UKC

Worth reading:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/16/would-you-adam-and-eve-it-why...

In reply to Torchy:

We haven't had a good one of these in a while. Everyone's been too busy arguing about Brexit and cyclists.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
Be fair. There are religious brexiters, atheist cyclists and agnostic european drivers. Enough factions there for everyone!

Also, brand new account with no posting history appears to post click bait trolling article. 0/10 for effort.

In reply to Torchy:

nothing new - our headmaster in the 1960s was a priest and corrected some of us in class when we asserted that humans were different from animals, describing evolution at one point, as well as pointing out anatomical traces of our descent from some form of ape.

In reply to wercat et al:
No desire to start a new big thread with theists and atheists shooting from the hip (tempting but it would just be hot air), so you guys have got it spot on

In reply to davidbeynon:

Brand new account? More research required! Just providing information.

In reply to Torchy:

No visible posting history, obvious troll article given the way UKC threads go. Getting a proper posting history so nobody smells a rat is the least you could do!

In reply to Torchy:

People grasp of currently religious belief generally is very poor. I would bet most people also hold the outdated belief that all Christians believe in god too

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/02/12/third-british-adults-dont-believe-high...

45% of Christians polled didn't believe in God

In reply to davidbeynon:

I haven't posted in a while and should have used my more recent profile.

To all - Please, please...no long thread. Read the article and move on

In reply to Nigel Modern:

I did read it. We all know that most of the mainstream churches aren't biblical literalists, and that a noisy subset of internet atheists are idiots.

On the other hand I will just leave this here: http://www.chick.com/

In reply to davidbeynon:

At least the index ain't TOO bad at the moment

http://www.raptureready.com/rapture-ready-index/

In reply to davidbeynon:


One dislike, our troller didnt like your reply did he!

In reply to Torchy:


No, it is not worth reading. The survey simply didn't say what that writer -- Catherine Pepinster -- claimed it did. She is a devout Catholic apologist who deliberately misrepresented the survey in order to denigrate atheists. It's rather unethical of her (not that she would care).

I wrote a blog article explaining why the article misrepresented the survey:

https://coelsblog.wordpress.com/2017/09/19/what-christians-believe-about-ev...

In reply to davidbeynon:



Fabulous. I must hand stuff like that out at Halloween, it'll really mess with kid's heads!

In reply to Torchy: I've moved on thank you. I am always bemused by articles by the religious telling me what I'm thinking, and how to interpet it.

Sadly for Dr Williams I think old style mechanistic accounts of the world do a rather good job and tell a wonderful tale of the development of the earth and life.

Coel : . I found the degree of popular support for theistic evolution rather depressing really.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Thanks for that.

Notified The Observer? Be interested to here their response.

In reply to Siward:


Is that website them revealing that their weird beliefs are caused by sexual inadequacy?

In reply to Coel Hellier: It is my experience that most of the comments posted by atheists on the internet and much respresentation of Christian belief in the media does show an ignorance of what most Christians believe.

Time and again my response (and that of other Christians) to what I read is, 'They reject a God I would also reject.'

You may not have a problem with ignorance of the complex and deeper issues but you are doing atheism no favours by denying that there is a problem.

In reply to Nigel Modern:


OK, that may be your opinion, but it doesn't seem that way to me.


This shows how little Christians understand atheists. They don't reject *a* god, they are aware of lots of conceptions of gods, and generally reject all of them. The idea that atheists think that there is only one idea of a god that all the discussion is then about is just wrong.


But now present some evidence that atheists generally lack understanding of religious believers.

In reply to Torchy:

It was my ancestor, Adam Num Num that shagged Eve and started all you Uckers out there

In reply to Nigel Modern:

I used to be a Catholic, and now religion makes no sense at all to me. I used to take it all at face value, and was confirmed too before turning away. In becoming an atheist, I've not lost any of my memories of being religious, and it still makes no sense to me, that people don't wonder if the word of God actually is written in their religious books. In my childlike way, I wondered why I never heard any booming voices from the heavens or saw anything dramatic, and rather felt like I'd been had.

I'm glad for you that your faith brings you peace and meaning, though, I'd defend anybody's right to be religious, or else persecution happens.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


I may be wrong but, having read quite a few of your posts on the subject in recent years, I think I'm probably every bit an atheist as much as you are. And here again, I don't take much issue, except on this point. Surely, if taken at face value, the central stat from YouGov, that a high percentage of atheists (wrongly) believe that most believers are essentially creationists is exactly what you're asking for. I have sympathy with some believers insofar as, however muddled you (and I), might take their thinking to be, it doesn't seem entirely reasonable to only characterise it as one position. I'm with you on the article's author's dubious use of the polling.

In reply to sg:

But the survey doesn't ask that question! The survey only asks whether people think that religious people would have some degree of difficulty reconciling scientific evolution with their religious beliefs.

If Christians *don't* have difficulty reconciling evolution with their beliefs then they basically haven't thought about it. That doesn't mean they need to be full-blown creationists, but they do need to scheme up some fudge such as "theistic evolution".

In reply to Torchy:

On the contrary, I can't agree that it was worth reading. Coel has already done an excellent job of debunking it, so I won't attempt to expand on that.
I'm ?under the impression that a lot of atheists are like me when it comes to our understanding of religious beliefs. We understand that there is a wide range of belief, ranging from a vague spirituality to fundamentalism. We don't really care about the details of what people believe, because it's all mumbo jumbo anyway. As long as people keep their beliefs out of public life, we don't have a problem with them. The only reason atheists start having a go at religious types is because they keep trying to push their beliefs onto everyone. If people would just shut up about their religion we could all get along fine.

In reply to Hooo:

Denial of the right to free speech is how we all get along!? Hmmmm. Interesting.

In reply to birdie num num:

That makes im our ancestor!

In reply to TobyA:


Quite a stretch to read that into Hooo's post.

Such a stretch that the band linking your reply to Hooo's past has snapped and is flailing around wildly.

In reply to TobyA:


Denying someone's right to speak is a hell of a different thing to thinking they should shut up.

In reply to birdie num num:


I bet she got a right ribbing for that.

In reply to Siward:


"Behold I come Quickly"!!!!

I don't think that's much to brag about, especially for blokes.


Edit: Only just realised that is not a piss take site. I'm flabbergasted.

In reply to Nigel Modern:


We reading the article it appears it's all the fault of the atheists and we need to work harder.

I believe our work is done and you only need look at Christopher Hitchins' argument to the people who were telling him God gave him cancer to see why.

youtube.com/watch?v=k8V25FHKXuU&

Surrender or burn in hell.

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:


Surely it's just a matter of power?

In reply to TobyA:


Not at all. You can think that society would be better off if certain people shut up. And at the same time consider that society would be greatly worse if those people were *made* to shut up.

In reply to TobyA:
Not really. One is disapproving of what someone says the other is locking them up for it. Are you going argue that people should not only be free to say what they like but that no dissent must be voiced?

In reply to Torchy:

I made the mistake of reading this before reading Coel's take-down...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/16/would-you-adam-and-eve-it-why...

...and was not impressed that the supposed link to the YouGov findings - I like to look at actual findings - links to the academics' website, and that the supposed link to to academics links to the btl comments section on the same article. Pretty shoddy of the Guardian/Observer.

Ever feel like you've been clickbaited?

In reply to johnjohn:

I had a suspicion that the lack of proper links to the survey data was deliberate, to make it harder to discover that she had misrepresented the survey. But maybe I'm too cynical.

In reply to Coel Hellier:



I've sometimes wondered if it might be possible for Christians to reinterpret the Bible so that, whatever it is which started everything, God was behind that.

In reply to Timmd:

But then you'd have to ask "who started god?"...

In reply to Andy Hardy:
That could be something to find out when one goes to heaven?

Either way, it could make things a lot simpler here on earth, I think, as evolution could be taught in faith schools and there'd be nothing which would stop science being given the credibility it deserves.

It could help us stop arguing with one another (about evolution and science at least) so we make life better instead.

Just my thoughts on it...

In reply to Andy Hardy:


His mom and dad, obviously

In reply to TobyA:

You're obviously just being deliberately obtuse, as everyone else has spotted.
I assume this is because you couldn`t find any argument against my post, even though you don't agree with it.

In reply to Torchy:

A woman ran a red traffic light and crashed into a man's car. Both of their cars are demolished but amazingly neither of them was hurt. After they crawled out of their cars, the woman said, "Wow, just look at our cars! There's nothing left, but fortunately we are unhurt. This must be a sign from God that we should meet and be friends and live together in peace for the rest of our days."


The man replied, "I agree with you completely. This must be a sign from God!"


The woman continued, "And look at this, here's another miracle. My car is completely demolished, but my bottle of 75 year old scotch didn't break. Surely God meant for us to drink this vintage delicacy and celebrate our good fortune." Then she handed the bottle to the man.


The man nodded his head in agreement, opened it, drank half the bottle and then handed it back to the woman. The woman took the bottle, immediately put the cap back on, and handed it back to the man.


The man asks, "Aren't you having any?"
She replies, "Nah. I think I'll just wait for the police."


Adam ate the apple, too!
Men will never learn!

In reply to Hooo:


Oh come now. Trite? Well fair enough, but not deliberately obtuse. I was replying on my phone, possibly whilst on the bog, so that does lead to a certain terseness.


Nope, personally I think the history of modern warfare, and indeed international relations more generally, means that "If people would just shut up about their religion we could all get along fine" is fundamentally wrong.

In reply to TobyA:

I was replying on my phone, possibly whilst on the bog, so that does lead to a certain terseness.

Take some Dulcolax and flush that terseness away!

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Agreed; but what if you think that society would be MUCH better off if certain people shut up but only a little worse if those people were *made* to shut up? I'm relatively comfortable with limiting free speech in some cases, but ultimately it is a utilitarian calculation to be made don't you think.

In reply to Nigel Modern: i think your post here has most of what i find, as an atheist baffling/annoying about religions debate

In reply to TobyA:


This is the rationale of authoritarian totalitarians everywhere.


Doesn't history show that the right to criticise -- and especially to criticise anyone with the desire or power to "make" people shut up -- is an essential bulwark against authoritarianism? I'd always err on the side of free speech.

"Freedom is the right to tell people what they don't want to hear" -- George Orwell.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


I don't think so. The authoritarian tendency is towards a self satisfied belief in their own superiority giving them the right to shut others up, not in the anguished compromises of day to day liberal democracy.


I like Orwell, but as with so many quotes now used on inspirational poster or as t-shirt slogans, on its own and shorn of context it doesn't help much. The total amount of freedom in society would go up if we didn't imprison murderers but that doesn't seem a terribly good idea either.

But we're off the point of this thread now somewhat.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


I remember in the past spending a bit of time trying to track down supposed Orwell quotes, without much luck in some cases, but Wikiquote actually has this one in it's "misattributed" section, although there are plenty of hits for those inspirational posters, t-shirts and coffee mugs on google images!

It seems what Orwell actually said was "If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear" but it is part of a long essay defending Animal Farm from unofficial wartime censorship and specifically against those who would excuse appeasing Stalinism by saying it was the defence of liberty against Fascism. http://orwell.ru/library/novels/Animal_Farm/english/efp_go As ever reading all of Orwell's piece is really worthwhile, so thanks for inspiring me to look that up.

In reply to aln:


I wonder if the disliker on this post missed my point?

In reply to Coel Hellier:



I read this earlier and left it, and I'm sure I'll regret coming back for another go..!

As a, for want of a better expression, Darwinian I realise that anything else is essentially a fudge. However, that doesn't mean it automatically appears so to the muddle-headed believer. I think it's possible that some Christians don't have difficulty reconciling evolution with their beliefs (in their own minds)! Now, either they don't really understand natural selection and the rest of it (quite likely, granted, but either way they don't have to be wilful about it) in which case they don't see the conflict, or, their beliefs are far from the kind of faith that many atheists assume all believers must espouse. I confess, not only did I not read the source material properly or your, clearly well-structured, rebuttal, I didn't even really read what Rowan W or anyone else had to say about the fudge. Just to say, I don't think it's a given that all people who call themselves Christians necessarily believe anything outwith the current scientific paradigm. They just don't like to tell all their friends.

These things take time, don't they. People don't always change their minds / beliefs in the face of one key piece of evidence or one good argument. They come to a new position after the debate, shifting ground slowly. I think a lot of theists and nearly former theists are also a bit concerned about what kind of world they live in without their former constructions to make sense of human society.

Personally, I feel like I live in an extended state of cognitive dissonance about the idea that there is really anything to form the basis of an 'anchored' human society now. When we see what we are really, then our 'values' become in many ways meaningless; just the emergent expression of individual traits. There is no moral framework. Gosh, I need to go to bed.

In reply to GrahamD:


There was nobody around to poke fun in those days.... Just our Adam.
Interestingly, like all the subsequent Num Nums, Adam was particularly well endowed in the one eyed trouser snake department, so that first ever shag became known at the time as the big bang, and became celebrated in Hebrew folk songs and scriptures.

In reply to Andy Hardy:


Which puts us back to the eternal question, 'Why is there anything, rather than nothing?' We're no nearer to answering that one, whatever Stephen Hawking may think...

If some folk want to say God started it, it's as good an answer as claiming it's somehow inevitable.

In reply to Siward:


That reminds me of what I refer to as 'syndrome syndrome', wherein as soon as an observed set of symptoms is given a name - usually 'somebody's syndrome', all of a sudden it appears like a known entity and people are a lot more relaxed about it, while in reality (at least at first) absolutely nothing may be known about why the syndrome happens or what do do about it.

What you seem to be referring to here is 'God syndrome'. Until someone comes up with a real explanation, having a name for the unknown is more comforting to many people than the reality of ignorance. Of course, everything religions tell us, beyond the name, is merely syndrome upon syndrome in a self-referential comforter.

In reply to Siward:

Why is there anything, rather than nothing?

because nothing is now considered something?

In reply to wercat:

In which case, why is there nothing? Eh?

In reply to TobyA:


It's soooo tempting to tell you to shut up.

In reply to sg:


An example issue would be that, in evolution, what species we end up with is a largely accidental, due to all sorts of historical contingency. Thus, for example, had the meteor that destroyed the dinosaurs not hit, then things would be so different that there would likely be no human-like species around.

So a Christian more or less has to bolt on the extra "... but God was supervising things and ensuring that evolution did end up with humans". That in itself is a non-scientific add-on to evolution that might be fairly minimal but still shows that most Christians would have some thinking to do about reconciling science and their faith.

If they want to maintain that humans have souls and go to heaven, whereas chimpanzees and gorillas don't, then again they have thinking to do about reconciling this with science. Of course plenty of them manage this, but there are still "issues".

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I've had Christian biologists explain to me that they accept evolution by natural selection but think that god was somehow involved in the initial origins of life before evolution got underway. As we know so little about the origin of life (although there is plenty of speculation) its difficult to say much in reply

In reply to Torchy:

Newspaper in "People aren't all the same and hold varying degrees of beliefs, some of which may be wrong" shocker!

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I agree entirely - my point was really just that most believers (like most people), just don't think much about these things so are unaware of the many inconsistencies they may hold. As such, in their own minds, they have no difficulty reconciling their irreconcilable beliefs, hence their responses to the question.

In reply to john arran:

I would probably agree, but the fact that a proportion of humans seem to need religion, suggests to me that we might do well to find a way of looking at things which allows the scientific worldview and the religious one to coexist without conflict. Whatever one thinks of religion, it could seem like a pragmatic thing to do?

In reply to sg:

I'm glad you put (like most people) in your post, too.

In reply to Siward:

I prefer to ask "Does matter matter?".