Ok, sure, you know better than me (about what, I'm not entirely sure). But I'm sure it's lovely for you.

The question was: do people who subscribe to god/religion apply the same evidence based criteria as they do to e.g. science. The answer is: some do. Or at least, they think they do.

Think about it sheeple! Wake up!

#fakenews

Note to self: found the new Truman.

Note to self : Stumbled again on a sheeple who as my fave author Steinback once said " the sheeple see themselves not as an exploited sheep but as temporarily embarrassed billionaires.”

The correct quote is "“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”

Sociologists call it sense of agency.

Very low levels of this sense of agency yield people believing everything is controlled by external factors, therefore any change in living conditions requires changing society and controlling nature(*). The optimal is somewhere in between both extremes.

(*) risky, do not try at home!

Mmmm.

With more than a judicious splash of paraphrasing and word substitution. Because sheeple was definitely a thing in Steinbeck's day.

OK, so that makes you and me both science/evidence based and hence we reject God & Religion too!

What about 22Yards, Marton and Ace1? Are you in or are you out? Anyone else?

I used to believe in God, brought up going to church every Sunday, in the choir, etc. But when I grew up (aged around 16) and saw a little off the world I realised that if what I'd been taught was right then billions of people were going to hell just because they'd been taught something different, which didn't fit with the idea of God that I'd been fed.

Then of course, once you realise that a part of it is bollocks you're able to apply logic to the rest of it and throw the whole lot out of the window.

I'm a satanist. Heavy metal and stuff, ya know...

They live (1988)
I'm here to kick ass and chew bubblegum and I'm all out of bubblegum.
dhak! dhak! dhak! dhak! dhuck! dhuck! dhuck!

In or out of what?

Tom

Lockdowns


Seriously though my point was basically that if people are against any conspiracy theory due to lack of any evidence then they should extend that same evidence based approach to matters of religion and God too. Otherwise, in my eyes at least they would be hypocrites.


So I am pleased to know that Ace1, NotAllThere, LifeStrain etc are "IN", meaning that they try to extend the fact based approach to all subjects, including religion/God.

what took you so long ?

Except there are religious or spiritual people with fact based approach to certain subjects and not in their faith just as there are atheists with fact based approach to only some selective problems. Then there are people who think that their approach is fact based which doesn't mean that it actually is. "IN" is on a scale. Where are you?

Nah, no bla-bla, THAT club you're either in or out.

The ultimate test is your attitude to Charlie Hebdo.

True, I try to be a man of principle in all matters equally and not selectively
Yes, true again.
I am here, Godless.

What is this test?
100% behind the rights of the cartoonists to mock any or every religion, no ifs or buts excuses from my side.

Well, I think that all religions and gods are total BS, but so is a lot of so-called science!

Meanwhile, I'd be happy to have one of your kids to sacrifice for Easter! Please slaughter it in a halal manner.

Tom

Are you implying that we mock conspiracy theories and not religion? I guess the issue is the absence of a religion thread, so the conspiracy theories thread is the only thing left to mock. Sorry.