What do you do when people mock/criticize your religion?

[nickness89]

Eughh, the Evolution/Big Bang vs Creationism ....

Well, there are the die-hard people who will argue evolution to the bone, whether it is testable or not, is a scientific law or not, or has any proof or evidence or not.

Then there are the die-hard creationists, who will argue the existence of a supernatural deity to the bone, for the same reasons as above.

Has anyone ever stopped to think that, since Scientists can't come to a decisive conclusion on their theories, that maybe a supernatural deity caused these events, such as evolution, the Big Bang etc? Maybe the Big Bang is the creation that the Christian Bible describes?

For instance, you look at one of the greatest scientists in the world, Stephen Hawking, and his book "A Brief History Of Time" (I would happily piss on the name of the book, it is such a shit metaphor). Anyway, Hawking has gone through all his theories, and has used the possibility of a supernatural being to fill in the holes that nobody in science can answer. He is either using a "god" as an escape from not being able to explain what can't be explained, or he is actually saying that human knowledge of the universe and it's beginnings are explainable only by some intervention by a powerful entity.

Hawking has also looked into the field of evolution. Again, whenever he comes across a hole in a theory, he just basically says .... "ummm, maybe *points up to the sky and says "ooohhhh"* <--- To quote the legendary Bill Bailey

Actually that leads me to a point about evolution ... if evolution was scientific fact, and was testable and proveable, then why don't we see any half ape/half human people, or insects or animals that are obviously halfway or someway between defined species?

I personally am not saying whether I believe in evolution/big bang theory or creationism. I am an agnostic, however I do know that I lean more towards a belief in a deity causing all these much too argued about theories.

Anybody believe a "deity" could be a possible explanation for evolution/big bang?

P.S Before any born-again evolutionists decide to say that this is an escape from the holes in theories, I have already mentioned that this could be a possibility for some people's reasoning. But then again, human knowledge can only go so far, it is finite, therefore one day you will have to face up to the facts that either we can't learn anymore about these theories, or the possibility that maybe something else intervened.

[Furore]

The only problems I get with my belief in Christianity are Atheists. My usual response is to bring up the fact that they can't prove there is no God despite their occasional tendency to label religious folk as mentally deficient. Really, it's just as close-minded as Christianity. If a person is unsure and wants a more scientific stance, he/she should really believe there may or may not be a God/Gods and that he/she should try and find evidence before committing to a belief that there is or isn't a God/Gods.

My personal belief stems from a feeling that there must have been something with a different set of rules to create what we know coupled with an instinctive feeling. When I've really needed something it's been provided, even if incredibly unlikely. I do acknowledge I could be wrong and if someone presents evidence to the contrary I'd be all too happy to change my beliefs.

[Heartless Angel]

The actual, proven forces of nature are not supernatural at all. Every theory on the creation or nature of the universe, on the other hand, requires faith in some type of supernatural power -- not supernatural diety, but supernatural power. Even if your faith is that these supernatural happenings had natural causes, your faith is still in the supernatural actions.

I'm affraid you'll have to explain to me what supernatural force is required for the Law of conservation of mass to suggest that what's here now has in some way always been here without the aid of magic. And what supernatural force is required for things to explode. Or what supernatural force is needed for passing genetic material when breeding, or for genetic mutations. There might be some very specific irrational beliefs held by some atheists you could make a case like that for, but certainly not all of them. And atheism by definition does not subscribe to any of them.

And I know that you're smart enough to be able to spell a simple word like "Atheist" correctly. Right?

And I also know you know how to spell synonymous, however I'm not making a point of pointing out your typo in an attempt to devalue your statements, as that's completely irrelevant to the argument, as is any instance of my mispelling atheist.

Wrong. Hard Atheism does make a claim of knowledge -- in the non-existence of a diety. Just like I can claim to "know" that you don't have brown hair. Soft Atheism, on the other hand, makes no claim of knowledge. Don't confuse the two.

This is correct. To think you 'know' the truth in spite of not having proof is illogical, regardless of what conclusion you draw. This is why I'm agnostic (though my unproven beliefs lean more towards atheism).

[smurphy]

For instance, you look at one of the greatest scientists in the world, Stephen Hawking, and his book "A Brief History Of Time" (I would happily piss on the name of the book, it is such a shit metaphor). Anyway, Hawking has gone through all his theories, and has used the possibility of a supernatural being to fill in the holes that nobody in science can answer. He is either using a "god" as an escape from not being able to explain what can't be explained, or he is actually saying that human knowledge of the universe and it's beginnings are explainable only by some intervention by a powerful entity.

Hawking has also looked into the field of evolution. Again, whenever he comes across a hole in a theory, he just basically says .... "ummm, maybe *points up to the sky and says "ooohhhh"* <--- To quote the legendary Bill Bailey

Actually that leads me to a point about evolution ... if evolution was scientific fact, and was testable and proveable, then why don't we see any half ape/half human people, or insects or animals that are obviously halfway or someway between defined species?

Who, by the way, is a physicist and cosmotologist, hardly all encompassing scientific fields. A brilliant mind, definitely, but that doesnt mean he is an expert on everything. I would much rather take the word of an expert zoologist over his when is comes to the field of evolution.

Evolution is scientific fact, and the only people who arent rabid creationists that try to poke holes in the fact have only read a few paragraphs about evolution and go away thinking they are experts. Its not that simple.

Half human\half ape= Wayne Rooney. No seriously, early homo sapiens killed off the neanderthals, the closest thing there was, and they probably killed off the link before that. Survival of the strongest.

The thing is with many species they seem different but one may be further up the evolutionary chain than another, but they appear to be a different from appearance. When a group of brown bears became isolated in siberia several thousand years ago, the conditions were set up for them to evolve. So they had to adapt and get used to scarce food sources all year round and the fact that they were conspicuous in the constant snow, so were easy to avoid, and thus they adapted and evolved to become polar bears. Two species may be similar yet due to two different environments have become different species. You just have to look at all the different types of frogs to see all the different places they are along the evolutionary chain.

And before anyone says that the fossil of a certain link doesnt exist, do you know how rare the conditions for fossilisation are?

[Unknown Entity]

I find it funny how some people in this thread have made atheists out to be a "problem" for them and their religion because we say there is no God, or we tell people there's no God. The same case could be presented the other way around with Christians who tell people there is a God. It's closed-minded to think that either or is a problem.

I also don't like how people immediately assume atheists = science. I think scientific theory can be just as "out there" as religion. Doesn't mean every theory science spurts out is true. It's a weak ****ing argument.

Evolution and the Big Bang? It's just another explanation for our creation. One that wouldn't make sense to religious folk. But then again, God creating the world in seven days makes the world of sense to a religious person, but not a whole lot of sense to someone who doesn't believe. Putting that argument into play is ridiculous, because it won't sway anyone if they believe deep enough in something else.

No one is going to win this war. People need to learn to accept other people's beliefs, no matter how far fetched they may seem. That said, as an atheist, I accept other religions, but if I get one more knock at the door from a guy wearing a £300 suit, and holding out to me Bible Study pamphlets, I will shove them where the sun doesn't shine.

[Alpha]

With regards to your first paragraph, UE, do you therefore accept that atheism fulfills the criteria for religion?

I have no problems with anyone's belief. I wouldn't care if you believed in leprechauns. I don't have a problem with them because they're not MY decisions. So I don't care. At all.

But anything that explains what is fundamentally unexplainable (primarily, though not exclusively, the origin of the cosmos) IS a religion. Even if your explanation is 'nothing'.

[Unknown Entity]

With regards to your first paragraph, UE, do you therefore accept that atheism fulfills the criteria for religion?

I have no problems with anyone's belief. I wouldn't care if you believed in leprechauns. I don't have a problem with them because they're not MY decisions. So I don't care. At all.

But anything that explains what is fundamentally unexplainable (primarily, though not exclusively, the origin of the cosmos) IS a religion. Even if your explanation is 'nothing'.

Still a "nope" from me. I just don't view it as a religion. Atheists practise nothing, and I still like the not collecting stamps as a hobby quote I made earlier. I just don't see how it can be viewed in the same way as a religion as they seem miles apart to me.

Short post, but eh.

[Selcopa]

Evolution is scientific fact

Right. Except for the part where it isnt. Gravity is a scientific fact. Evolution is not even close to the same certainty.

btw the fotm for evolution to explain why there are less fossils, is rapid evolution, as in, evolution suddenly goes into turbo mode and they advance super quickly so not enough subjects get fossilized, and we miss a bunch of steps. im not making this up either.

Evolution and the Big Bang? It's just another explanation for our creation. One that wouldn't make sense to religious folk.

Not necessarily, nothing about evolution and the big bang are requiring the absence of god, easily can incorporate them by saying god used big bang or evolution to create the universe, really nbd with religion.

regards to a religion, while you accept that it takes faith, has a structured set of rules and partakes in just about every other activity that religions do, but we dont want to call it a religion?

I also hate Jehovah's witness

[OnOneRyder]

Honest question: what does one say to a self-professed atheist who tells me there is no God?

Is that there overwhelming opinion, something they'll fight to the death over or just a blurb of something they've said? Making a claim of knowledge when such knowledge is impossible to possess could only be done so when based on faith, be it theistic or atheistic.

A majority of those learned at one stage in history believed that the Sun orbited the Earth. They were wrong, but your logic would suggest we should never have bothered challenging them.

You also have to accept that those individuals lived in a time where they were extremely limited in their ability to further their understanding of the cosmos. The technology we possess now allows us to be free of error on such simple matters, so it is a poor argument. Look at Newton, believed to be one of the most brilliant minds our planet has even been privileged to host founded theories which we still to this day refer to as scientific laws. One might say that he is proof that accurate science was possible centuries ago and that the majority being incorrect is simply the norm so there is no reason to accept the majority's findings now. The man also believed his research would eventually allow him to transmute lead to gold, not being aware of the enormous amounts of energy required to do so. Why? Because he was a product of the times, limited in his abilities to understand the true complexity of our universe. Even today with a high school education vastly superior to what many possessed centuries ago you would be extremely hard pressed to find individuals capable of proving the motions of our solar system using only observation with the naked eye and an understanding of simple physics. It should come as no surprise they were so often incorrect.

Actually that leads me to a point about evolution ... if evolution was scientific fact, and was testable and proveable, then why don't we see any half ape/half human people, or insects or animals that are obviously halfway or someway between defined species?

What is your standard for what constitutes halfway? At what point does one say, this is one species and this is another? A species is merely a group which shares nearly identical traits capable of interbreeding successfully and sharing similar DNA and examples of species changing from one to another do indeed take place and have been taking place at a pace which has allowed us to monitor this change. I'll excuse your half ape, half human error considering we are apes but we are the half ape/half human who's existence you are questioning. Species evolve from common ancestors and branch out, which is why we can so precisely trace our origins to an shared ancestor with modern chimpanzees. It isn't as though we are simple comparing similar traits, the evidence is the DNA which is an INCREDIBLY complex system. The precision in which we can actually trace the differences and where the changes took places is astounding.

The Chimpanzee/Human argument is arguably overused, but it is because it such a strong case for evolution as it has been scrutinized so aggressively yet holds strong.

[Heartless Angel]

Regards to a religion, while you accept that it takes faith, has a structured set of rules and partakes in just about every other activity that religions do, but we dont want to call it a religion?

Everything takes faith. Atheism has no rules at all, and partakes in no atheist specific activities, festivals, holidays, gatherings or anything else. The only commonality is that they both have a belief. Every claim ever made has come with a belief. Would you then say every idea ever had is therefore a religion too?

[nickness89]

The human/ape argument isn't an error. It has been proven through extensive research of the human genome, that all humans can be traced back to one man and one woman, with human DNA. And when you say 'we are apes' then you kind of kicked yourself in the teeth there, because you said that nobody can define what is 'halfway', yet we have humans and apes, but nothing AT ALL in between the two.

As I said, I am not trying to debunk any theories, so don't go attacking as if I'm trying to disprove something intentionally, I am looking from both sides, it's just that one side is a bit more likely and obvious than the other.

My main question was whether anyone thinks it's credible that the reason none of you on here, or any scientist for that matter can possibly have the knowledge to prove any theories on evolution or the big bang, is because MAYBE some higher being had a say in the matter, and that if evolution/big bang did happen, that they could have been caused by said entity?

[OnOneRyder]

The human/ape argument isn't an error. It has been proven through extensive research of the human genome, that all humans can be traced back to one man and one woman, with human DNA. And when you say 'we are apes' then you kind of kicked yourself in the teeth there, because you said that nobody can define what is 'halfway', yet we have humans and apes, but nothing AT ALL in between the two.

What the hell are you talking about....we are apes? The fact that you're unaware of this leads me to believe your credibility in arguing evolution or even basic biology for that matter is nil and there is no reason to further this discussion.

[nickness89]

Don't spout that bull, I know it to be a fact that the majority of scientists have discovered that were have more in common genetically with pigs and cabbages than apes

And like I said, which you obviously didn't read, is that I am not here to argue the what's or where for, I just asked a question that I wanted opinions on. Not someone who gets defensive when I disagree with something, which, by the way, hasn't been proven either

[Judge Magistrate]

Don't spout that bull, I know it to be a fact that the majority of scientists have discovered that were have more in common genetically with pigs and cabbages than apes

And like I said, which you obviously didn't read, is that I am not here to argue the what's or where for, I just asked a question that I wanted opinions on. Not someone who gets defensive when I disagree with something, which, by the way, hasn't been proven either

I'm on your side with this one bro, but once again we're getting off topic. No matter how innocent a question may seem it could offend people. Once more, let's let this thread go back to it's original purpose.

What do you do when people mock/criticise your religion?

[OnOneRyder]

Don't spout that bull, I know it to be a fact that the majority of scientists have discovered that were have more in common genetically with pigs and cabbages than apes

What is so difficult about grasping the fact that we are apes? Ape - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Please educate yourself before you go off spouting things you know to be fact when they are in actuality incredibly inaccurate.

edit - judge is right, pm if you'd like to continue.

[Rowan]

With regards to your first paragraph, UE, do you therefore accept that atheism fulfills the criteria for religion?

I have no problems with anyone's belief. I wouldn't care if you believed in leprechauns. I don't have a problem with them because they're not MY decisions. So I don't care. At all.

But anything that explains what is fundamentally unexplainable (primarily, though not exclusively, the origin of the cosmos) IS a religion. Even if your explanation is 'nothing'.

Alpha, by your logic, 'Belief' and 'disbelief' are the same thing, in reguards to atheism being a religion.

[Alpha]

Yeah, in a sense they are the same thing, or at least opposite sides of the same coin.

Atheism, in my definition, takes the third stance of non-belief. Dis-belief is closer to belief than it is to non-belief.

[OnOneRyder]

You're not entitled to your own definitions though, so how can you make that judgement? All atheists have a dis-belief in god similarly as all theists have a belief in god. BUT not all atheists claim to know there is no god similarly as not all theists claim to know there is a god. One is a requirement to be a part of the category while the other is not, and are simply beliefs held by individuals of the category and those individual beliefs do not re-define the category as a whole. Dis-belief could easily be compared to lacking a belief at all, the default position where one is completely unbiased by not being exposed to beliefs from either side.

Atheism whilst a belief system does not meet the requirements for a religion.

[Judge Magistrate]

This isn't a thread for discussions about atheism. If you want to continue the discussion one of you should start a new thread.

[Meier Link]

This isn't a thread for discussions about atheism. If you want to continue the discussion one of you should start a new thread.

This. Point and case. Get the thread back on the rails. According to all the replies that I have seen in this thread concerning atheism, the atheist denounce that atheism is a religion so discussion of it in a thread based on religion is null and void. Last warning no more off topic posting.

[seanb]

Why should I believe in anything. Why should I conform to anything. Why should I be labelled anything. Leave me alone.



Atheism is just another category for someone.
There's always a predefined decision made for who/what you are.
I'm just me.
If someone mocks or criticizes me or what I do, I wouldn't notice because why should I. Or I could just beat them silly.

[Diyala]

I'm Muslim and faced many unpleasant reactions about us as being terrorist and bla bla bla ,but I just think these people first should go and read about what exactly Islam is specially the meaning of the word Islam,then they can call us whatever they want.

Islam might b represented by some bad guys and prejudice media that transferred something which was completely not Islam ! so never say terrorists before knowing what this religion mainly calls for .

That's what I wanted to say to anyone who gets hard feelings against me when realizing my religion . but truly it never affects me when it happened and I know these ppl just don't know the truth .

[Elise]

I'm a religious Muslim and my best friend is an Atheist, we have very different life styles, but seriously we wouldn't be able to survive without the support we offer each other. I have close friends that are Christians (practicing), Agnostics and Buddhists. I have a close male gay friend who converted from Christianity to Atheism (too bad he had to leave the country). I have many acquaintances with different beliefs, some I haven't even heard of, but I have those people to teach me. I have heard the spiritual journey for each one of them, they hear mine, we talk, we discuss, yet respect each other and celebrate our differences in the name of multiculturalism. My point is that we are all humans before we are anything else, I always emphasize this point in every argument, it makes me extraordinarily happy when I meet people who respect you for your personal choices and makes it easier to respond, without anger, to mockery and ignorance to others who don't. Yes I am a born-again Muslim and I believe in the righteousness of my beliefs, but I am also pro-choice, I believe in all the other Abrahamic religions, I would never force anyone into anything, and I'm not the only one; this is one of the main teachings of my religion.

From my practical experience; I was not mocked in a sever way compared to some Muslims I know. I received 'raised eye-brows', weird looks and sometimes being singled out. At some point in my life I would be surprised when someone 'different' would approach me and have a normal conversation with me. Psychologically; I got used to the weirdness that normality was weird for some time. Right now I could say it's somewhat balanced. I love when people ask me questions, I want them to ask me why I do this and why I do that, and why I am a believer in the first place, it is really not offensive if done respectfully, motivated by curiosity. Besides, if you don't challenge what you believe in, how could your faith be strong? The best way to have conversations with people is to understand where they are coming from, for example it would be ridiculous if I give a pure spiritual argument to an atheist, they always seem to be asking for logic and if they don't find it in your answer then you really didn't answer them.

I'm sorry if I drifted off topic, it's kinda hard trying to fit a big subject in a post.

[The_Dream_Recluse]

Honestly, i can't see why people can't just get along when it comes to religion. Sure, we all have differing views but we are all people as well. My personal spirituality is a mixture of Catholicism and Buddhism, but i still admire and have a huge respect for Muslim, Hindu, Jewish and other such religions.

When people mock or insult religion in my presence, they usually tend to be just a couple of close mates who are just having a laugh as a joke and don't mean anything by it which doesn't really bother me so long as they don't go overboard. On the other hand, when strangers start degrading me or people i know because of their beliefs, that's where i draw the line and tend to engage in debate with them.

Not that i have anything against atheist/agnostics, but just don't go harping on about how religion is an 'outdated medieval form of control' in my presence. Kthx.

[Assassin]

I think that no1 has any right to say something wrong about some1 else's religion. Every1 should be proud of their religion and make any sacrifices if possible. I think that in every religion, the followers are ordered to not say something wrong or criticize any1's religion. I also think that nobody should make fun of any1's religion.