Evolution

[Harry Angstrom]

The question is: what difference at all does the hair drier make to this madness?

Social norms. It isn't a difficult concept to grasp. I fully understand why people believe in stuff I think is nonsense.

As I have said in the past, I think you through Baby Jesus/Buddha/Mohammed out with the bath water.

 

[dangermows]

We share ancestors with every living thing that has ever loved on the planet if you go back far enough.

Cheers.

That is a really great question but maybe it is better to ask somebody who does believe something irrational.

Ask a person why they believe in 1 god out of.a list of thousands on the shelf, but dismiss all of the others without a second thought.

Ask somebody who believes in ghosts why they don’t believe in Hobbits.

Ask a believer why they are happy to believe supernatural, irrational and silly things just because they have been told to and without the faintest shred of evidence.. There is a strong argument that people with religious beliefs should not be allowed to do jury service. Of course there would be outcry, and I expect flak on here now I have suggested it. However, before anybody starts crying they should read through this last paragraph and let it digest. Imagine you are wrongly accused of a serious crime. Would you want your future decided by people who make decisions based on evidence? Or the more gullible and easily persuaded people who believe what they are told (...by a talented prosecution barrister)?

But we’re not allowed to mention such things..... religious beliefs must be protected...

^ He's got it bad.

Take a bow mows lad.

Cheers marra

Social norms. It isn't a difficult concept to grasp. I fully understand why people believe in stuff I think is nonsense.

Comparing a belief in God with a belief in Santa is crackers. The person knows where their kids toys came from, because they bought them and spent Christmas Eve, pissed, putting them out.

 

[SAFC_Jack]

You could just give a raptor a rock bottom. Nice and easy results for the humans.

 

[Kent_Mackem]

Social norms. It isn't a difficult concept to grasp. I fully understand why people believe in stuff I think is nonsense.

As I have said in the past, I think you through Baby Jesus/Buddha/Mohammed out with the bath water.

It is social norms, which is why people don’t stop to question it and it’s why rational people get funny looks when they dare question it.

Seeing hundreds of Muslims on their knees all bowing together to worship something (that probably doesn’t exist) is disturbing on so many levels. The power that those religious authorities have over them is frightening.

I once asked a Christian why he didn’t believe in Thor. He answered “well that would be silly” but he was blind to the fact that this was the exact reason why I don’t believe in his god either.

Deluded people are fascinating.

Comparing a belief in God with a belief in Santa is crackers.

The worrying thing is that you can’t see why they are the same. In fact a god is less likely to exist than Santa.

Again..... social norms.

 

[Harry Angstrom]

It is social norms, which is why people don’t stop to question it and it’s why rational people get funny looks when they dare question it.

Seeing hundreds of Muslims on their knees all bowing together to worship something (that probably doesn’t exist) is disturbing on so many levels. The power that those religious authorities have over them is frightening.

I once asked a Christian why he didn’t believe in Thor. He answered “well that would be silly” but he was blind to the fact that this was the exact reason why I don’t believe in his god either.

Deluded people are fascinating.

I have questioned a lot of my thinking over the last few years and I have tweaked what I think and do as a person.

Having more time, reading a lot of stuff I wouldn't have read in the past but I think I understand why people are like they are more than I did 5 years ago.

The Thor angle is a little simplistic IMHO.

The worrying thing is that you can’t see why they are the same. In fact a god is less likely to exist than Santa.

Again..... social norms.

How can something be less likely to exist than something that doesn't exist? I like the concept.

 

[JonMc]

.
To go through your life doing everything right, doing well at school, same with college and uni, you get the good grades and the good job and prove yourself as a decent responsible citizen - only to be told that you are excluded from taking full part in a society on the grounds of a personal belief? I just don't think it's fair.

 

[Kent_Mackem]

How can something be less likely to exist than something that doesn't exist? I like the concept.

If somebody insists Santa exists then neither you nor I can prove he does not. All we can say is that it sounds implausible because it goes against our known laws of nature and that there is no evidence to back it up. That is exactly the same position I find myself in when challenging somebody who believes in a god. There may well be as many pictures of Santa in circulation than there are of any particular god. (Count how many Christmas cards and advent calendars go out each year. The church windows aren’t renewed).

In fact the only difference is the second point, that a god is less likely to exist than Santa. This is just the use of Occam’s Razor. More complicated explanations are less likely to be fact than simple ones. A god can create a universe, know what people are thinking, can answer prayers if he chooses to and can turn water into wine. Santa just flies around the sky once a year and yucks presents down chimneys. He can’t even walk on water.

.
To go through your life doing everything right, doing well at school, same with college and uni, you get the good grades and the good job and prove yourself as a decent responsible citizen - only to be told that you are excluded from taking full part in a society on the grounds of a personal belief? I just don't think it's fair.

Credit to you for at least thinking about it now though. Most people wouldn’t even get that far.....

 

[Harry Angstrom]

If somebody insists Santa exists then neither you nor I can prove he does not. All we can say is that it sounds implausible because it goes against our known laws of nature and that there is no evidence to back it up. That is exactly the same position I find myself in when challenging somebody who believes in a god. There may well be as many pictures of Santa in circulation than there are of any particular god. (Count how many Christmas cards and advent calendars go out each year. The church windows aren’t renewed).

In fact the only difference is the second point, that a god is less likely to exist than Santa. This is just the last use of Occam’s Razor. More complicated explanations are less likely to be fact than simple ones. A god can create a universe, know what people are thinking, can answer prayers if he chooses to and can turn water into wine. Santa just flies around the sky once a year and yucks presents down chimneys. He can’t even walk on water.

I can prove Santa doesn't exist. I bought the presents.

 

[JonMc]

Credit to you for at least thinking about it now though. Most people wouldn’t even get that far.....

It's not that hard to think about. It's discrimination on the basis of a belief where all things being equal says that this belief is no hindrance whatsoever to that person making responsible decisions and being a successful member of society.

 

[Kent_Mackem]

I can prove Santa doesn't exist. I bought the presents.

You have only proved Santa didn’t provide those particular presents.

It's not that hard to think about. It's discrimination on the basis of a belief where all things being equal says that this belief is no hindrance whatsoever to that person making responsible and being a successful member of society.

Slavery was accepted for years until it was reconsidered.

It’s not unreasonable to question whether a person who makes decisions on what to believe without evidence is suitable to be on a jury of a murder trial which relies only on evidence.

it’s just that society accepts it as the norm, so questions like this will never get asked, as you have proved in your defensive post.

 

[JonMc]

Slavery was accepted for years until it was reconsidered.

It’s not unreasonable to question whether a person who makes decisions on what to believe without evidence is suitable to be on a jury of a murder trial which relies only on evidence.

it’s just that society accepts it as the norm, so questions like this will never get asked, as you have proved in your defensive post.

What you're saying is that someone can make every responsible choice throughout life and yet on the issue of one personal belief that you don't agree with, you would exclude them from playing a full role in that society. Sorry but it's discrimination and it is unreasonable.

Bringing slavery into the discussion is foolish.

 

[Harry Angstrom]

You have only proved Santa didn’t provide those particular presents.

Well, ask the parents of the person who believes in Santa.

Slavery was accepted for years until it was reconsidered.

Slavery could easily become acceptable again.

Bringing slavery into the discussion is foolish.

I'm not sure what his point was either? Societies could easily make a decision to restart slavery if it was necessary for the benefit of that society.

 

[JonMc]

Slavery could easily become acceptable again.

Personal slavery might have never gone away in Europe the first place if not for Christianity.

 

[Kent_Mackem]

What you're saying is that someone can make every responsible choice throughout life and yet on the issue of one personal belief that you don't agree with, you would exclude them from playing a full role in that society. Sorry but it's discrimination and it is unreasonable.

Bringing slavery into the discussion is foolish.

it’s nothing to do with the fact that I don’t agree with their beliefs.

1. Crown court trials rely ONLY on evidence

2.Those who harbour supernatural beliefs, whether that is a belief in a god, a Hobbit, a Gruffalo or Mighty Santa himself, have chosen to believe extraordinarily claims without requiring any physical evidence.This makes them delusional and able to make up their minds on something important (like a guilty verdict) without requiring evidence.

3. Therefore it is reasonable in principle, but where I agree with you is that it will never happen, to question the suitability of those people for jury service.

It Is not discrimination. Their choice to believe stuff is their own choice. This is not like the colour of their skin, their place of birth, their gender, their age or their sexuality. They have made a choice that they will believe extraordinary concepts as fact, that elders have taught them, without the need for any evidence to back it up. It has nothing to do with how good a surgeon, farmer or author they may or may not be. I just don’t think deluded people make reliable jurors.

Again I accept I will be in the minority (I don’t care), due to social norms, and again credit to you for at least considering it before you replies. Thousands wouldn’t.

 

[JonMc]

it’s nothing to do with the fact that I don’t agree with their beliefs.

Again I accept I will be in the minority (I don’t care).

I think your second statement belies the first.

 

[Kent_Mackem]

I'm not sure what his point was either? Societies could easily make a decision to restart slavery if it was necessary for the benefit of that society.

Of course they could, I am not disagreeing.

My point was that slavery was accepted as the norm for years until people thought to question it.

The questioning hasn’t happened around whether deluded people who don’t require evidence before accepting something should be on juries.

And the reason for that is religion has become so entrenched in society that look what happens if anybody does dare raise the question. People get defensive because they know friends or family who are religious and they have good jobs. But I am not questioning how well they cook Sunday dinner, Joe kind or intelligent they might be or how well they may have done in their careers.

I am questioning why a defendant should accept having people on a jury who don't require evidence to make important decisions, when a crown court trial relies only on evidence.

I think your second statement belies the first.

It really doesn’t. For clarity: I don’t care that I am in the minority.

I am not on a crusade. I accept this will never be questioned for the reasons I have stated. The reactions are interesting and predictable if the question gets asked......

 

[JonMc]

It really doesn’t. For clarity: I don’t care that I am in the minority.

I am not on a crusade. I accept this will never be questioned for the reasons I have stated. The reactions are interesting and predictable if the question gets asked......

I know you don't care but it's the crx.

Again discrimination. Someone can do everything right, study science successfully for years, struggle and achieve great things to a point where they are responsible for lives of people.

And on one point that you, as a part of a minority are at odds with...they fail. That's pure discrimination. There's no other way to say it.

 

[Harry Angstrom]

Of course they could, I am not disagreeing.

My point was that slavery was accepted as the norm for years until people thought to question it.

The questioning hasn’t happened around whether deluded people who don’t require evidence before accepting something should be on juries.

And the reason for that is religion has become so entrenched in society that look what happens if anybody does dare raise the question. People get defensive because they know friends or family who are religious and they have good jobs. But I am not questioning how well they cook Sunday dinner, Joe kind or intelligent they might be or how well they may have done in their careers.

I am questioning why a defendant should accept having people on a jury who don't require evidence to make important decisions, when a crown court trial relies only on evidence.

Are you a vegan? If not why not? Have you questioned your consumption of animal products and feel that it is acceptable? (I don't want to open a debate on veganism but I am interested on your thoughts)

 

[Kent_Mackem]

And on one point that you, as a part of a minority are at odds with...they fail. That's pure discrimination. There's no other way to say it.

It’s only a minority because it has never been questioned and because of social norms in society never will be currently.

I’ve raised the point about juries in my novel. We won’t see the end of religion in our lifetimes but it will come eventually if humans survive long enough. People will look back and think “Wow! It lasted until then??!”

The book may Well never get published or even read. However if it does I think people will appreciate my point in the future as society will be different. There may come a point one day when deluded people are not allowed to be on juries.

Your response is not atypical. I’m sure most people would agree with you currently. I’m going to include your points in the book as coming form one of the characters.

Are you a vegan? If not why not? Have you questioned your consumption of animal products and feel that it is acceptable? (I don't want to open a debate on veganism but I am interested on your thoughts)

No, I’m not. I eat meat but maybe once or twice per week. I do my think meat every day is good for your pipework and it’s not sustainable for the planet.

 

[dangermows]

It is social norms, which is why people don’t stop to question it and it’s why rational people get funny looks when they dare question it.

Seeing hundreds of Muslims on their knees all bowing together to worship something (that probably doesn’t exist) is disturbing on so many levels. The power that those religious authorities have over them is frightening.

I once asked a Christian why he didn’t believe in Thor. He answered “well that would be silly” but he was blind to the fact that this was the exact reason why I don’t believe in his god either.

Deluded people are fascinating.


The worrying thing is that you can’t see why they are the same. In fact a god is less likely to exist than Santa.

Again..... social norms.

I can. Difference is the believer actually knows, 100%, that they give the kids their toys. No matter what science you throw around, it won't make it less so.

I can prove Santa doesn't exist. I bought the presents.

Pretty obvious