Are you an atheist, but not an arsehole to religious people?

Cuttooth wrote:

Phatman wrote:I'm basically an Atheist, although I'm not opposed to an idea of a creator if only for the romanticism. I want no part in organised religion because all the organised religions I've ever known are very silly and horrifically bigoted. I've never actively sought to offend any religious person and I very rarely ever engage a religious person in a debate about their beliefs, because at one point we're going to get to the concept of faith.

Basically this.

That makes you an agnostic. Er, I think. It tends to be what I feel.

Though I've recently come to think that if there is a God, then He's one horrible bastard.

Probably should have taken out the "not opposed to creator" bit.

mcjihge2 wrote:Do all the athiests realise that God invented science, caused the "big bang", and set evolution into motion?

If thats the case God himself would need to abide by the rules of physics, otherwise he couldn't exist.

I'm more interested in who created God. Maybe there's another level of higher Gods, like in Norse mythology with Odin and Loki and that; most higher Gods are decent types who rear well behaved, caring God-kids, but this particular one we ended up with was mistreated as a young deity, or perhaps just didn't receive the love he craved from his tired parents, who were trying to keep an eye on the rest of their creations. That's why our maker behaves in such an unpredictable and occasionally sadistic way, Ma and Pa God just didn't love him. Or maybe our God's just got a short attention span, he means well but he just gets bored easily.

Beans wrote:

mcjihge2 wrote:Do all the athiests realise that God invented science, caused the "big bang", and set evolution into motion?

If thats the case God himself would need to abide by the rules of physics, otherwise he couldn't exist.

WRONG

If God created the Universe and all that's in it then he is somewhere other than the universe, therefore he does not abide to any laws of physics from within our universe.

Fatal Exception wrote:

Beans wrote:

mcjihge2 wrote:Do all the athiests realise that God invented science, caused the "big bang", and set evolution into motion?

If thats the case God himself would need to abide by the rules of physics, otherwise he couldn't exist.

WRONG

If God created the Universe and all that's in it then he is somewhere other than the universe, therefore he does not abide to any laws of physics from within our universe.

Who created the universe that God resides in?

The opposite: Im a theist but dont bother being a tw*t to atheists, so long as it works both ways.

The whole dawkins thing stems from Creationism arguements but in reality should we really care whether God created us or random elemental forces? Im care more about where im going than where im from. We should be looking towards the future as opposed to the past, because proving either arguement doesnt really solve anything, and looking towards the future I think science definately has the edge in solving all our problems, God or no God.

There was an interesting article in the Times the other week about whether Jesus being the son of God or not was irrelevent, the fact remains that he was a real person and maybe his 'tricks' were exaggerated fact, but he was a kind, caring man who represents an ideal for all humanity to follow as the perfect man, God or no God.

Carlos wrote:The opposite: Im a theist but dont bother being a tw*t to atheists, so long as it works both ways.

The whole dawkins thing stems from Creationism arguements but in reality should we really care whether God created us or random elemental forces? Im care more about where im going than where im from. We should be looking towards the future as opposed to the past, because proving either arguement doesnt really solve anything, and looking towards the future I think science definately has the edge in solving all our problems, God or no God.

There was an interesting article in the Times the other week about whether Jesus being the son of God or not was irrelevent, the fact remains that he was a real person and maybe his 'tricks' were exaggerated fact, but he was a kind, caring man who represents an ideal for all humanity to follow as the perfect man, God or no God.

Perhaps, but it doesn't help that the religion that names itself after said man condones practices not mentioned by him that are callous in their nature.

Danny Boy wrote:

Carlos wrote:The opposite: Im a theist but dont bother being a tw*t to atheists, so long as it works both ways.

The whole dawkins thing stems from Creationism arguements but in reality should we really care whether God created us or random elemental forces? Im care more about where im going than where im from. We should be looking towards the future as opposed to the past, because proving either arguement doesnt really solve anything, and looking towards the future I think science definately has the edge in solving all our problems, God or no God.

There was an interesting article in the Times the other week about whether Jesus being the son of God or not was irrelevent, the fact remains that he was a real person and maybe his 'tricks' were exaggerated fact, but he was a kind, caring man who represents an ideal for all humanity to follow as the perfect man, God or no God.

Perhaps, but it doesn't help that the religion that names itself after said man condones practices not mentioned by him that are callous in their nature.

Aye, sadly the major problem with the world is that we're in charge.

I've got nothing against religion it's just that I don't believe in god. I'm not going to try to convince anyone else of this though as I don't feel it's my place to do so as everyone should be given the chance to come to whatever conclusion they feel is right for them.
Live and let live are my feelings on this.

I'm an agnost(ic?) and only an arsehole to religious people if they deserve it.

A bit like Dexter only killing people who deserve it.

Beans wrote:

mcjihge2 wrote:Do all the athiests realise that God invented science, caused the "big bang", and set evolution into motion?

If thats the case God himself would need to abide by the rules of physics, otherwise he couldn't exist.

We as a race can't even get to grips with time and space, let alone pretending like we know the boundaries put in place for the being that created it all. Assuming God exists.

If God created man in his own image, wouldn't he have needed to invent a mirror first?

I'm undecided on the whole thing. I can understand someone taking comfort in their religion and I can understand atheists objection to religious intolerance. What I don't understand is the rabid hatred some atheists have to any and all religious faith.

Last year I lost a friend of mine to cancer. It was a horrible, long, drawn out way to go but she managed it with a certain grace that I can only hope I'd be able to muster in the same situation. So what got her through this? The scientific certainty that the cancer was ravaging her body and there was nothing medically that could be done to stop this? Or the faith that when it was all said and done she'd be going to a better place? She may have been wrong, I'm really not willing to say, but the thought that anyone would think she was a special kind of stupid for believing and having faith is irksome to me.

Shadow wrote:In fact, religion probably has more answers than science in that regard.

Well it's easy to have answers if you just make them up.

Having more answers doesn't make you more likely to be right.

I'm not religious but I would never be arsey to anyone who is, nor say they were stupid.

Outrunner wrote:She may have been wrong, I'm really not willing to say, but the thought that anyone would think she was a special kind of stupid for believing and having faith is irksome to me.

It sounds horrible to say this because she unfairly passed away and had to battle a horrible illness, but just because it's nice for her that she had a faith and that it helped her through and everything, it doesn't change my mind.

If someone believes in the Bible and uses it as motivation to go around trying to convert people, I think they're stupid (that's a horrible word; I don't necessarily mean that the person is completely stupid, just that in this regard, I think they are acting it) for having the faith to do this; if someone believes in the Bible and uses it as a reason to look down upon homosexuals then I think it's ridiculous to have this faith; if someone believes that they're going to a better place when they die, then, as horrible and plain evil as it sounds (because they're dying), I think that having that faith is dumb.

Thinking something is stupid does not necessarily mean I think it's a bad thing. I'm sure I would be more comfortable if I truly believed that there was a purpose to life and that I was off to paradise when it was over. I've never said that people shouldn't believe in it, I've always said that (among other things) I don't understand how people can believe in it, as I think it's totally preposterous. There are things that I know are stupid but I indulge myself in (I won't go into that here!), and I take comfort from these things; it doesn't mean that I don't think they're stupid, though.

IronHide wrote:I'm not religious but I would never be arsey to anyone who is, nor say they were stupid.

You're a better man than me IH.

Re: Outrunner

Even I know where to draw the line. I couldn't take away hope from someone whose dieing