As such, science by its very nature is not an absolute truth. However, people assume it to be, as a result of ignorance of the scientific method.

I am not saying that any given religion [i]is[/i] the absolute truth, and neither was Liddle.

Andrew:
[i]“It is entirely ‘respectful’ to treat you like an adult and expect you to understand that I am attacking what you think, not you. As I’m sure you do.

I don’t think you’re an idiot. I think, based upon current evidence, that your beliefs are likely to be completely wrong, but that says nothing about you. You’re reading more into the statement than is there, and it doesn’t help anybody.”[/i]

An anology between fairies and any mainstream religious god is logically valid, but all words have several layers of meaning and what I am reading is what is written, although not necessarily what the author intended to write. We all heard stories about fairies when we were children. Many of us may even have searched for them in gardens and parks. Similarly with Santa — most people believed in Santa when they were young. As such, Santa and fairies are inextricably associated with childish naivety. This association bleeds across and comparing a god to a fairy or Santa Claus implies that the religious believer has the mental capacity of a child. Whether it’s intentional or not, that’s just the way language works.

It has to be said that your version was better worded than most of the comparisons I’ve read or heard, but while the negative semantic effects of the word fairy were minimised, they cannot be totally avoided if you still use the word.

Lacanox’s metaphor is a much more interesting study in the use of belittling language:
[i]“They really do believe in Gandalf”[/i]
First of all, Gandalf is a known fictional character. By putting Gandalf on an equal footing with any deity you care to name, he presents the fictional nature of the god as a given, as taken for granted, as beyond question.

“They really do” is a phrase used to introduce something that the audience are expected to find hard to believe. Again, it is taken for granted that the audience are convinced of the non-existance of any supernatural deity.

[b]This[/b] is where the language becomes insulting. The subtext is “everyone knows there is no god” which implies “anyone who believes in a god is an idiot”. As this is the jumping-off point of the argument, it really is as I stated before: “you’re an idiot — let me teach you how to be clever.”

Let’s compare this with the following from Andrew:
[i]“What if I said, “I know it means a lot to you, but here’s the thing. I can appreciate that many people do, but I can’t actually see any reason to think a guy called Jesus came back from the dead. It’s a nice story and I can appreciate your feelings in this matter, but there’s no evidence it ever happened.” Are you telling me people wouldn’t be offended by that, too?”[/i]
No, of course there are extreme elements who would be offended by this, but the majority would not be. That is the reasonable, productive way to put it and anyone who cannot see that would be too hardline to debate with anyway.

This statement is effective because it makes no assumption. You do not [b]assume[/b] that there is no god, it is not presented as a given. Rather you [b]assert[/b] that there is no god. An assertion is linguistically open to doubt and to challenge; if you say “there’s no evidence it ever happened” you are open to the response “yes there is”, and the scriptures are mentioned, miracles etc, and we’re back to the question of the reliability of witnesses, particularly in light of the fact that most holy men, prophets and visionaries exhibit symptoms of chronic mental disorders. The debate gets nowhere, but at least it’s a debate rather than a slagging match.

No I’m not. It is entirely ‘respectful’ to treat you like an adult and expect you to understand that I am attacking what you think, not you. As I’m sure you do.

I don’t think you’re an idiot. I think, based upon current evidence, that your beliefs are likely to be completely wrong, but that says nothing about you. You’re reading more into the statement than is there, and it doesn’t help anybody. Comparing deities to a magic fairy in the sky is a succinct and reasonable way to make a point that says nothing at all about the person who holds the beliefs. If you think I’m actually saying ‘you’re an idiot’, you’re wrong. I know nothing about you. There are a myriad of reasons people could believe in deities, from indoctrination to just never having thought about it very much to, heck, personal revelation, and ‘you’re an idiot’ doesn’t mean anything anyway.

If we were discussing anything else it wouldn’t occur to people to play the ‘my feelings are hurt when you argue against me and you should think about that’ card. It is entirely possible for reasonable people to have a debate over any issue at all, but when it’s religion suddenly ‘my feelings are hurt’ becomes a valid argument. I would suggest that the level at which feelings become hurt in discussions of religion is far, far lower than in any other topic. We could discuss foreign policy, the latest blockbuster film or the price of stamps and everybody involved would have a perfectly good understanding of where the line lay between attacking the opinion and attacking the person. But when gods enter the equation suddenly I’m meant to argue in the softest terms possible in case somebody gets offended? Why? I do not consider that I attack religion any more rudely than I would a political opinion – any offence you take is based upon your emotional attachment to the ideas, and how am I supposed to take those into account? What if you got offended every time I said the word ‘Jesus’? Should I respect you as a person by never saying it? There’s a reasonable level, and I see no reason to think that anybody who attacks the opinion and not the person comes close to breaching it.

How would that work, anyway? What if I said, “I know it means a lot to you, but here’s the thing. I can appreciate that many people do, but I can’t actually see any reason to think a guy called Jesus came back from the dead. It’s a nice story and I can appreciate your feelings in this matter, but there’s no evidence it ever happened.” Are you telling me people wouldn’t be offended by that, too? No matter how many pillows you shove around it, I’m still saying that I think deeply held religious beliefs are nonsense. Hell, I’ll just be accused of being patronising if I start doing that. Why can’t we have a grown-up conversation! You think we’re all stupid!

Like I said, I consider that I am treating you with complete ‘respect’ by arguing reasonably against the opinion and never the person. If you want to argue that people nevertheless still do get offended and that some kind of ‘your religion’s lovely but here’s a teensy problem with it’ method would be more effective, be my guest. But I don’t think that’s what you were saying.

You’re artificially setting science in opposition to religion, and suggesting there’s a strict choice of one or the other simply encourages religious people to reject science.

Or reject religion, but that’s beside the point. I have no problem with anybody believing in deities until they try to influence other people in unreasonable ways. If you want to think that people come back from the dead / virgins can have children / wine turns into blood, be my guest. But start claiming this as truth and saying people not in your club should alter their behaviour accordingly and you’ve got a claim which can be examined using reason and logic (call this ’science’ if you like), and it’s this that creates a battle between religion and the real world. I’m perfectly happy for you to retreat into the gaps as knowledge advances, but make nonsensical truth claims and try to affect other people on the basis of them and I’ll attack your beliefs – not you – with everything I have.

“Utter nonsense, where do you get the idea that science is an authority on morality?”
Is that addressed at me? I said no such thing.

“The Jehovah’s Witness would let their child die for want of a blood transfusion. Yet we “God created humans” have invented that facility, but their faith demands that their child dies,”
The debate between “we can” and “should we” exists in every moral philosophy, religious and non-religious.

We can make nuclear bombs. Should we?
If you answered yes to that, then consider this: North Korea can make nuclear bombs. Should they?

Andrew:
“‘Some observations are by nature unrepeatable’ is a very odd thing to say, too. Rogue waves are repeatable.”
Not in laboratory conditions, except to the extent that constructive interference of waves can be produced in water.

To all:
I know that most of you here reject the notion of respecting other people’s beliefs, but how about the simple principle of respecting other people?

Comparisons to Gandalf and the like are not the way to open a dialogue. Basically, you’re saying “You’re an idiot — let me teach you to be clever”. Accepting that invitation is admitting to being an idiot. Who is going to do that? Without according with respect, treating them as equals, how do you expect them to be open to new ideas.

You’re artificially setting science in opposition to religion, and suggesting there’s a strict choice of one or the other simply encourages religious people to reject science.

The point I was making using Bertrand Russell’s teapot, was not to label atheism with another word, but to make the point that atheism could also be described as an assumption. Such as assuming the world it flat, as it looks that way, until you find out it’s not.

I assume there is no God, as until there is good reason to assume there is one. a few hundred years ago there would be much reason to, but not now.

Is God willing to prevent evil but not able, then he is not omnipotent. Is he able but not willing, then he is malevolent. Is God both able and willing, then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing, then why call him God?

And

ARISTOPHANES – Surely you don’t believe in the gods? What’s your argument? Where’s your proof?

Goooaaalll

But that is the crux of the point many people want a God Father to be the moral arbiter, & wish to know which side to be on. They really do believe in Gandalf, come Merlin, come some great Mr Good Guy Boss, or Mrs, who says yes you’re a goody, here live forever. Would be nice in a way. Much more frightening to be a tiny piece of flotsam floating in a vast universe for a short brief flash. But exciting though.

Niall so what if we want an authority? But if it’s not there, it’s not there, no matter how passionate our wanting. Of course like most atheists my position is that due to lack of evidence …. & unless something comes up that ……. in the meantime I will work on the proposition, Gandalf & all are “Great Inventions”.

Utter nonsense, where do you get the idea that science is an authority on morality? Are Aardvarks?

When you were ill; & I am delighted you are now well, may you long stay so; natural selection created brains, which made thinking possible to do science to do medicine, so we humans by evolving the intelligence to invent these things saved your life. Or to put it very short, natural selection selected you to survive. You are the species you are, born at a time that you were, to make it possible for such cures to be administered.

The Jehovah’s Witness would let their child die for want of a blood transfusion. Yet we “God created humans” have invented that facility, but their faith demands that their child dies, a child too young to yet decide where it’s beliefs lie. That is immoral, & child abuse.

Anyway have a lovely Christmas, eat drink & be merry, & may Doctor Who bless us all