offset the cost. OK, so Gladys can sleep soundly in her bed in the old folks' home, "knowing that she will meet her husband again in the afterlife". That's very sweet. Where we disagree is that I think this sort of thing is too high a price to pay. http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/jehovahs-witness-parents-refuse-consent-for-sons-lifesaving-blood-transfusion/news-story/464cc5ffff82c6240977d0b52c4a3651 but you think it's OK. It doesn't look like we are going to change each-other's minds.

Read a newspaper. You will find plenty of people killed in petty squabbles, but the mass killings by one individual (or small groups) are often religious. Not a problem; hypocritical religious people seem to work just fine.

It does sum it up. He expresses the wishful thinking that is commonplace. He says he wants an all powerful God. Then he misrepresents the arguments about people killing people. He says "people like to kill each other". That's not true is it? Do you know anyone who wants to kill people? If so, please report them to the relevant authorities. Most people find the idea of killing anther person hateful. Studies show that even in war it's difficult to get people to kill. One of the best ways to do it is to portray the opposition as "sub human" (Hitler was particularly good at that).- people don't mind killing what they see as vermin. Anther is to say that the opposition are "evil". Well that's tricky- if they are so awful, how come they haven't destroyed themselves. And of course the root of all this is to show that the enemy is "different". Well, fundamentally all people are practically the same, so you have to lie to people about that. So the "differences" are manufactured. What better way to do that then to say that "God decrees them to be evil, different sub humans"? It's not that religion is the only cause of slaughter- it's just uncommonly good at it.

Does any of those say "energy which a battery can deliver roughly depends on Fermi energy differences"? I am certain that no electrochemical cell will produce anything like 12 volts.

I rather liked the suggestion I saw earlier. Keep the statues but change the plaques . My favourite suggestion was "Civil war (2nd place)"

Does money have a value?

Where, and did they say why?

I can give you are precis of the plot of the Lord of the rings- it doesn't mean I believe it. The point is that those who do believe the NT must believe that Christ- in whom the believe- was quoted by Matthew- in whom they believe as saying that the OT is still current. Of course that rather undermines your claim that I'm somehow wrong to conflate them, In effect pt 2 says "see pt 1" for details. It's not that I conflate them (or not) that matters- those who read and follow them must also do so. Or it's logically impossible to be a true Christian, so why be a pretend one?

I'm in good company Matthew 5:18 "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." I cited that exact phrase earlier. It's an interesting thought. People are born atheist, and many are then taught some religion or other. The outcome of that is tat most atheists are former believers. And they usually came to that position via some sort of study or education. So, yes, I agree, education would be a great way to make progress here.

I'd ignore them- except that people are using it as a reason to kill each-other. We are, as a species, good enough at doing that without a book telling us it's "Right". You ask me what's wrong with religion. I say "well, for example, it says that you should kill gay men" and your response is "you are cherry picking". What am I meant to do?

The bugs use magnetite, but not because of it's magnetic property- they use it because it can be reversibly oxidised or reduced. Incidentally, if anyone is counting, I liked the first video better.

OK, which is it? Do the scriptures provide a cogent viewpoint, or are they self-contradictory? Ok that's a rhetorical question because they clearly contradict themselves. If the scriptures say both, that you should turn the other cheek and also, that you should seek an eye for an eye, what the hell use are they? They tell you nothing, but let you justify your choice by saying "The Book says...". Essentially, finding any idea in the scriptures is cherry pickling- because there's a good chance you can find exactly the opposite idea too. Can we replace them with a single line that says " Yes, but then again, no"? Then people "seek guidance" they can say "Oh Great book should I do such-and-such?" and the book will give them the solace and guidance they seek. What's the point of a book that tells you that revenge is both right and wrong and you get to choose what bit to believe? It's not a guide to morality- for two reasons- firstly it is immoral and more importantly, you get to make up your own mind what bits to obey. You don't like the bit about not eating shellfish- no problem- just ignore it. You don't like the bit about not committing adultery- no problem (ask any of a number of prominent politicians etc who claim Christianity). You don't like the bit about the universe being made in 7 days- that's OK we can just pretend that "7 days" means something else.

I wonder where they learned it from. Glad to see that religion has a much nicer view- as expounded by Leviticus "And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him; Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again. And he that killeth a beast, he shall restore it: and he that killeth a man, he shall be put to death." That's part of the scripture. You can't pretend that it isn't part of the West's heritage and a part of the history of the judicial system in most Western countries. Good to know that Galileo was imprisoned by a ludicrous caricature. It seems Boko Haram are just a caricature too. NOt even slightly troubled by education and facts oh, hang on... "Boko Haram promotes a version of Islam which makes it "haram", or forbidden, for Muslims to take part in any political or social activity associated with Western society. This includes voting in elections, wearing shirts and trousers or receiving a secular education." The scientific studies of religion- of which there are many- are , in Strange's world, non existent. "science has nothing to say about religion" And, of course, religion and its advocates have a dedicated love of the facts.

The reason that religion or science would need to change is that they have totally opposed views to facts. In science, if an observation contradicts the textbook, we change the textbook. In religion, if an observation contradicts the Textbook, we lie about it. We pretend, for example, that evolution isn't real. In science, the facts matter more than the credo and in religion, it's the other way round. Since the Books were all written a long time ago they are riddled with stuff that's just plain wrong. Why, on a science website, do I have to justify my opposition to a belief that systematically denies reality? Oh come on! You know better than that.There are many scientific studies about religion. I have often posted that, when someone has to resort to saying things that are plainly not true in order to justify their perspective, then it's time to change that perspective. Are you going to?

And the evil warlord would say to the people "you must kill the Westerners because it is the will of God -it says so in this Book-". And they would laugh at him.

Christianity; according to the cherry picked version that the apartheid regime. He didn't accept the bits that said Slavery's OK and he didn't understand that, since God made man in His own image, and that image is clearly white skinned, he wasn't a proper man, but some sort of sub human. Human nature is like that- so why hand them the weapon of religion to help them do it? I don't see why Well, Dimreeper summed it up earlier.

OK, they can live a life of hypocrisy if they wish; but let's not pretend that they are doing anything else. As I said, it's like Trump pretending to follow the teachings of Christ. If they are able to pick ad choose from the scripture, then why bother with it? More importantly, what's to stop them seeing the bit about keeping slaves and stoning adulterers to death and thinking "Now there's a good idea"? More likely, what's to stop someone else telling them "You should kill he Westerners because the Book tells you so?

They know http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/trump-offers-his-first-list-science-priorities-and-it-s-america-first vs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minister_of_Science_(Canada)

Ye. No No. Lots.

And while science actively seeks to remove ignorance, religion tries to maintain it. So, assuming we want fewer dead people should people subscribe to science or to religion?

Why bother? It's not as if anyone disputed the existence of murder for non-religious reasons. What I pointed out was "God told me to do it" is one of the strongest justifications. There's another difference. It's by no means clear that Stalin thought he was "doing the right thing" when killing; he didn't think that some higher power had granted him the authority. (Maybe he did- in which case what we need to do is try to stop delusional people getting into power but that's a different issue.) Stalin may have thought that the killings were "necessary" but he didn't think they were "good". That's different from killing "infidels" because they are out-group. I answered this when you asked it before

What? The people who cite the scriptures as the Word are the ones doing evil things in its name. Without that "reason"- in which they believe (regardless of our opinion) they might not behave that way. Our lack belief is relevant because we aren't the ones killing "in the name of God". How did you think our views on the existence of God mattered to, for example, the murderers in Spain? They don't; and I was pointing out that many people (perhaps most) get by without religion so they must be finding their meaning and solace elsewhere. You have it the wrong way round. Even if there were just a handful of atheists it would be enough to prove the point that religion offers nothing "unique".

Isn't he the one who said "Every sensible man, every honourable man, must hold the Christian sect in horror." "Yet you seem to lack tolerance and forgiveness, but what makes you think the bad bits would be eliminated with religion?" I don't. But they would stop having the best ever excuse. "The Word of God" told me to do it. "Yes there is, the solace and meaning found in it by billions of peaceful people." That's relevant as soon as you prove that they wouldn't find solace without religion. Otherwise it just isn't an answer to my question. Well, it might indicate that more than 2/3 of the world manage to get by without it; so it's clearly not that great.

And, once again, what does it leave? It's not strange at all. The good bits are common sense and the bad bits are bad. There's nothing "special" left