Does any sort of "God" really exist, or is it a man-made scam to keep the peasants in their places?
Discuss.
|
"Religion is the opium of the masses". There is no God. It's your own fault.
John
|
|
Its all about money and control.
|
|
Most peasants I see aren't religious and do not know their place either so it isn't working!
Last edited by: Perky Penguin (p) on Mon 6 Dec 10 at 18:40
|
Most religions are, or at least were, a useful conduit for the undoubted social convenience of a mass code of morality within a community while simultaneously providing a platform of alleged righteousness for those who seek power, wealth and control of their populations or those of their neighbours. What better way to justify the slaughter and subjugation of another group than to claim it is the wish and desire of a higher being rather than being coldly driven by a political or economic objective?
I do like carol services though...
|
Its all about money and control.
That is surely ad element of the church throughout the ages but it would be difficult to argue that the original teachings of Jesus Christ were about either money or control.
|
|
Given that the bible was written some time after the supposed era of Jesus Christ, it was probably already influenced by those with a thirst for power.
|
Its all about money and control.
That is surely ad element of the church throughout the ages but it would be difficult to argue that the original teachings of Jesus Christ were about either money or control.
Jesus Christ!
|
John H
Please expand your post - Do you believe JC advocated acquisition of money or control of others?
|
>> Jesus Christ!
You may or may not think there is a God, but there is no need to be deliberately offensive.
|
|
Depends - how you define the word "God".
|
|
Quote from Richard Hammond - "I am a driving god"
Last edited by: mikeyb on Mon 6 Dec 10 at 19:19
|
|
Maybe there is, maybe there isnt, but id want insurance against eternal fire etc. I dont blame people for finding faith.
|
"I am a driving god"
Very good. I'm not a great believer of religion, but it doesn't stop me from being in awe of some of the cathedrals I've had the pleasure of walking through.
|
>> Very good. I'm not a great believer of religion, but it doesn't stop me from
>> being in awe of some of the cathedrals I've had the pleasure of walking through.
And here we have the definitive guide to what religion has brought us.
Literacy, Architecture and Art. In heavy, fabulous, glorious doses.
Hasn't done much for science through the ages tho.
|
hasn't done much for science through the ages tho.
One of he great periods of early science was under the moslem Arabic empire.
|
|
Very true. I had my western religion hat on on.
|
|
Well Richard Hammond is NOT a hair styling god, that's for sure!
|
It is amusing to consider that scientists can't make their explanation of the universe 'work' unless certain 'hypothetical particles' are assumed to exist. There is no concrete evidence of their existence, you just need to have faith. Those that don't toe the line are likely to be branded 'heretics'....
In a way, it's no more credible than "God created the world in seven days" (or was it six?)
Last edited by: Old Sock on Mon 6 Dec 10 at 19:40
|
>> In a way, it's no more credible than "God created the world in seven days"
>> (or was it six?)
that was really sloppy journalism, even for its day.
|
>> It is amusing to consider that scientists can't make their explanation of the universe 'work'
Good job that there are superior beings like you around to doubt their work, and ensure that the gullible public don't start to believe in science or scientists.
|
>> Good job that there are superior beings like you around to doubt their work, and
>> ensure that the gullible public don't start to believe in science or scientists.
I was merely pointing out mankind's enduring pride not to admit,
"sorry - we just don't know".
|
>> I was merely pointing out mankind's enduring pride not to admit,
>>
>> "sorry - we just don't know".
But scientists do admit the above, they say 'this is the best explanation we've come up with at this point in time, but we'll carry on and see if we can come up with something better'.
I don't think scientists as a whole are arrogant enough to announce that they know all there is to know about the creation of the earth. They are just following one of the biggest traits of man, being inquisitive about the world in which they live in. Unfortunately science has given us horrors like nuclear weapons, but many good things have come out of people striving to understand what makes things tick.
|
>> >> Good job that there are superior beings like you around to doubt their work,
>> and
>> >> ensure that the gullible public don't start to believe in science or scientists.
>>
>> I was merely pointing out mankind's enduring pride not to admit,
>>
>> "sorry - we just don't know".
I don't think that the scientific community would say that it knows everything rather there are theories will more or less proof.
Of course the religious brigade jump on the "it's a theory" bandwagon, and then claim that their theory is equally as valid.
It all comes down to evidence. Take evolution, for example, there is the standard "theory of evolution" and then there is "creationism" and its derivatives (e.g. intelligent design).
The theory of evolution is backed up by a tremendous body of observable evidence (fossil records, cellular mechanism for inheritance and mutation, actual observation of evolution of species etc) , whereas creationism is backed up by a single religious text (I suppose several religious texts actually).
Creationists will say, "aha they admit that their evolution is only a theory, and they can't even absolutely prove it"- and then try to suggest that their theory is comparable.
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Tue 7 Dec 10 at 07:26
|
It's rarely put better than in Bobby Henderson's letter to the Kansas State Board of Education
"I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaghetti_Monsterism#History
|
>> Does any sort of "God" really exist, or is it a man-made scam to keep
>> the peasants in their places?
>> Discuss.
>>
Just a figment of imagination of the weak minded that is exploited by their superior beings.
Serves a useful purpose in allowing the weak willed to blame, or ask forgiveness of, their god(s) for their sins.
|
|
I am an Agnostic, thank God.
|
|
I'm an atheist, but at the second coming I'll convert to agnosticism, perhaps.
|
>>Does any sort of "God" really exist, or is it a man-made scam to keep the peasants in their places?
>>Discuss
I usually say, facetiously, that I'm not superstitious myself. Of course it's more complicated than that - religion is not practised exclusively by the simple or gullible, or those seeking to control them.
God as construct doesn't equate to non-existence for a believer. So yes, God exists. Just don't expect to have your photograph taken with him. I was brought up with Quakerism, so I've heard more explanations of God than most! Certainly Quakers could not be accused of using religion as a tool to manipulate people or wage war, nor in my experience are they generally lacking in intelligence. That, and the fact that they are not evangelical probably accounts for their declining numbers.
Although I am an atheist, or at least a non-theist, I don't accept the premise of the thread title - reason doesn't necessarily preclude belief, though it might for you.
Last edited by: Manatee on Mon 6 Dec 10 at 20:19
|
I have time for Quakers. They never push their religion in your face, or try to "convert" others. Practise their religion with some piety, and a softness of spirit.
Plus they sound like a well known Belgium beer I am rather partial to.
|
...Plus they sound like a well known Belgium beer I am rather partial to...
Their football team's rubbish.
|
|
Given the rest, I can forgive them that sin
|
>> So yes, God exists.
Ok, provide the proof in a way which i can replicate here...
When discussing Scientists and the fact they can't prove how everything works I always point out that if we were to be transported back several hundred years even our Layman's knowledge of how things work would astound those living at that time... Everything will be explained in due course, just that it might well be tomorrow when it is... and as we all know, Tomorrow Never Comes because its Today!
Last edited by: hobby on Mon 6 Dec 10 at 20:28
|
|
I don't believe in the bible or religion but I am not saying there is no after life. I simply have no idea what happens when we are dead but then I am not brainwashed.
|
>> I don't believe in the bible or religion but I am not saying there is
>> no after life. I simply have no idea what happens when we are dead
You're dead - what basis is there for thinking otherwise if you're not religious?
>> but then I am not brainwashed.
How do you know?
|
Religion is all about being told what to believe and following set a of rules. I am not saying there is no god, I am saying I simply have no idea. However I am not going to believe something just because the bible or koran says so.
I have nothing against religion or people that follow it and I do understand why people are so into it. I just like to be very open minded about it all.
|
This is all very well but did you hear about the dyslexic agnostic insomniac who lay awake all night wondering if there really was a dog?
|
|
We only invented God so that we would always have somebody else to blame!
|
I think most societies benefit from religion. It serves a bonding purpose for communities and is usually a source of strong moral guidance and comfort. The main problems arise when some begin to believe that their version makes them somehow superior to those of other creeds and cultures. Most of the word's major religions are guilty of elitism.
On balance though I do feel that some form of moral glue in society is a good thing however it is represented.
I am happy in the main to follow the teachings of the version I was brought up in but would hope anyway, not to be dismissive of those who follow different but mainly parallel codes of conduct and belief systems.
Still not sure about whether there is a supreme being but pretty sure there is an innate morality in us all unless we allow other factors or emotions or desires to overwhelm it.
Perhaps we are all "God" or at least have some potential to be.
|
"This is all very well but did you hear about the dyslexic agnostic insomniac who lay awake all night wondering if there really was a dog?"
and every year at about this time he starts to worry about what Satan will bring him.
John
Last edited by: Tooslow on Tue 7 Dec 10 at 09:26
|
|
If there is a God and I ever end up in front of him to give an account of myself he'll wish he hadn't bothered. I have a long list of nastiness I'd like him to explain first.
|
There is only one common theme with every religion regardless of type.
"Our god is better than your god and if you do not agree then all roads point to war"
Religion may be good for mass control and relative peace but the on the wider scale of things it could only bring destruction and suffering.
|
Humph, I was with you on your first post but I can't see how societies have benefited from religion. The cause of many wars and deaths. As for providing a moral code - we don't need religion to represent it or provide it. We all know how to live and what is essentially right and wrong and we pass that onto our children. It's not provided by any God and the bible was written by man, therefore the moral code within came from man. Religion appears to me to be about exercising power and control and gathering wealth. The architecture and the dressing that goes with it all is merely an attempt to provide some gravitas to the whole thing. I'm completely at a loss as to why we give religious leaders a public platform or pay any more attention to their view than anyone else's. Disestablishment is well overdue too - how is it that we have laws preventing my freedom of speech on the subject? If someone's faith is so strong why does it need the protection of law? As Dawkins said: If I preached belief in the chocolate teapot circulating the globe (that only I can see and communicate with) I'd be branded mad. No-one would seek to protect me with laws. What's the difference??
I can barely fathom why I'm contributing to this post!
|
>> too - how is it that we have laws preventing my freedom of speech on
>> the subject? If someone's faith is so strong why does it need the protection of
>> law? As Dawkins said: If I preached belief in the chocolate teapot circulating the globe
>> (that only I can see and communicate with) I'd be branded mad. No-one would seek
>> to protect me with laws. What's the difference??
One only has to look at the outcry that followed "Monty Python & the Life of Brian" to realise that secular leaders are not keen for religion to be held up to scrutiny.
|
Any facet of human existence has the capacity for evil, mainly because we all started from the biological imperative "survive at all costs". Some folk are better at suppressing the "must bash everybody else" instinct than others, but we all have it.
Some folk choose to follow a religion - some folk do not. Let each respect the decision of the other, which means cut out the abuse, threats and belittling. What purpose is served by calling the other guy rude names because he doesn't happen to agree?
Something caused all this (i.e. life/universe/everything) to be here. No idea what. Maybe we'll figure it out eventually, maybe not. Meanwhile, let's enjoy what we have.
|
>> Something caused all this (i.e. life/universe/everything) to be here. No idea what. Maybe we'll figure
>> it out eventually, maybe not. Meanwhile, let's enjoy what we have.
>>
IF God created us, and all other things.......... then........
Who created God?????
|
>> IF God created us, and all other things.......... then........
>>
>> Who created God?????
Exactly. That is one question that has puzzled me since I was a child. Believers seems to be unable to answer that one.
|
>> IF God created us, and all other things.......... then........
>>
>> Who created God?????
>>
Who knows? Does it matter?
This morning, driving to work, the sunlight was catching the hoarfrost on the trees and making it sparkle. Arrestingly pretty, albeit a reminder of how damn COLD it is today.
Religious people might say that God/Allah/whatever put the frost there and caused the sunlight to make it sparkle. Non-religious people might say that it was the angle of the sunlight reflecting on the ice crystals. Some might say both. Whatever. All I know is that it looked pretty and made me happy on a very simple level that I have eyes to see it and the ability to appreciate it.
The thing that depresses me is that there are people around - a lot of people - who would want to destroy me for saying that.
|
>> The thing that depresses me is that there are people around - a lot of
>> people - who would want to destroy me for saying that.
No-one on here is going to try and destroy you for saying you appreciate things that appeal to the eye or your sense pleasure.
I have to ponder what the hell that has to do with religion tho.
|
>> I have to ponder what the hell that has to do with religion tho.
>>
My point was in essence that an enormous amount of human energy gets wasted arguing about the whys and wherefores of life and whether or not it derives from some sort of supreme being. Pretty vicious some of that arguing is, too. Seems a waste of time we could spend far more rewardingly appreciating the good stuff and trying to make the bad stuff good.
This is one of the reasons why I find the rantings and frothings of religious zealots and atheist zealots equally objectionable. It is just such a waste of energy.
|
>> All I know is that
>> it looked pretty and made me happy on a very simple level that I have
>> eyes to see it and the ability to appreciate it.
Nicely put, paulb.
I have spent my entire working life adhering to 'scientific method' - but as I grow older, I realise that some questions will probably remain unanswered. It's not - as W.C. Fields might have put it - "looking for an escape clause", by the way.
The scientific community seems to have tied itself in knots trying to reconcile sub-atomic theory with events happening on a cosmological scale. My naïve view is that the universe operates on very simple principles - it's just that we don't have the capacity to 'see' it. This leads to ever more fanciful explanations based on primitive observations garnered at a single point in space and time.
Oh - I have no religious views whatsoever.
|
>> >> IF God created us, and all other things.......... then........
>> >>
>> >> Who created God?????
>> >>
>>
>> Who knows? Does it matter?
Does it matter?
No, not generally.
Its one of those things that just sits on the back burner, until religion is being discussed.
I'm in the same camp as Badwolf, I have often wondered about it, not losing sleep I may add!
But... it is the one thing that is ALWAYS glossed over, normally in exactly the way you have just done....
I must balance the discussion by pointing out that science also doesn't hold an answer to the same basic question - if the 'big bang' started things off...what caused the big bang?
Last edited by: swiss tony on Tue 7 Dec 10 at 11:57
|
>> I must balance the discussion by pointing out that science also doesn't hold an answer
>> to the same basic question - if the 'big bang' started things off...what caused the
>> big bang?
This question has been pondering man ever since he first looked up at the stars, developd the rudimentary grunt, pointed to the sky with his friend and went "HUH"?
To answer this question man developed the idea of a higher being, a deity, a something, just to explain it away.
Hence a theory, an unproven theory, was hijacked by those who seek control and power, into Religion. It makes perfect sense, why not use mans basic first question, and fear, as the corner stone of your doctrine.
|
"what caused the big bang?" There are a number of theories including one which postulates that the cause was a minor distortion in another dimension. I believe that scientists generally agree that there are 13 dimensions. The fight between the 13 dimension mob and the 12+1 (huh?) group was finally settled and they're agreed that there are 13. No scientists were harmed in the making of this decision.
However there are now observations which suggest at least 5 prior big bangs. So I may have written this before and be boring you... :-)
John
|
If the human race became extinct, would God still exist?
If intelligent life were found to exist on another planet, would it have its own god, or would our God rule there automatically?
Does he already know about all intelligent life in space, or is he waiting for us to discover it for him?
|
I don't especially disagree with what you say Woodster but I do accept that a form of belief system remains important to many who find it a comfort. Perhaps I was trying (not very clearly) to say much the same as you.
As I said before though, I do like carol services !
:-)
|
Yes I understand Humph. I can see that my Mother in law finds it a comfort and I recognise that Church based activities in my village provide some community cohesion.
It's rare that I agree with zero - must be a seasonal thing, goodwill to all men etc. Oh no, I've been unwittingly infected....
|
A few people hedging their bets in their replies... Which is what Religion relies on, sow that seed of doubt and you've got 'em hooked as they daren't risk denying the existence of a God... just in case there is...
I tend to agree with both Woodster and Humph (!), I think Society needs something to bond it, my main issue with most organised religions is that they try to force their view on me, some being worse than others...
|
Are Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism religions? If they are, they don't seem to want to convert non-believers to their faith, or claim that their god(s) is(are) better than any other. Maybe they aren't religions after all.
|
A religion doesn't have to try to "convert" people to be a religion... and there are several Christian-based religions that could be added to that list of yours... My objections are to those who DO try to convert you, and sometimes by the use of threats and/or force...
I live my own life, if I want to take up a religion I'll look around and choose one (lets face it there are plenty to choose from!), in the mean time I'm quite happy as I am!
Last edited by: hobby on Tue 7 Dec 10 at 13:54
|
As I've mentioned before on these august pages, I have absolutely no time for any of the hog-wash that surrounds the myth of God.
I have no doubt that, many years ago, there was a thoroughly decent cove who went about with a few like-minded chums doing terribly nice things for people. But I absolutely do not believe that he was some sort of messiah, capable of miracles least of all that he was the son of some super-natural, ethereal being.
Mrs B is a devout Catholic and I have to say that it is this facet of her character that I get along with the least. She will not entertain a debate about religion and sees it as an attack on her beliefs, whereas I feel that if you strongly believe in something then you should be ready and willing to discuss and defend it when called upon.
Myself and my ex-wife decided that we would not have our two daughters christened when they were babies. Instead we would let them decide when they were old enough whether they wanted to do it. I hate the idea that children are 'brought up' into a religion - I prefer to think of it as 'brainwashed'.
If the IVF treatment that we undertook at the start of the year had have worked, then we'd have been blessed with at least one little Wolf cub by now but I know full well that I would have no say whatever in whether he/she would be christened. And I do know that I would not have been able to attend that christening as there is no way that I could stand there at the font of a church and confirm my faith in something that I have no time for, never mind promise to bring my child up in that faith.
Religion has, over the years, caused more deaths, misery, suffering and poverty than anything else in the modern world. It has been the direct cause of the the spread of HIV and AIDS in Africa due to the Pope's intransigent approach to contraception (now, only just being relaxed) and it has seen millions of pounds spent on building massive, ornate buildings used to worship a non-existent deity instead of housing the poor, sick and needy.
As somebody else pointed out very well, I don't need a work of fiction to instill a sense of right and wrong into me. Human beings can work that out for themselves. Of course, we get it horribly wrong sometimes but I completely fail to see how the Bible can make any difference.
Having said all that, like Humph I do enjoy a good carol service but I won't be going to one as being in church does make me very uncomfortable. The last time I went to church for a service was the blessing of our marriage, and I have absolutely no intention to set foot in one again for the rest of my days.
Don't get me wrong, I am not antagonistic towards those who choose to follow religion. I respect their right to choose what they believe in. But I do think that what they do believe in is the biggest load of tosh imaginable.
Here endeth the lesson :-)
|
>> ...it has seen millions of pounds spent on building massive, ornate
>> buildings used to worship a non-existent deity instead of housing the poor, sick and needy.
>>
That reminds me - sad thing is that a lot of the monasteries once served a pretty broad social purpose by helping the destitute in their local areas, then some bloke called Henry nationalised 'em 470-something years ago and that was the end of that.
Hey ho.
|
One thing's for sure. Jesus Christ wouldn't have approved of Christianity.
Me? I don't approve of any religion. It is all fairy stories. I can only bring myself to set foot in a church for a wedding or a funeral, in support of friends and family.
The worst thing religion does is to indoctrinate children. I utterly hate the way it is presented to my children at school (by law). I do everything I can to open their minds, but it is extraordinarily difficult to contradict teachers. I just hope that as they grow and their minds develop they will work things out for themselves (the children AND the teachers).
I hold that it is actually an act of evil to baptise a child and to enforce religious beliefs in to them. I wince when I hear a child say they are a Christian or a Muslim or whatever. It is vile.
However, I do believe that children should be taught to support their father's football team, or that which is nearest their home. This should be enshrined in law and taught to children from the earliest possible age in place of religion. ;-)
|
>> The worst thing religion does is to indoctrinate children. I utterly hate the way it
>> is presented to my children at school (by law).
But don't they have to teach a bit about a lot of religions these days, precluding them from doing too much indoctrination of any one religion?
Last edited by: Focus on Tue 7 Dec 10 at 12:20
|
>> But don't they have to teach a bit about a lot of religions these days,
>> precluding them from doing too much indoctrination of any one religion?
>>
The main religion of this country is still presented as such at things such as assemblies, school carol concerts etc. They are taught about other religions, but the undertext of brainwashing is still the "Christian" message.
|
Our local pub does a carols night every year. Must check when it is. There you are, problem solved! ;-)
John
|
It's not much of an arguement is it? We are all basically agreeing. Let's all join a fundamentalist web site and have a REAL arguement! :-)
Just joking.
John
|
...It's not much of an arguement is it?...We are all basically agreeing...
The one thing we often argue about is spelling and grammar.
There's no middle 'e' in 'argument'.
There can be no argument about that.
|
I'm standing in the corner.
John
|
...I'm standing in the corner....
Twenty minutes should do it.
And if you make the same mistake again, you'll be sent to confirmation classes and baptised in the local duck pond. :)
|
The meaning of life, God and Religion, has been discussed and fought over by Man for millennia.
The reason Man will never understand God, is because Man is Man and God is infinite.
WW1/2 Korea, Vietnam, Falklands, Iraq, Afghanistan etc., were nothing to do with Religion, or God.
One day, we may move on from the killing, the greed, waging War etc., but it wont be in your lifetime,
or your Children's lifetime, alas.
|
"One thing's for sure. Jesus Christ wouldn't have approved of Christianity."
For sure? Where did you get this certainty? How do you know?
|
Phew!
I was going to start a thread like this a few weeks ago and decided against it.
I am Jewish. Do I believe in God? I think so. What has the religion done for me? It has given me a moral and practical focus for those times in my life when I was asking the questions what do I do now?
In the wider world almost every grouping from a few indigenous jungle dwellers in the Amazon to hundreds of millions of Indians have a belief in some god or other. Why? Because everyone needs a moral focus and compass. Without religion, all we would be faced with would be some very basic codes which could not deal with every situation experienced in life.
Take a simple example. A young mother of one young child is pregnant and faces a dilemma. If she gives birth, there is a high risk of her and the baby dying. If she has abortion, she will certainly live. What should she decide? We will all have a different view on the answers, but if she has a moral focus, she can make that decision and feel comfortable with that decision. The different religions have different answers but that is why we have religion.
I prefer people to say they are agnostic than atheist. Atheists are frequently more fundamental and extreme in their views than people with faith and unlike most people with faith, cannot countenance anyone with a faith having any brains.
Thank God for religions. They are not perfect and monstrous things are done in their name. But for the vast majority of believers it has helped their lives and this country in particular is lacking the form of Victorian Christianity which made it Great. Most Jews and Moslems would be delighted if most Britons were more Christian in outlook and lifestyle. It would make the UK a far better place to live.
|
>
>> Jews and Moslems would be delighted if most Britons were more Christian in outlook and
>> lifestyle. It would make the UK a far better place to live.
You are insulting, in the name of religion, those who do not have a Christian upbringing and more directly accusing them of responsibility for making the UK a worse place to live.
|
>> You are insulting, in the name of religion, those who do not have a Christian
>> upbringing and more directly accusing them of responsibility for making the UK a worse place
>> to live.
No he isn't. He is stating that many Muslims and Jews (remember they share a God with Christians) would be happier if those without any faith whatsoever had, instead, a Christian upbringing.
|
>> Muslims and Jews (remember they share a
>> God with Christians)
That will be news to many of them.
|
Yes he is, he said, quote "Make it a better place to live"
inferring those non believers make it a worse place to live, and also inferring that those with no religious beliefs are lacking in morals and decency,.
|
>> that those with no religious beliefs are lacking in morals and decency,.
A lot of believers in the mainstream monotheisms do rather suspect that unbelievers are potentially immoral or amoral (just like believers, one is tempted to add provocatively).
I spent a fair amount of time some years ago in a country - Algeria - that was emerging from socialist ideology with a third-worldist, revolutionary spin and reverting bit by bit to a sort of garish Islamism. That is not to say that people weren't believers as they had been all along in their fashion. I had one or two rather difficult conversations in bars with people who, because they were sinning by drinking beer, were happy to give some innocent atheist a hard time.
They would have been much easier to talk to if I had said I was a Christian or even a Jew (although Algerians tend to get Jews and Israelis more mixed up than they really are). But they weren't being hypocritical. They really were a bit shocked and horrified by what they saw as my vainglory in defying God in this way.They really couldn't see that one might slip out of that kind of belief system and be fully trustworthy and human. Many believers are a tiny little bit like that. But only some think it gives them the right to be rude, any more than unbelief gives me the right to be rude.
|
>> No he isn't. He is stating that many Muslims and Jews (remember they share a
>> God with Christians) would be happier if those without any faith whatsoever had, instead, a
>> Christian upbringing.
Why does the happiness of Muslims and Jews depend on me having a Christian upbringing? I am not in the business of making anyone happy (Muslims, Jews or otherwise), they can take me as I am, and make their decision based on that.
|
>> done for me? It has given me a moral and practical focus for those times
>> in my life when I was asking the questions what do I do now?
>>
You confirmed what I said:
www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?t=3936&m=82746&v=e
Religion is a convenient mental-crutch for the believers.
|
Espada, You can have all of that WITHOUT religion AND eat bacon sandwiches :-)
John
Last edited by: Tooslow on Tue 7 Dec 10 at 18:30
|
OK. I've read the thread. Here's my response to Landsker's question.
I believe that God really does exist, and is not a man-made scam to keep the peasants in their places.
The reasoning for my belief is as follows.
1. Historical point 1: Jesus Christ is a historical figure.
(There isn't much doubt about it. The number of serious historians of the Roman period who have thought otherwise can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Of course, down in the pub, you can find dozens who think otherwise, but . . . .)
2. Historical point 2: The historical Jesus is pretty much the same as the Jesus that one reads about in the New Testament.
(My understanding is that the consensus of scholars is that we can be confident that pretty well all the books of the New Testament were written within 100 years of the life of Jesus, and most were written within 50 years. All the evidence also suggests that the form in which they exist today is pretty much the same as the form they existed in when they were first written - they haven't been mucked about with. Furthermore, the people who were writing them were not keeping any peasants in their places - they were often being harassed by the political and religious powers of the day. From about AD 30 to AD 313 being a Christian was a somewhat of a risky business in much of the Roman Empire.)
3. Religious point: What Jesus said, as recorded in the Bible, sounds to me like someone who knew what he was talking about.
Who can know anything about God? In one sense, agnosticism about such a big subject has got to be the only rational option. But when I read the New Testament, I get the feeling that Jesus knows what he is talking about. Fair enough to try to be open-minded, but if one keeps one's mind open on every subject under the sun, one is going to make no decisions at all. Sometimes (well, occasionally) it makes sense to come down off the fence and come to some sort of tentative conclusion. I can't be agnostic about everything all my life.
On the subject of God, who am I to believe? A gathering of scientists? A gathering of religious experts? The views of my friends and neighbours? None of them really seem to know any more than me about the subject of God. But I believe that Jesus does, and my inclination is to believe what he says.
Hence, I believe that God exists.
Last edited by: tyro on Tue 7 Dec 10 at 19:28
|
That Jesus Christ existed is well within the bounds of possibility.. That the views expressed in the gospels were revolutionary and thought provoking I have no doubt. That Jesus was the son of God and that his existence somehow proves the existence of God is, as you no doubt agree. a leap of faith.
I am however by inclination and education not able to accept such claims without real evidence not just an exhortation to believe.
I am sure that in many ways it is wonderful to have such a faith and the certainty about life that religion provides but I cannot accept blind faith.
|
"I am however by inclination and education not able to accept such claims without real evidence not just an exhortation to believe."
I agree that one has to have real evidence if belief is to be rational. The question is "What constitutes real evidence?"
The relationship between evidence and leaps of faith is an interesting one. On a totally different subject, I remember questions on "the other place" [insert smiley] about whether Honest John actually existed as a real person - or whether he was simply a character created by the Daily Telegraph. Obviously when the video road tests came out, only the most hardened sceptic would have carried on doubting his existence. But even before that, there was sufficient evidence for many of us to make the relatively short leap of faith to believing that he existed. To take another example, it is somewhat difficult to prove conclusively that Macbeth or Alfred the Great actually existed as real historical people - but there is enough evidence that the leap of faith required is, while bigger than the HJ leap, still fairly short.
Everybody makes leaps of faith. Not everybody notices at the time. I take the view that there is enough historical evidence for the truth of the New Testament says about the life of Jesus that believing what he says is fairly rational.
Last edited by: tyro on Tue 7 Dec 10 at 20:21
|
I would be astonished if anyone suggested Jesus did not exist. Its just that some believe his views on life and god and religion are different to those propounded by the Christian religion.
There were money changers in the Temple. However they were not Travelex rip off merchants. Part of the Jewish religion (when there was a temple) was to bring offerings three times year. If you lived some distance away, you converted your offering (sacrifice or produce) to money at home, brought the money to the temple, exchanged it for an animal or produce and then offered it to god.
However whilst Christ could possibly have criticised the money changers, I doubt he thought of wholesale change to an almost different religion. Hence the split between Jews and Christians.
I did not intend to insult anyone about lack of religion. But What really annoys me, fellow Jews and Moslems is that a nominally Christian country cannot even celebrate its festivals properly. I am not insulted by Christmas. I wish that there was a greater emphasis on the spirit of the festival and less on the food and drink. As we say about the Barmitzvah ceremony, it should more about the Mitzvah (commandments) and less about the Bar (Party). The Winterval nonsense in Birmingham a few years ago was developed by well meaning but ill informed white, English non-believers who thought that the Jews and Moslems of that city would be offended by celebrations of Christmas. Quite the reverse. If Christmas is celebrated properly it leads to reduced family tensions, improved communal relations and a better country.
I wish we did not have Sunday trading. It would make life awkward for me as I do not use money on my Sabbath, but I so prefer the quiet Sundays in Europe to the bustle of the UK. In Israel, whilst the majority of the population is not observant, almost all shops are shut on a Saturday, few buses run and there is a totally different atmosphere during the day, when the country properly relaxes. Some spend the day at the beach, others with family and others partly praying and partly enjoying company of friends over a Sabbath meal. Whatever they are doing, they are doing together making the day special. People with no religion cannot create a day for the whole nation to relax as there will always be the question - why bother? Religion gives the answer.
Last edited by: Espada III on Tue 7 Dec 10 at 21:15
|
>> I would be astonished if anyone suggested Jesus did not exist.
I am equally astonished that anyone can think some bloke was gods representative on earth.
The very thought of it makes me chuckle. It could have been some smooth talker, say an ancient tony blair.
|
>> Espada, You can have all of that WITHOUT religion
Exactly my thoughts when i read it... I have (in my view) decent morals, equally as good as anyone who is "religious"... Why are you trying to say that we who don't believe in a god can't have morals...
In fact I'd say that Religious "Rules" such as the 10 Commandments are merely putting on paper (or stone) what any decent civilization has had in place for years before their religion appeared, to allow people to live together in reasonable harmony you have to have a set of rules, even social groups of animals have their own set of rules...
|
Actually, I think the Ten Commandments are just for the Jews. There are seven commandments which are relevant to non-Jews, but even then, religion had to invent them. Who would think of a judiciary or democracy without the Greeks and they had lots of Gods.
Everything the atheists say are basic human values are all religion derived first. The whole concept of atheism cannot exist without religion.
|
>Actually, I think the Ten Commandments are just for the Jews. There are seven >commandments which are relevant to non-Jews
Why should Jews* have different rules to the rest?
There is only supposed to be one god? yes? or is your different in some way?
*not being anti semantic, the question could easily be changed to Muslim, or Catholic, bth of which impose different rules on its followers.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 7 Dec 10 at 21:40
|
>> There is only supposed to be one god? yes? or is your different in some
>> way?
>>
The whole deal with the Abrahamic religions (i.e. Judaism, Christianity and Islam) is that yes, it is indeed the same God. Which makes it even more silly that their respective adherents spend so much time slapping each other around.
Mind you, some of the worst fights are within families, so why should this be any different?
|
<
Hence, I believe that God exists. >>
Read that again.
So no-one in those groups knows, but you believe Jesus does know, and you're inclined to believe what he says, hence God exists.
A thoroughly complete statement of nothingness. And if a group of religious experts (don't start me on this one..) doesn't know, then how are they 'expert'?
On the subject of science and some preceding posts - just because science doesn't have the answer to some conundrum or unknown now, doesn't mean that it won't continue to find the answers. If that weren't the case, we wouldn't know much of what we know now. There was a time when we didn't know how or why birds flew, we thought man would disintegrate if he travelled faster than 18 mph, the Earth was flat...and so on. yet there's still no evidence that there is a God, after all this time. Cue someone telling me to prove that God doesn't exist, the age old answer to this one from the believers.
|
I cut the first bit off from a previous post that read:
On the subject of God, who am I to believe? A gathering of scientists? A gathering of religious experts? The views of my friends and neighbours? None of them really seem to know any more than me about the subject of God. But I believe that Jesus does, and my inclination is to believe what he says.
Hence, I believe that God exists.
This should have been the start of my last post. Sorry!
|
According to the ancient Sumarians, our "God(s)" are the Annunaki from the the planet Nibiru, currently on the return leg of it`s 3600 year orbit, due back 2012!
There must be something in this theory, as there are countless ancient carvings showing "beings" in space helmets, and things made thousands of years ago that can only be seen from the air, eg the Nazca lines.
Even the Bible mentions a "God" that comes from the heavens, - no smoke without fire, me thinks! We probably were "created" (by the Annunaki, in thier image) which is why we are decended from Cro-magnon (thier creation) and not Neanderthal (the Earths indiginous human form) ;-)
|
>> According to the ancient Sumarians, our "God(s)" are the Annunaki from the the planet Nibiru, currently on the return leg of it`s 3600 year orbit, due back 2012!
>>
>> There must be something in this theory, as there are countless ancient carvings showing "beings" in space helmets,
I subscribe to this basic idea.
To me, it explains a lot of what's in the bible, as well as what one can (as mentioned above) see with one's own eyes.....
In fact, look at many paintings of Jesus, his halo does look a little like a glass 'bowl' helmet.
|
|
Well if its due back in two years, we wont have long to wait will we!
|
"So no-one in those groups knows, but you believe Jesus does know, and you're inclined to believe what he says, hence God exists.
A thoroughly complete statement of nothingness."
How so?
"And if a group of religious experts (don't start me on this one..) doesn't know, then how are they 'expert'?"
Religious experts are not experts on the teaching of their religion. That does not, per se, give them any more insight into the existence and character of God than other people.
"On the subject of science and some preceding posts - just because science doesn't have the answer to some conundrum or unknown now, doesn't mean that it won't continue to find the answers. If that weren't the case, we wouldn't know much of what we know now. There was a time when we didn't know how or why birds flew, we thought man would disintegrate if he travelled faster than 18 mph, the Earth was flat...and so on. yet there's still no evidence that there is a God, after all this time. Cue someone telling me to prove that God doesn't exist, the age old answer to this one from the believers.
Science is based on method, and the scientific method is based on observation. Any method based on observation has obvious limits.
The most obvious one is that it is verging on impossible to prove the non-existence of anything. Science has not proven the non-existence of the Loch Ness Monster or the Yeti - though its failure to observe any clear evidence of the existence of such creatures does leave most people believing that the balance of probabilities suggests non-existence.
The other obvious limit to science is that science is only able to observe things which are part of this universe - i.e. matter and energy. Since the generally accepted concept of a creator / supreme being is that such a supreme being is not part of this universe and is not composed of matter or energy, it would seem that empirical science would not be able to tell us anything about the existence or non-existence of God.
|
>> Science is based on method, and the scientific method is based on observation. Any method
>> based on observation has obvious limits.
>>
>> The most obvious one is that it is verging on impossible to prove the non-existence
>> of anything. Science has not proven the non-existence of the Loch Ness Monster or the
>> Yeti - though its failure to observe any clear evidence of the existence of such
>> creatures does leave most people believing that the balance of probabilities suggests non-existence.
>>
>> The other obvious limit to science is that science is only able to observe things
>> which are part of this universe - i.e. matter and energy. Since the generally accepted
>> concept of a creator / supreme being is that such a supreme being is not
>> part of this universe and is not composed of matter or energy, it would seem
>> that empirical science would not be able to tell us anything about the existence or
>> non-existence of God.
This is just another way of using the fact that "science cannot disprove X" as some kind of evidence that "X exists" - that is a logical fallacy.
Science is not some abstract method, it is simply a term that refers to the application of logical conjecture based upon observable evidence. Anything that is not "science" is not logical conjecture based upon observable evidence.
You can have theory that God exists and created the universe, but what evidence leads to that theory? Maybe the bible is a piece of evidence, although it may be considered to not be particularly strong evidence, but the fact that there is not a completely proved theory of the creation of the universe, is not, in itself, evidence of a god.
|
Or to put it more concisely "You cannot prove a negative" as someone once said. It is up the proponent of the arguement to prove that it is true, not for the rest of us to disprove it.
"The moon is made of green cheese". Oh yeah? Prove it. It's not for me to travel there, wander around, come back and tell you it's all rock and dust only for you to say "oh no, not that bit. All the rest is though".
Your problem sunshine.
John
|
>> Or to put it more concisely "You cannot prove a negative" as someone once said.
>> It is up the proponent of the arguement to prove that it is true, not
>> for the rest of us to disprove it.
>>
>> "The moon is made of green cheese". Oh yeah? Prove it. It's not for me
>> to travel there, wander around, come back and tell you it's all rock and dust
>> only for you to say "oh no, not that bit. All the rest is though".
>>
>> Your problem sunshine.
>> John
Of course, people can claim what they like and don't have to prove anything to anybody.
But, it is the suggestion that "science" is just one approach, that I find problematic. As if science is some abstract concept, rather than just reasoning based upon evidence.
Of course, this brings us back to the title of this thread, because you have one of two choices - "reasoning based upon evidence" or "belief".
Of course, you have pseudoscience and bad science too, such as intelligent design, but that is just trying to support a belief by dressing it up as "reasoning based upon evidence" (i.e. dressing it up as science).
|
This is just another way of using the fact that "science cannot disprove X" as some kind of evidence that "X exists" -
It is? That comes as a bit of a surprise to me. :-)
"that is a logical fallacy."
You are correct there.
Science is not some abstract method, it is simply a term that refers to the application of logical conjecture based upon observable evidence.
I'm not quite sure what your point is. Are you disagreeing with something I wrote?
Last edited by: tyro on Wed 8 Dec 10 at 11:07
|
According to the ancient Sumarians, our "God(s)" are the Annunaki from the the planet Nibiru, currently on the return leg of it`s 3600 year orbit, due back 2012!
You're winding us up aren't tou? Book a table at The Restaurant at the End of the Universe for us all. Loser pays :-)
John
|
>> Everything the atheists say are basic human values are all religion derived first.
I would respectfully suggest that human values predated religion... When Caveman lived in groups there would have been some form of basic rules to keep order, just like there is in groups of animals who live in groups such as meerkats... All religion did was formalise and develop those rules...
|
|
So if we were created by the Annunaki from the the planet Nibiru, who created them? Do they have a God?
|
Oooh stop asking difficult questions our Zed. Go and play outside in the snow and stop annoying the nice man.
:-)
John
|
I asked a while back "If the human race became extinct, would God still exist?"
No one seems to want to answer the question.
I am suggesting that perhaps we invented God.
|
|
There can't be a God - he doesn't have a Facebook page!
|
>> There can't be a God - he doesn't have a Facebook page!
>>
Well..... as it happens - he has a few!
this is one of them!
www.facebook.com/#!/pages/God/140737019293770
|
>> "One thing's for sure. Jesus Christ wouldn't have approved of Christianity."
>>
>> For sure? Where did you get this certainty? How do you know?
>>
Espada addresses this eloquently in his post of Tue 7 Dec 10 21:13.
|
"Espada addresses this eloquently in his post of Tue 7 Dec 10 21:13."
Espada wrote: "However whilst Christ could possibly have criticised the money changers, I doubt he thought of wholesale change to an almost different religion."
Espada doesn't seem to have the absolute certainty that you have.
|
Go on then, tyro. Show me where Christ's "teachings" (for which read ramblings of someone who's been in the sun too long and needs to spend a bit more time indoors drumming up work as a chippy so he can afford decent shoes and a caravan for his old Ma) advocate that a new religion be created in his name, which will then be the true representation on Earth of the Word of God?
He'd be horrified at the thought. He was just that kind of guy. Anyone who's read the Bible/had it shoved down their necks from birth can easily infer that much. And furthermore, he'd be horrified at what this religion, which he never called for, has done in his name for nearly 2000 years.
100 years from now nutcases are probably going to start calling themselves The Disciples of John Lennon, 2nd Son of God.
|
(for which read ramblings of someone who's been in the sun too long and needs to spend a bit more time indoors drumming up work as a chippy so he can afford decent shoes and a caravan for his old Ma)
Says it all, really.
|
>> Says it all, really.
>>
Couldn't agree more.
|
|
Alanovic -what you regard as someone else's eloquence, I regard as complete drivel. I don't want to offend, and I'm sure the author is a very nice person with whom I could get on with perfectly well. But I happen to be poles apart from their views. As for disciples of John Lennon etc. How would they be any more nutty than a Chrtistian? At least we JL existed!
|
>> Alanovic -what you regard as someone else's eloquence, I regard as complete drivel. I don't
>> want to offend, and I'm sure the author is a very nice person with whom
>> I could get on with perfectly well. But I happen to be poles apart from
>> their views. As for disciples of John Lennon etc. How would they be any more
>> nutty than a Chrtistian? At least we JL existed!
>>
Woodster, not sure what you're getting at here. Are you trying to say that Jesus wanted Christianity?
And I didn't say JL's followers would be any more nutty than Christians, just equally nutty.
|
I had the Bible "shoved down my throat" (as you put it) at school, in common with (I suspect) most of you lot who received a typical education in this country's schools.
The message from the Gospels (as opposed to all the rest of it) seemed pretty easy to summarise, to me:
1) Behave
2) You ain't all that, so don't be judging
3) It's not all about you.
Pretty blue-sky stuff for the time, and not a bad set of precepts even now.
You could probably boil it down even further to the Bill & Ted maxim "be excellent to each other".
Shame about all the other nonsense that we all keep putting in the way of that, really. But seeing as it appears to be in our basic biology to want to smack seven shades of wossname out of each other, perhaps not surprising.
|
Belief V Reason. - Tooslow
