What criticisms can be made of Athiests?

[Leicester Fan]

True, children shouldn't be allowed to be exposed to religion( whatever one you believe in ) until they have the brains to understand and therfore comprehend what religion is. I went to sunday school and was brought up a Christian but not until I became older and questioned religion with facts and not myth and fables did I then become an Athiest.

So what you are saying is that children shouldn't be taught religion because then they might believe it even though you were taught religion at Sunday school and you grew out of it.

[Speedway]

If you are catholic, ultimately the Pope, if other denominations, then your local priest/minister/preacher/imam/rabbi, up through their structural hierarchy.



And so you very concisely prove my point.

Absolute faith is being put into the human interpetation of one of countless variations of an regularly edited, mistranslated collection of disparate and often contradictory books originallywritten decades and centuries after the events they claim to record, at a time when oral tradition was the main record keeper.

Dont you find that just a little bit worrying?

Worrying, no. I don't find it worrying. But then I also don't look to the bible as being 100% correct so that's probably why.

[IndieHibby]

Worrying, no. I don't find it worrying. But then I also don't look to the bible as being 100% correct so that's probably why.

So, it's not the 'word of God' then? :wink: If it's not 100% correct, then what is it: 99%?, 50%?....0%?

[GlesgaeHibby]

So what you are saying is that children shouldn't be taught religion because then they might believe it even though you were taught religion at Sunday school and you grew out of it.

Children are young and impressionable, with their Brains still growing. Teaching them a religion as absolute truth from a young age will make it difficult for them to shake a deeply held belief at an older age. And it is a belief that they haven't formed for themselves, but through a weekly visit to church/sunday school where they are told from day 1 that the Bible is true, and there is punishments if you don't believe in it.

If an adult makes a decision to follow a religion without having been exposed to one religion week in week out then they have made their own choice. An adult who remains religious having been brought up in a certain way is unlikely to have made that choice.

[IndieHibby]

Children are young and impressionable, with their Brains still growing. Teaching them a religion as absolute truth from a young age will make it difficult for them to shake a deeply held belief at an older age. And it is a belief that they haven't formed for themselves, but through a weekly visit to church/sunday school where they are told from day 1 that the Bible is true, and there is punishments if you don't believe in it.

If an adult makes a decision to follow a religion without having been exposed to one religion week in week out then they have made their own choice. An adult who remains religious having been brought up in a certain way is unlikely to have made that choice.

Amen!

[Speedway]

So, it's not the 'word of God' then? :wink: If it's not 100% correct, then what is it: 99%?, 50%?....0%?

Well that depends on how much has been translated accurately, doesn't it?

[Twa Cairpets]

Well that depends on how much has been translated accurately, doesn't it?

So,essentially, you're guessing then?

[Speedway]

So,essentially, you're guessing then?

Not 'essentially' - 'actually'.

You weren't there and I wasn't there so neither of us know. Hence why religion is a faith based concept.

[J-C]

Not 'essentially' - 'actually'.

You weren't there and I wasn't there so neither of us know. Hence why religion is a faith based concept.


Surely if it's the word of God, then the writings and manuscripts would have magically appeared without anyone having to write them. Unfortunately as soon as we as humans start to write down the word of God, it's really the word of humans as there can be no proof whatsoever that whatanyone hears in his/her head can be said to be the word of God.

Did moses actually get the commandment from God, or did he just carve them on tablets himself and claim they came from God.....you see the difference.

[--------]

To try and answer this question (and more and more this thread needs the input of our resident Hibs.net pastor, currently residing in deepest darkest North Lanarkshire or ano:devil:)

The Scriptures are very clear that the death of the Lord Jesus on the Cross was an act of substitution as an act of God-given mercy whereby His life was offered/taken instead of ours (sinners). He gave up His life so that you and I could have life, both in this life and in the Thereafter.

That is his unchanging invitation - you can accept/reject.


Dinnae drag me into this.

I have enough trouble with the sinners in the Caldera. Including (especially!) myself.... :devil:



The idea of 'death-bed repentance' - in other words, "Don't repent of your sins until it's too late for you to backslide" - isn't IMO a Christian idea.

Repentance in NT terms is a genuine change of heart (which is what the Greek word 'metanoia' translated 'repentance' means).

In other words, it's not a case of saying 'sorry' when we're caught doing wrong, but rather a turning away from the wrong we're doing and an embracing of the righteousness of God's Kingdom. And the time to do so is NOW - not at some future date when we've done our worst and now we want to somehow get ourselves off the hook.

We can't fool God - He sees what's really in our hearts and minds, and a false or spurious death-bed 'OOPS, sorreee..." won't cut it with Him.

"This is the message we heard from Jesus and now declare to you: God is light, and there is no darkness in him at all. So we are lying if we say we have fellowship with God but go on living in spiritual darkness; we are not practicing the truth. But if we are living in the light, as God is in the light, then we have fellowship with each other, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, cleanses us from all sin."

"If we claim we have no sin, we are only fooling ourselves and not living in the truth. But if we confess our sins to him, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all wickedness. If we claim we have not sinned, we are calling God a liar and showing that his word has no place in our hearts...." (1 John 1:5-10; New Living Translation)

Where a lot of 'religious' people put 'non-religious' folks wrong is that they give the impression that THEY are 'good people' (because they're 'religious') and the other people (the non-religious ones, or the non churchgoers, or whatever) are somehow 'bad' people, inferior to the religious ones.

The Bible teaches that we're ALL of us broken and twisted and much less than we ought to be -"As it is written: There is no-one righteous, not even one; there is no-one who understands, no-one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no-one who does good, not even one...." (Romans 3:10-12; NIV)

The Christian distinction isn't between 'good people' and 'sinners'. The Christian distinction is between people whose lives have been broken and bruised and twisted by their own shortcomings and the hard world we all live in - but who have found forgiveness and a fresh start in Jesus - and people whose lives have been broken and bruised and twisted by their own shortcomings and the hard world we all live in - but who haven't yet found forgiveness and a fresh start in Jesus.

My advice to anyone inquiring into the Christian faith at any level would be to get a hold of a modern translation of the New Testament and read one of the Gospels. Mark would be my starting-place, because it's the earliest, and the shortest.

Read it through - it'll take you no more than a couple of hours. Try to keep an open mind, but think about what Mark's saying.

Leave the question of the miracles and the healings and so on to one side for just now, and concentrate on the accounts of people meeting Jesus, and the way they encounter Him, and He encounters them.

This is where I started to be drawn to faith in Jesus. Reading the Gospels I began to realise that the way that people 'locked on' to Jesus, and the way he 'locked on' to them - the way this happens is entirely natural, and it's exactly the way I would reach out to someone for help, and the way I'd hope that that 'someone' would respond to me.

And then I ask myself - would I want this man as my friend? Does what he says make sense? Better sense than other 'wise teachers' I've encountered?

And the answer I git was, Yes, Yes, Yes. Jesus represented a reality so much better, cleaner, purer more righteous, more 'holy' than the reality I was living with at the time, that I decided that even if it was all a lie, it was somehow a BETTER lie than the 'truth' I had been accepting up till then.

But I was pretty sure by then that it wasn't a lie, and the longer I've lived in faith and trust in Jesus, the more absolutely convinced I've become that not only is his teaching true and righteous, but that the claims he makes, and the claims his disciples make in their writings about him - they're true too. He is, though I can't claim to understand in any way HOW, but He is the Word of God made flesh for me.

If that makes me a deluded fool, so be it.

"God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise. He chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the things of this world that are common and looked down on. He chose what is not considered to be important to do away with what is considered to be important. So no one can brag to God."

"Because of what God has done, you belong to Christ Jesus. He has become God's wisdom for us. He makes us right with God. He makes us holy and sets us free. It is written, 'The one who brags should brag about what the Lord has done.' " (1 Corinthians 1:27-31; NIV)

Sorry for going on so long. I really didn't want drawn into a major discussion or argument, though.

[khib70]

Dinnae drag me into this.

I have enough trouble with the sinners in the Caldera. Including (especially!) myself.... :devil:



The idea of 'death-bed repentance' - in other words, "Don't repent of your sins until it's too late for you to backslide" - isn't IMO a Christian idea.

Repentance in NT terms is a genuine change of heart (which is what the Greek word 'metanoia' translated 'repentance' means).

In other words, it's not a case of saying 'sorry' when we're caught doing wrong, but rather a turning away from the wrong we're doing and an embracing of the righteousness of God's Kingdom. And the time to do so is NOW - not at some future date when we've done our worst and now we want to somehow get ourselves off the hook.

We can't fool God - He sees what's really in our hearts and minds, and a false or spurious death-bed 'OOPS, sorreee..." won't cut it with Him.

"This is the message we heard from Jesus and now declare to you: God is light, and there is no darkness in him at all. So we are lying if we say we have fellowship with God but go on living in spiritual darkness; we are not practicing the truth. But if we are living in the light, as God is in the light, then we have fellowship with each other, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, cleanses us from all sin."

"If we claim we have no sin, we are only fooling ourselves and not living in the truth. But if we confess our sins to him, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all wickedness. If we claim we have not sinned, we are calling God a liar and showing that his word has no place in our hearts...." (1 John 1:5-10; New Living Translation)

Where a lot of 'religious' people put 'non-religious' folks wrong is that they give the impression that THEY are 'good people' (because they're 'religious') and the other people (the non-religious ones, or the non churchgoers, or whatever) are somehow 'bad' people, inferior to the religious ones.

The Bible teaches that we're ALL of us broken and twisted and much less than we ought to be -"As it is written: There is no-one righteous, not even one; there is no-one who understands, no-one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no-one who does good, not even one...." (Romans 3:10-12; NIV)

The Christian distinction isn't between 'good people' and 'sinners'. The Christian distinction is between people whose lives have been broken and bruised and twisted by their own shortcomings and the hard world we all live in - but who have found forgiveness and a fresh start in Jesus - and people whose lives have been broken and bruised and twisted by their own shortcomings and the hard world we all live in - but who haven't yet found forgiveness and a fresh start in Jesus.

My advice to anyone inquiring into the Christian faith at any level would be to get a hold of a modern translation of the New Testament and read one of the Gospels. Mark would be my starting-place, because it's the earliest, and the shortest.

Read it through - it'll take you no more than a couple of hours. Try to keep an open mind, but think about what Mark's saying.

Leave the question of the miracles and the healings and so on to one side for just now, and concentrate on the accounts of people meeting Jesus, and the way they encounter Him, and He encounters them.

This is where I started to be drawn to faith in Jesus. Reading the Gospels I began to realise that the way that people 'locked on' to Jesus, and the way he 'locked on' to them - the way this happens is entirely natural, and it's exactly the way I would reach out to someone for help, and the way I'd hope that that 'someone' would respond to me.

And then I ask myself - would I want this man as my friend? Does what he says make sense? Better sense than other 'wise teachers' I've encountered?

And the answer I git was, Yes, Yes, Yes. Jesus represented a reality so much better, cleaner, purer more righteous, more 'holy' than the reality I was living with at the time, that I decided that even if it was all a lie, it was somehow a BETTER lie than the 'truth' I had been accepting up till then.

But I was pretty sure by then that it wasn't a lie, and the longer I've lived in faith and trust in Jesus, the more absolutely convinced I've become that not only is his teaching true and righteous, but that the claims he makes, and the claims his disciples make in their writings about him - they're true too. He is, though I can't claim to understand in any way HOW, but He is the Word of God made flesh for me.

If that makes me a deluded fool, so be it.

"God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise. He chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the things of this world that are common and looked down on. He chose what is not considered to be important to do away with what is considered to be important. So no one can brag to God."

"Because of what God has done, you belong to Christ Jesus. He has become God's wisdom for us. He makes us right with God. He makes us holy and sets us free. It is written, 'The one who brags should brag about what the Lord has done.' " (1 Corinthians 1:27-31; NIV)

Sorry for going on so long. I really didn't want drawn into a major discussion or argument, though.
That's as eloquent a statement of personal faith as I've heard. And not once do you step outside the bounds of what you believe to tell others what they should believe. As a non-believer, I respect that.

And re your signature - i didn't realise Alex Miller was a reader of "The Art of War":greengrin

[ancienthibby]

Dinnae drag me into this.

I have enough trouble with the sinners in the Caldera. Including (especially!) myself.... :devil:



The idea of 'death-bed repentance' - in other words, "Don't repent of your sins until it's too late for you to backslide" - isn't IMO a Christian idea.

Repentance in NT terms is a genuine change of heart (which is what the Greek word 'metanoia' translated 'repentance' means).

In other words, it's not a case of saying 'sorry' when we're caught doing wrong, but rather a turning away from the wrong we're doing and an embracing of the righteousness of God's Kingdom. And the time to do so is NOW - not at some future date when we've done our worst and now we want to somehow get ourselves off the hook.

We can't fool God - He sees what's really in our hearts and minds, and a false or spurious death-bed 'OOPS, sorreee..." won't cut it with Him.

"This is the message we heard from Jesus and now declare to you: God is light, and there is no darkness in him at all. So we are lying if we say we have fellowship with God but go on living in spiritual darkness; we are not practicing the truth. But if we are living in the light, as God is in the light, then we have fellowship with each other, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, cleanses us from all sin."

"If we claim we have no sin, we are only fooling ourselves and not living in the truth. But if we confess our sins to him, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all wickedness. If we claim we have not sinned, we are calling God a liar and showing that his word has no place in our hearts...." (1 John 1:5-10; New Living Translation)

Where a lot of 'religious' people put 'non-religious' folks wrong is that they give the impression that THEY are 'good people' (because they're 'religious') and the other people (the non-religious ones, or the non churchgoers, or whatever) are somehow 'bad' people, inferior to the religious ones.

The Bible teaches that we're ALL of us broken and twisted and much less than we ought to be -"As it is written: There is no-one righteous, not even one; there is no-one who understands, no-one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no-one who does good, not even one...." (Romans 3:10-12; NIV)

The Christian distinction isn't between 'good people' and 'sinners'. The Christian distinction is between people whose lives have been broken and bruised and twisted by their own shortcomings and the hard world we all live in - but who have found forgiveness and a fresh start in Jesus - and people whose lives have been broken and bruised and twisted by their own shortcomings and the hard world we all live in - but who haven't yet found forgiveness and a fresh start in Jesus.

My advice to anyone inquiring into the Christian faith at any level would be to get a hold of a modern translation of the New Testament and read one of the Gospels. Mark would be my starting-place, because it's the earliest, and the shortest.

Read it through - it'll take you no more than a couple of hours. Try to keep an open mind, but think about what Mark's saying.

Leave the question of the miracles and the healings and so on to one side for just now, and concentrate on the accounts of people meeting Jesus, and the way they encounter Him, and He encounters them.

This is where I started to be drawn to faith in Jesus. Reading the Gospels I began to realise that the way that people 'locked on' to Jesus, and the way he 'locked on' to them - the way this happens is entirely natural, and it's exactly the way I would reach out to someone for help, and the way I'd hope that that 'someone' would respond to me.

And then I ask myself - would I want this man as my friend? Does what he says make sense? Better sense than other 'wise teachers' I've encountered?

And the answer I git was, Yes, Yes, Yes. Jesus represented a reality so much better, cleaner, purer more righteous, more 'holy' than the reality I was living with at the time, that I decided that even if it was all a lie, it was somehow a BETTER lie than the 'truth' I had been accepting up till then.

But I was pretty sure by then that it wasn't a lie, and the longer I've lived in faith and trust in Jesus, the more absolutely convinced I've become that not only is his teaching true and righteous, but that the claims he makes, and the claims his disciples make in their writings about him - they're true too. He is, though I can't claim to understand in any way HOW, but He is the Word of God made flesh for me.

If that makes me a deluded fool, so be it.

"God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise. He chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the things of this world that are common and looked down on. He chose what is not considered to be important to do away with what is considered to be important. So no one can brag to God."

"Because of what God has done, you belong to Christ Jesus. He has become God's wisdom for us. He makes us right with God. He makes us holy and sets us free. It is written, 'The one who brags should brag about what the Lord has done.' " (1 Corinthians 1:27-31; NIV)

Sorry for going on so long. I really didn't want drawn into a major discussion or argument, though.

For someone who did not want to get drawn in, that is just a wunderbar contribution:agree::agree::agree:

(Hope Jim Traynor reads it - he may just walk through the parish church's door!!):greengrin:greengrin:greengrin

[--------]

For someone who did not want to get drawn in, that is just a wunderbar contribution:agree::agree::agree:

(Hope Jim Traynor reads it - he may just walk through the parish church's door!!):greengrin:greengrin:greengrin


Our door might just be a bit narrow for wee Jim - IIRC he's a bit chubby.... :devil:

[Leicester Fan]

Children are young and impressionable, with their Brains still growing. Teaching them a religion as absolute truth from a young age will make it difficult for them to shake a deeply held belief at an older age. And it is a belief that they haven't formed for themselves, but through a weekly visit to church/sunday school where they are told from day 1 that the Bible is true, and there is punishments if you don't believe in it.

If an adult makes a decision to follow a religion without having been exposed to one religion week in week out then they have made their own choice. An adult who remains religious having been brought up in a certain way is unlikely to have made that choice.

But the OP said that he'd been educated in religion but he wasn't religious so that disproves your point.

Anyhoo. What's wrong with being religious? Look at your average, thug, drug dealer, mugger or burglar, chances are that they're not regular church goers. There are worse things you can be than a christian.

Live and let live people. Religion isn't compulsory in this country.

[Phil D. Rolls]

What about the aquaducts?

[Leicester Fan]

What about the aquaducts?
Men have searched for an answer to that question for eternity.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Men have searched for an answer to that question for eternity.

Eternity, granted that's another one. Then there's the sanitation.

[Twa Cairpets]

Not 'essentially' - 'actually'.

You weren't there and I wasn't there so neither of us know. Hence why religion is a faith based concept.

Speedway, I genuinely admire your honesty, but are you not describing yourself as your own cult? if you choose to believe scripture only insofar as you agree with it, and assume the rest to be wrong/badly translated, then it is not really faith, but just accepting the good stuff and ignoring th eless palatable bits?

[hibsitis]

But the OP said that he'd been educated in religion but he wasn't religious so that disproves your point.
Anyhoo. What's wrong with being religious? Look at your average, thug, drug dealer, mugger or burglar, chances are that they're not regular church goers. There are worse things you can be than a christian.

Live and let live people. Religion isn't compulsory in this country.


It doesn't disprove the point. It means that some people who are brought up in a religion chose to start thinking for themselves and questioning how rational it is to believe in the supernatural. Others don't for a variety of reasons.

As others have said, the vast majority of people believe because they were taught to from an early age, usually by their parents who they trusted. It would be interesting to see how religions fared if there was no childhood indoctrination and people had the proposition of an all seeing/powerful supernatural being put to them age 21.

I think most of us know the answer to that one.

[Leicester Fan]

It doesn't disprove the point. It means that some people who are brought up in a religion chose to start thinking for themselves and questioning how rational it is to believe in the supernatural. Others don't for a variety of reasons.

As others have said, the vast majority of people believe because they were taught to from an early age, usually by their parents who they trusted. It would be interesting to see how religions fared if there was no childhood indoctrination and people had the proposition of an all seeing/powerful supernatural being put to them age 21.

I think most of us know the answer to that one.

I think people should stop worrying about things that aren't important.

[Twa Cairpets]

I think people should stop worrying about things that aren't important.

No, you're right. Why think about or discuss the basis for many areas of human behaviour, or the justification for war? Why be bothered about serious moral dilemmas where religion (or the perceived lack of it) dictate attitudes and often legislation? Its obviously crazy to even give passing intellectual nod to discussing the basis of right and wrong or the importance of skeptical thought v acceptance through faith.

Hey, Jordan got married today, and that is much more important

[J-C]

I think people should stop worrying about things that aren't important.


I think people who don't want to contribute to serious discussions, should stick to more trivial threads on other boards. :greengrin

[Speedway]

Speedway, I genuinely admire your honesty, but are you not describing yourself as your own cult? if you choose to believe scripture only insofar as you agree with it, and assume the rest to be wrong/badly translated, then it is not really faith, but just accepting the good stuff and ignoring th eless palatable bits?

(edit: didn't realise how long this post was going to end up. Apologies.)

Possibly, though I would make a distinction between choosing which bits you like (hence 118,000 different flavours of Christianity now available) and being aware of previous versions of writings that bear little or no resemblance to their currently published state. It is the latter that I am referring to in my summation of the Bible.

What the Bible does offer (imo) is unrivalled coaching on Moral Discipline.

Jesus' own moral discipline was rooted in his discipleship to his Father. By this same pattern, those who believe in God have 'moral discipline' which is rooted in loyalty and devotion to the Father and the Son.

It is therefore the gospel of Jesus Christ that provides moral certainty upon which this moral discipline rests.

The societal structure in which you and me and every other member of this board lives fails (again IMO) to foster moral discipline.

We are currently taught that truth is relative and that everyone decides for themselves what's right. Concepts such as 'sin' and 'wrong' are increasingly condemened as 'Value Judgments'.

As a consequence, I believe, self discipline has eroded and societies are left to maintain order and civility by compulsion. The lack of one's internal control breeds external control by governments, turning us into a 'Nanny' state.

I read recently a columnist who observed that gentlemanly behaviour protected women from coarse behaviour in days gone by. Now we expect sexual harassment laws to contain and restrain coarse behaviour. This is one example.

The police and law makers will never replace internal values as a means for regulating human behaviour. At best, they are a last resort. Our increased reliance on law to regulate behaviour is a measure of how uncivilised a god-less society is becoming.

We are currently in our third recession in 25 years. Caused purely this time by unethical behaviour. It's ripple effect will be felt on the poorest, for years to come.

In the end in my view, it is only an internal moral compass in each person that can deal with the symptoms of societal decay.

This is learned at home. I can't control what anyone else does but I can stand up for my own values and pass them on to my kids.

I hear it said from other parents that they don't want to impose their beliefs on their children but rather let them make their own mind up. This is their justification for their strategy to let their children use their own 'agency' as it were.

It seems to me that they miss the vital point that intelligent use of such 'agency' requires a fundamental understanding of 'good' and 'bad' that they're are not going to have the capacity to understand by age 8 or 16 or whatever. Someone needs to pass on the wisdom of experience.

Without that, kids can hardly be expected to evaluate the alternatives that will come their way from their mates and media and anywhere else.

This is the value that to me, the Bible brings. If it is man that is responsible for the 'moral discipline' taught in it's pages, we've failed to top it in the last 2000+ years.

I understand the bible to teach that all 'good' is of God with the extremes of Good and Bad clearly defined.

Therefore, I can accept the bible as the word of God and yet not be 100% accurately translated correctly because I can spot the correlation of principles taught that lead to good (summed up neatly in Galatians 5) and those that don't (Large portions of the Old Testament :greengrin)

Now, it hasn't been my intention to post like a Tory Party conference and I rarely share any personal views on here that aren't about the cabbage.

Coming back to the original point of the thread however, I can't except a finite mind's conclusion that there is no supreme force, creational power, God, call it/him what you will.

Creation and the vastness of the universe don't allow that conclusion to be accurate in my mind, especially as Science corrects itself on a regular basis and therefore cannot be trusted to be a definitive oracle, as it is still learning.

The possiblility/reality of a all knowing God who has influenced men to set a course over thousands of years to see us right and avoid all the sheidt the man can create for himself, is much more reliable/credible to me.

I don't equate religion with waging wars, extremeism or forced preaching. I see it as a voluntary code of conduct, dreamed up by adivine source who knows better, and offered as a antidote to many if not all life's ills.

Essentially, God is a solution provider. :wink:

That's how I see it.

[hibsitis]

Speedway: "What the Bible does offer (imo) is unrivalled coaching on Moral Discipline".


I would take issue with that. My children won't come within a million miles of the bible unless they chose to but they will certainly know the difference between right and wrong, how to treat other people kindly, how to be thoughtful and loving and to generally do the the right thing.

Equally, there are many people raised in faith who are appalling individuals, some of whom do awful things in god's name.

The bible has no monopoly on morality and many would argue that it the source of as much misery as happiness. The bible, particularly the OT suggests all sorts of nasty things be done to people such as homosexuals and whilst I appreciate this doesn't translate into much of mainstream Christian thinking today, it's not far below the surface when you look at the Pope's recent comments and the hounding of the gay minister in Aberdeen last year.

The bible's only big on 'live and let live' when it suits its own agenda. For the rest of us it's an unconditional statement.

[hibsitis]

Speedway: Creation and the vastness of the universe don't allow that conclusion to be accurate in my mind, especially as Science corrects itself on a regular basis and therefore cannot be trusted to be a definitive oracle, as it is still learning.

The possiblility/reality of a all knowing God who has influenced men to set a course over thousands of years to see us right and avoid all the sheidt the man can create for himself, is much more reliable/credible to me.

Do you not adjust your behaviour when you learn something new. Does this self correcting make science a bad thing and untrustworthy when it changes its mind in light of new evidence?

Becuase science doesn't know all the answers, does that automatically mean the answer is supernatural?

If science isn't to be trusted presumably you don't travel on planes because science realised they could be made safer because it has learned more about flight over the last 100 yerars or so. Do you exclude TV's, cars, and mobile phones from your life because science now understands hohw to make them work? Where does your scpeticism of science start and end? Where it suits you?

So many questions - sorry, but that what belief in the supernatural generates in others. A desire to explain all these inconsistencies.

[GlesgaeHibby]

But the OP said that he'd been educated in religion but he wasn't religious so that disproves your point.

Anyhoo. What's wrong with being religious? Look at your average, thug, drug dealer, mugger or burglar, chances are that they're not regular church goers. There are worse things you can be than a christian.

Live and let live people. Religion isn't compulsory in this country.

It doesn't disprove my point. I said that if you are brought up in the church (as I and the OP were) it is difficult to shake that belief later in life. I didn't say it didn't happen.

[Twa Cairpets]

The posts by Doddie and Speedway are very eloquent descriptions of personal faith. Whilst I dont agree with a lot of the conclusions reached or the reasoning behind them, the difference between faith in the supernatural and belief (as opposed to faith) in rationalism is highlighted in what they have written. Strongly held convictions based on faith are difficult to defend as they are based on spiritual teachings rather than what is generally understood, in modern terms, as evidence.

The OP was about what criticisms can be made of atheists? We have moved, naturally, into "why do you believe on God". Is a criticism of atheism that it can only be defined as antagonism to theists? It's a criticism that I think I would accept, as my anti-religion stance has strengthened from a vague disdain into a more radical view of it as being anti-critical thought, anti-science even on the level of personal belief, where unquestioning acceptance is seen as a positive.

Hibsitis makes the point for me above - science is self correcting in the light of evidence and development. Religion isn't.

[hibsbollah]

(edit: didn't realise how long this post was going to end up. Apologies.)

Possibly, though I would make a distinction between choosing which bits you like (hence 118,000 different flavours of Christianity now available) and being aware of previous versions of writings that bear little or no resemblance to their currently published state. It is the latter that I am referring to in my summation of the Bible.

What the Bible does offer (imo) is unrivalled coaching on Moral Discipline.

Jesus' own moral discipline was rooted in his discipleship to his Father. By this same pattern, those who believe in God have 'moral discipline' which is rooted in loyalty and devotion to the Father and the Son.

It is therefore the gospel of Jesus Christ that provides moral certainty upon which this moral discipline rests.

The societal structure in which you and me and every other member of this board lives fails (again IMO) to foster moral discipline.

We are currently taught that truth is relative and that everyone decides for themselves what's right. Concepts such as 'sin' and 'wrong' are increasingly condemened as 'Value Judgments'.

As a consequence, I believe, self discipline has eroded and societies are left to maintain order and civility by compulsion. The lack of one's internal control breeds external control by governments, turning us into a 'Nanny' state.

I read recently a columnist who observed that gentlemanly behaviour protected women from coarse behaviour in days gone by. Now we expect sexual harassment laws to contain and restrain coarse behaviour. This is one example.

The police and law makers will never replace internal values as a means for regulating human behaviour. At best, they are a last resort. Our increased reliance on law to regulate behaviour is a measure of how uncivilised a god-less society is becoming.

We are currently in our third recession in 25 years. Caused purely this time by unethical behaviour. It's ripple effect will be felt on the poorest, for years to come.

In the end in my view, it is only an internal moral compass in each person that can deal with the symptoms of societal decay.

This is learned at home. I can't control what anyone else does but I can stand up for my own values and pass them on to my kids.

I hear it said from other parents that they don't want to impose their beliefs on their children but rather let them make their own mind up. This is their justification for their strategy to let their children use their own 'agency' as it were.

It seems to me that they miss the vital point that intelligent use of such 'agency' requires a fundamental understanding of 'good' and 'bad' that they're are not going to have the capacity to understand by age 8 or 16 or whatever. Someone needs to pass on the wisdom of experience.

Without that, kids can hardly be expected to evaluate the alternatives that will come their way from their mates and media and anywhere else.

This is the value that to me, the Bible brings. If it is man that is responsible for the 'moral discipline' taught in it's pages, we've failed to top it in the last 2000+ years.

I understand the bible to teach that all 'good' is of God with the extremes of Good and Bad clearly defined.

Therefore, I can accept the bible as the word of God and yet not be 100% accurately translated correctly because I can spot the correlation of principles taught that lead to good (summed up neatly in Galatians 5) and those that don't (Large portions of the Old Testament :greengrin)

Now, it hasn't been my intention to post like a Tory Party conference and I rarely share any personal views on here that aren't about the cabbage.

Coming back to the original point of the thread however, I can't except a finite mind's conclusion that there is no supreme force, creational power, God, call it/him what you will.

Creation and the vastness of the universe don't allow that conclusion to be accurate in my mind, especially as Science corrects itself on a regular basis and therefore cannot be trusted to be a definitive oracle, as it is still learning.

The possiblility/reality of a all knowing God who has influenced men to set a course over thousands of years to see us right and avoid all the sheidt the man can create for himself, is much more reliable/credible to me.

I don't equate religion with waging wars, extremeism or forced preaching. I see it as a voluntary code of conduct, dreamed up by adivine source who knows better, and offered as a antidote to many if not all life's ills.

Essentially, God is a solution provider. :wink:

That's how I see it.

Brilliant post:top marksI'm totally agnostic but thats a very persuasive argument.

[hibsitis]

Brilliant post:top marksI'm totally agnostic but thats a very persuasive argument.

A very persuasive argument for what?

[--------]

The posts by Doddie and Speedway are very eloquent descriptions of personal faith. Whilst I dont agree with a lot of the conclusions reached or the reasoning behind them, the difference between faith in the supernatural and belief (as opposed to faith) in rationalism is highlighted in what they have written. Strongly held convictions based on faith are difficult to defend as they are based on spiritual teachings rather than what is generally understood, in modern terms, as evidence.

The OP was about what criticisms can be made of atheists?

We have moved, naturally, into "why do you believe on God". Is a criticism of atheism that it can only be defined as antagonism to theists? It's a criticism that I think I would accept, as my anti-religion stance has strengthened from a vague disdain into a more radical view of it as being anti-critical thought, anti-science even on the level of personal belief, where unquestioning acceptance is seen as a positive.

Hibsitis makes the point for me above - science is self correcting in the light of evidence and development. Religion isn't.


TC, I wouldn't advance criticism of 'atheists' as such - that's making a huge generalisation about a large section of the human race.

And the older I get, the more I find that there are arrogant dogmatic atheists, and arrogant dogmatic believers (whatever particular religion they happen to have attached themselves to) and they're the folks I try to keep away from.

Case in point - I'm quite clear that Dawkins is cleverer than I am, and much better educated (he has all those degrees, and he's a professor, and he's a TV guru and all) but he comes over as arrogant, rude, and dismissive of anyone who disagrees with him. He's as dogmatically narrow-minded IMO as any hard-line fundamentalist religious believer I've ever met.

But that's very far from true about most other non-believers I've encountered.



Some of them really aren't bad chaps at all, all things considered .... :devil:

[hibsbollah]

A very persuasive argument for what?

...For religion having relevance on a moral level in a modern, secular world.

[hibsitis]

TC, I wouldn't advance criticism of 'atheists' as such - that's making a huge generalisation about a large section of the human race.

And the older I get, the more I find that there are arrogant dogmatic atheists, and arrogant dogmatic believers (whatever particular religion they happen to have attached themselves to) and they're the folks I try to keep away from.

Case in point - I'm quite clear that Dawkins is cleverer than I am, and much better educated (he has all those degrees, and he's a professor, and he's a TV guru and all) but he comes over as arrogant, rude, and dismissive of anyone who disagrees with him. He's as dogmatically narrow-minded IMO as any hard-line fundamentalist religious believer I've ever met.

But that's very far from true about most other non-believers I've encountered.



Some of them really aren't bad chaps at all, all things considered .... :devil:

Doddie - I'd agree that Dawkins' style sometimes doesn't do him any favours but you're really talking about presentation here.

His arguments are where his strengths lie and it's difficult, if not impossible, to counter these on the basis of faith and not come out of the debate on the losing side or at least looking rather silly.

I think it's hard to oppose rational thinking with faith in the supernatural and it's because of the debating strength that this position provides that he comes across as strident.

He has admitted he cannot disprove the existence of a god which I think is slightly more enlightened, and consistent with scientific method, than his fundamentalist opposite numbers.

That's not to say he couldn't work on his interpersonal skills.....

[ancienthibby]

Doddie - I'd agree that Dawkins' style sometimes doesn't do him any favours but you're really talking about presentation here.

His arguments are where his strengths lie and it's difficult, if not impossible, to counter these on the basis of faith and not come out of the debate on the losing side or at least looking rather silly.

I think it's hard to oppose rational thinking with faith in the supernatural and it's because of the debating strength that this position provides that he comes across as strident.

He has admitted he cannot disprove the existence of a god which I think is slightly more enlightened, and consistent with scientific method, than his fundamentalist opposite numbers.

That's not to say he couldn't work on his interpersonal skills.....

Dawkins style may be as infuriating to theists as that of Jim and Tammy Baker may be to atheists.

Dawkins has become the arch-evangelist for an atheistic society, so the issues with him go much deeper than just presentation.

For example, one of Dawkins arguments is that 'religious belief is a virus that infects inferior genes' and then he also says that 'religion... is a pernicious kind of insanity'

Is it any wonder then so many academics and religious teachers have taken him face on and demolished his arguments. Personally, I think Dawkins time has come and gone, because he himself has shown by his 'own shoddy arguments that there is very little left in his arguments' (from Dinesh D'Souza).:greengrin

[--------]

Doddie - I'd agree that Dawkins' style sometimes doesn't do him any favours but you're really talking about presentation here.

His arguments are where his strengths lie and it's difficult, if not impossible, to counter these on the basis of faith and not come out of the debate on the losing side or at least looking rather silly.

I think it's hard to oppose rational thinking with faith in the supernatural and it's because of the debating strength that this position provides that he comes across as strident.

He has admitted he cannot disprove the existence of a god which I think is slightly more enlightened, and consistent with scientific method, than his fundamentalist opposite numbers.

That's not to say he couldn't work on his interpersonal skills.....


"Rather silly"? :cool2:


I'm not just talking about presentation here - presentation, manner and attitude to the people you're communicating with are all part of the message, surely?

If we were discussing Hibs history and I came on and told you that you were wrong about something in a very dogmatic, arrogant and abusive manner, making fun of you and demonstrating that you had got your facts completely wrong, that wouldn't change the facts - I'd still be right - but it would say a heck of a lot about me.

Now when the subject relates to morality and right and wrong and what makes for a fulfilled and well-rounded human life, the sort of arrogance and dogmatism I see in Dawkins tells me something about him, and a lot about how far I can trust his insights.

If he has no respect for me, why on earth should I extend respect for him? If he won't cut me or folks like me even a little slack, why should I cut him any? If he conducts himslef so badly in debate/discussion (and he does), what does that tell me about the principles by which he lives?

I've no doubt he's extremely clever, and very well-read. But he's not the Messiah. He's just a VERY naughty wee boy.

[Phil D. Rolls]

...For religion having relevance on a moral level in a modern, secular world.

The modern world was nothing more than a disastrous experiment. I'll get my quote.

[Leicester Fan]

It doesn't disprove the point. It means that some people who are brought up in a religion chose to start thinking for themselves and questioning how rational it is to believe in the supernatural. Others don't for a variety of reasons.

As others have said, the vast majority of people believe because they were taught to from an early age, usually by their parents who they trusted. It would be interesting to see how religions fared if there was no childhood indoctrination and people had the proposition of an all seeing/powerful supernatural being put to them age 21.

I think most of us know the answer to that one.

Do you think there would be less atheists if they weren't told there was no god by their parents?What's the difference?

Why shouldn't religious parents be allowed to pass on their beliefs the same as you?


No, you're right. Why think about or discuss the basis for many areas of human behaviour, or the justification for war? Why be bothered about serious moral dilemmas where religion (or the perceived lack of it) dictate attitudes and often legislation? Its obviously crazy to even give passing intellectual nod to discussing the basis of right and wrong or the importance of skeptical thought v acceptance through faith.

Hey, Jordan got married today, and that is much more important

For a start the average church goer in the world has never started any wars. Wars are started by govts sometimes elected by the religious and non-religious alike, mainly for political reasons although religion is sometimes given the blame.

Also the worse masacres of the last century were caused by atheist dictators Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. Maybe if they had believed in a higher power or divine retribution tell wouldn't have done what they did.

[IndieHibby]

Dawkins style may be as infuriating to theists as that of Jim and Tammy Baker may be to atheists.

Dawkins has become the arch-evangelist for an atheistic society, so the issues with him go much deeper than just presentation.

For example, one of Dawkins arguments is that 'religious belief is a virus that infects inferior genes' and then he also says that 'religion... is a pernicious kind of insanity'

Is it any wonder then so many academics and religious teachers have taken him face on and demolished his arguments. Personally, I think Dawkins time has come and gone, because he himself has shown by his 'own shoddy arguments that there is very little left in his arguments' (from Dinesh D'Souza).:greengrin

I'd be interested to see this. In fact I'm desperate to see this! Got any links? Cheers.

[IndieHibby]

"Rather silly"? :cool2:


I'm not just talking about presentation here - presentation, manner and attitude to the people you're communicating with are all part of the message, surely?

If we were discussing Hibs history and I came on and told you that you were wrong about something in a very dogmatic, arrogant and abusive manner, making fun of you and demonstrating that you had got your facts completely wrong, that wouldn't change the facts - I'd still be right - but it would say a heck of a lot about me.

Now when the subject relates to morality and right and wrong and what makes for a fulfilled and well-rounded human life, the sort of arrogance and dogmatism I see in Dawkins tells me something about him, and a lot about how far I can trust his insights.

If he has no respect for me, why on earth should I extend respect for him? If he won't cut me or folks like me even a little slack, why should I cut him any? If he conducts himslef so badly in debate/discussion (and he does), what does that tell me about the principles by which he lives?

I've no doubt he's extremely clever, and very well-read. But he's not the Messiah. He's just a VERY naughty wee boy.

I think that Dawkins (when not communicating directly with someone, for example to a TV audience or in one of his books) has in his mind the most extreme examples of negative influence of religion as well as some of the most horrible theists, especially the more stone-age ones. And Pat Robertson. Which may go some way to explaining his 'manner'. I have no evidence for this, it's the impression I get from reading his books and listening to him. I expect I feel less defensive as I do not feel that he is arguing against me. I can also see why people make comparisions between him and religious evangelists.

However, I symphathise with Hibstitis here, when I say that Dawkins is only as relevant as his argument. Ad hominem attacks on him, including inferring 'what sort of person he is', is merely a symptom of the difficulty in arguing against his logic (as it is very hard to do, Dawkins is very good at logic).

Yet Dawkins doesn't use his argument to make spurious claims on the law, or how people should live their lives, or how they should be punished. Religion does, and often to the cost of great misery on some groups of people.

You don't need to trust Dawkins. You just need to listen to him. How he says things might offend you and I am sure he would be more successful if he toned things down a bit. But it's what he says that counts, not how he says it.

As he openly admits, his 'message' is far more relevant to the US, than to Britain. Which probably explains his rotten manner.

[IndieHibby]

Do you think there would be less atheists if they weren't told there was no god by their parents?What's the difference?.

Atheists aren't taught to be atheists by their parents. They are left to make up their own minds. That's what Atheists do. It's a type of freedom.


Why shouldn't religious parents be allowed to pass on their beliefs the same as you?

There is no evidence for any of these beliefs. They may not be true. Yet children have a bias toward believing what there parents tell them - they have no-one else they can trust. If a parents tells their kid that there is a big bad wolf in the forest and it will eat them up if they stray too far, there is only one outcome about what they are going to believe. Most people, when they are talking about it, will say "children are impressionable". You may have heard this before.


For a start the average church goer in the world has never started any wars. Wars are started by govts sometimes elected by the religious and non-religious alike, mainly for political reasons although religion is sometimes given the blame.

Also the worse masacres of the last century were caused by atheist dictators Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. Maybe if they had believed in a higher power or divine retribution tell wouldn't have done what they did.

So you are atrributing the millions upon millions of deaths caused by Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot to Atheism? Seriously? Don't you think that Communism had something to do with it? And, no, Communism is not the same thing as Atheism, and Communism is not caused by Athiesm, nor is Atheism the justification for Communism.

LH, please correct me if I am wrong...:wink:

[ancienthibby]

I'd be interested to see this. In fact I'm desperate to see this! Got any links? Cheers.''

IH,

Here's a couple of starters for you - hope they add value to your thinking!!

http://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/The_Dawkins_Delusion.aspx?ArticleID=50&PageID=47

http://www.christianfocus.com/item/show/1079/-

AH

[Twa Cairpets]

"Rather silly"? :cool2:


I'm not just talking about presentation here - presentation, manner and attitude to the people you're communicating with are all part of the message, surely?

If we were discussing Hibs history and I came on and told you that you were wrong about something in a very dogmatic, arrogant and abusive manner, making fun of you and demonstrating that you had got your facts completely wrong, that wouldn't change the facts - I'd still be right - but it would say a heck of a lot about me.

Now when the subject relates to morality and right and wrong and what makes for a fulfilled and well-rounded human life, the sort of arrogance and dogmatism I see in Dawkins tells me something about him, and a lot about how far I can trust his insights.

If he has no respect for me, why on earth should I extend respect for him? If he won't cut me or folks like me even a little slack, why should I cut him any? If he conducts himslef so badly in debate/discussion (and he does), what does that tell me about the principles by which he lives?

I've no doubt he's extremely clever, and very well-read. But he's not the Messiah. He's just a VERY naughty wee boy.

I would echo Indiehibby here. The separation of him as an individual and what he writes/says is critical. If you dont like the sound, read the words.

Where he is at his most pugnaciously dogmatic is when he comes up against the almost bovine buffoonery and deliberately deceitful (but still highly influential) US version of populist christianity. In "The Greatest Show on Earth" he reproduces the transcript of a 1-to-1 interview with a woman called Wendy Wright of "Concerned women for America". I've watched the interview in the past - search for it on Youtube - and if you wonder why he is combative you'll find out. Reading it however (thereby avoiding the clipped tones of his voice) makes the point he is making even more striking.

Much of his (and other notables such as PZ Myers and Hitchens) direct their fury at orgnaisations/individuals such as Ben Stein, Bill O'Reilly, CWFA, Answers in Genesis, the Discovery Institute etc - organisations and people which misrepresent and, frankly, downright lie in order to get their agenda across. Actions against the likes of the Texas School Board trying to get creationism taught in schools as valid science need a strong and strident voice.

I know from previous threads that Doddie and Ancient view the positions of the above as being almost as bonkers as I do - im not suggesting that that view is prevalent here - but if Dawkins "zero tolerance" stance is taken in the context of those listed above as being on the other side, it at the very least becomes easier to understand.

Doddie / Ancient, out of curiosity, have you ever read Dawkins books? What did you think of them?

[Phil D. Rolls]

So you are atrributing the millions upon millions of deaths caused by Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot to Atheism? Seriously? Don't you think that Communism had something to do with it? And, no, Communism is not the same thing as Atheism, and Communism is not caused by Athiesm, nor is Atheism the justification for Communism.


As Tommy Sheridan said, blaming Communism for Stalin, is a bit like blaming Jesus for the Spanish Inquisition.

[Twa Cairpets]

''

IH,

Here's a couple of starters for you - hope they add value to your thinking!!

http://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/The_Dawkins_Delusion.aspx?ArticleID=50&PageID=47

http://www.christianfocus.com/item/show/1079/-

AH

Ancient, I've read McGraths "The Dawkins Delusion". It is an appalling little book. Badly written, whiny, and about as far away from being a robust intellectual challenge to Dawkins as it is possible to contemplate. Honestly, it is almost unreadable.

The other book youve linked to I'm not familiar with, but to argue that a Dundee Free Church Pastor has "demolished" his arguments in a very minor publication is stretching the point a tad, I would suggest.

[hibsbollah]

So you are atrributing the millions upon millions of deaths caused by Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot to Atheism? Seriously? Don't you think that Communism had something to do with it?

'Communism' had absolutely nothing to do with it. (Mao and Pol Pot were more extreme nationalists than communists anyway but thats another story). Genocidal maniacs with severe mental illness can operate under any political system (Hitler was democratically elected).

In the same way, the deaths/excesses of the Crusades or Al Qaeda arent really the fault of 'religion' at all. You may as well blame human nature. When bad people want to do bad things, an excuse will be found and any old excuse will do.

[Mon Dieu4]

'Communism' had absolutely nothing to do with it. (Mao and Pol Pot were more extreme nationalists than communists anyway but thats another story). Genocidal maniacs with severe mental illness can operate under any political system (Hitler was democratically elected).

In the same way, the deaths/excesses of the Crusades or Al Qaeda arent really the fault of 'religion' at all. You may as well blame human nature. When bad people want to do bad things, an excuse will be found and any old excuse will do.

Correct, when i've carried out mass genocide I'm blaming John Rankin :grr:

[IndieHibby]

'Communism' had absolutely nothing to do with it. (Mao and Pol Pot were more extreme nationalists than communists anyway but thats another story). Genocidal maniacs with severe mental illness can operate under any political system (Hitler was democratically elected).

I'm not being trite here, honestly, and I accept your point about Communism not being accountable for it's leaders. But isn't it fair to attrubute at least some of the Russian famine deaths, for example, to failures in the economy to provide for it's citizens?


In the same way, the deaths/excesses of the Crusades or Al Qaeda arent really the fault of 'religion' at all. You may as well blame human nature. When bad people want to do bad things, an excuse will be found and any old excuse will do.

Que: **deliberately provacative question** Does the promise of eternal life, paradise and 72 virgins not provide at least some incentive for suicide bombers?

[Bishop Hibee]

Atheists aren't taught to be atheists by their parents. They are left to make up their own minds. That's what Atheists do. It's a type of freedom.


There is no evidence for any of these beliefs. They may not be true. Yet children have a bias toward believing what there parents tell them - they have no-one else they can trust. If a parents tells their kid that there is a big bad wolf in the forest and it will eat them up if they stray too far, there is only one outcome about what they are going to believe. Most people, when they are talking about it, will say "children are impressionable". You may have heard this before.


So you are atrributing the millions upon millions of deaths caused by Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot to Atheism? Seriously? Don't you think that Communism had something to do with it? And, no, Communism is not the same thing as Atheism, and Communism is not caused by Athiesm, nor is Atheism the justification for Communism.

LH, please correct me if I am wrong...:wink:

Dealt with by paragraph below:

Aye right. Few people who believe in God are brainwashed. I'm one of six children, 3 believe in God (2 weekly church-goers), 1 is an agnostic, 1 calls himself atheist and 1 is actively anti-religion/God. All brought up the same but have made up their own minds up in the light of the different life experiences they have had.

This humanist crap of allowing children to "decide" for themselves about political and religious belief is a lot of post-modern claptrap. Would you allow your child to support the BNP? I wouldn't. They'd get a good kick up the arse.

Apart from every culture having a creation story and a belief in a higher power/powers.

I think atheism had plenty to do with communism and led to it's worst excesses.

Sorted :wink:

Oh and back to topic, why are God dodgers so obsessed with something that doesn't exist :confused: Another thing that annoys me about atheists.

[hibsbollah]

I'm not being trite here, honestly, and I accept your point about Communism not being accountable for it's leaders. But isn't it fair to attrubute at least some of the Russian famine deaths, for example, to failures in the economy to provide for it's citizens?



Que: **deliberately provacative question** Does the promise of eternal life, paradise and 72 virgins not provide at least some incentive for suicide bombers?

Ah, Russian famine deaths. You may have a point there. But deaths as a result of the gulag or the red terror, I don't think ideology was a factor.

Second point; of course you're right in that the way the suicide bombers or knights templar go about their killing is obviously as a result of religious teachings. I'd still maintain that in the absence of religion, another recruiting mechanism/justification would be found. In simple terms, the means might be different without the fig leaf of religion, but the aim would be the same.

---------- Post added at 10:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:13 PM ----------


Correct, when i've carried out mass genocide I'm blaming John Rankin :grr:

what are you doing here at this hour?:faf:

[Woody1985]

I've spent time watching videos covering dawkins, religious persons perspective and debates between the two. I think that it's made me even more convinced how ridiculous religion is.

I found it interesting from what I've watched that atheists are treated like idiots by Christians in America. There's mention that only 3% of America are atheist and it's reckoned there are more but they're not willing to 'come out'. I find that utterly bizarre.

Is there any know facts on what the % of atheism exists within Islamic countries?

Watching some of these videos has made me realise more than before how much religion actually encroaches on my life. :grr:

[Mon Dieu4]

Ah, Russian famine deaths. You may have a point there. But deaths as a result of the gulag or the red terror, I don't think ideology was a factor.

Second point; of course you're right in that the way the suicide bombers or knights templar go about their killing is obviously as a result of religious teachings. I'd still maintain that in the absence of religion, another recruiting mechanism/justification would be found. In simple terms, the means might be different without the fig leaf of religion, but the aim would be the same.

---------- Post added at 10:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:13 PM ----------



what are you doing here at this hour?:faf:

The other two are in bed which means I can get a shot of the laptop, just passing time til QT starts :faf:

[Sergio sledge]

The other book youve linked to I'm not familiar with, but to argue that a Dundee Free Church Pastor has "demolished" his arguments in a very minor publication is stretching the point a tad, I would suggest.

It's very unlike you to dismiss something you haven't read because of who or what the author is, and the scale of the publication. :wink:

Seriously, it's not an expensive book, and is excellent IMHO, so I'd recommend you have a read. In fact, I'm sure all the letters are freely available to read online in one of the links ancient posted earlier in the thread, but can't be bothered finding it.:greengrin

[Twa Cairpets]

It's very unlike you to dismiss something you haven't read because of who or what the author is, and the scale of the publication. :wink:

Seriously, it's not an expensive book, and is excellent IMHO, so I'd recommend you have a read. In fact, I'm sure all the letters are freely available to read online in one of the links ancient posted earlier in the thread, but can't be bothered finding it.:greengrin

Fair point Sergio, guilty as charged. :greengrin I will try to get round to it.

[IndieHibby]

Dealt with by paragraph below:

Aye right. Few people who believe in God are brainwashed. I'm one of six children, 3 believe in God (2 weekly church-goers), 1 is an agnostic, 1 calls himself atheist and 1 is actively anti-religion/God. All brought up the same but have made up their own minds up in the light of the different life experiences they have had..

I didn't suggest children are brainwashed. I suggested that they are impressionable. Do you disagree?


This humanist crap of allowing children to "decide" for themselves about political and religious belief is a lot of post-modern claptrap. Would you allow your child to support the BNP? I wouldn't. They'd get a good kick up the arse.

Interesting that you equate freedom of thought with supporting the BNP. Do you support freedom of religion?

Besides, if my child supported the BNP, I would find it tediously easy to argue against their policies and pseudo-history. You have to be fairly stupid and myopic to support the BNP.


Apart from every culture having a creation story and a belief in a higher power/powers.

Ironically, Dawkins actually covers this in "The God Delusion", in the chapter entitled 'Cargo Cults'. The jist of it is that, natives in isolated island nations such as Vannatau, New Caledonia, Fiji etc. when presented with the technological novelties brought by 'the white man' which he appeared not to make himself, invoked the idea of a 'supernatural creator'. The watched the settler use a standard radio and then copied these rituals in his absence to communicate with this god. They even had priests who claimed to talk to this god and had mediums who who go into fits when being 'posessed'. These cults sprang up independently and reliably over a widespread area of different, isolated communities.

To me, this means that, in the absence of adequate evidence to explain something, humans have a natural tendency to invoke the 'supernatural'. History is littered with these stories. Forgive me for thinking they may not be true.


I think atheism had plenty to do with communism and led to it's worst excesses.

Fair enough. Back it up. Here's my effort:
http://zhe.stanford.edu/spring05/Kazakhstan2.pdf (http://zhe.stanford.edu/spring05/Kazakhstan2.pdf)

Quick wiki refs:

The last major famine (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Soviet_Famine_of_1947) in the USSR (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/USSR) happened mainly in 1947 (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/1947) as a cumulative effect of consequences of collectivization, war damage, the severe drought (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Drought) in 1946 in over 50% of the grain-productive zone of the country and government social policy and mismanagement of grain reserves.[7] (http://www.hibs.net/message/#cite_note-Ellman-6)

The second Soviet famine (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1932-1933) happened during the collectivisation in the USSR (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Collectivisation_in_the_USSR). In 1932-1933 confiscations of grain (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Grain) and other food by the Soviet (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Soviet) authorities[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droughts_and_famines_in_Russia_and_the_Soviet_Unio n#endnote_CongressCommission) caused a famine which affected more than 40 million people, especially in the south on the Don (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Don_River,_Russia) and Kuban (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Kuban) areas and in Ukraine (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Ukraine), where by various estimates from 5 to 10 million may have starved to death (the event known as Holodomor (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Holodomor)).[4] (http://www.hibs.net/message/#cite_note-3)



Sorted :wink:

Oh and back to topic, why are God dodgers so obsessed with something that doesn't exist :confused: Another thing that annoys me about atheists.

Atheists, IMO, don't have an obsession with *something that doesn't exist*. We don't argue with God. We argue with theists. They exist.

[Bishop Hibee]

I didn't suggest children are brainwashed. I suggested that they are impressionable. Do you disagree?

All children are impressionable. As adults they stand and fall by their own choices. I don't know any adults who believe in the Big Bad Wolf anymore.


Interesting that you equate freedom of thought with supporting the BNP. Do you support freedom of religion?

Besides, if my child supported the BNP, I would find it tediously easy to argue against their policies and pseudo-history. You have to be fairly stupid and myopic to support the BNP.

I think adults should be free to believe what they like. The problems start when beliefs clash e.g. the majority of UK citizens wanting to bring back capital punishment v the minority who don't or the those who are pro-life or pro-abortion. That's were democracy kicks in as the best system we have for managing a society with diverse views.

Plenty people with above average IQ's support the BNP.


Ironically, Dawkins actually covers this in "The God Delusion", in the chapter entitled 'Cargo Cults'. The jist of it is that, natives in isolated island nations such as Vannatau, New Caledonia, Fiji etc. when presented with the technological novelties brought by 'the white man' which he appeared not to make himself, invoked the idea of a 'supernatural creator'. The watched the settler use a standard radio and then copied these rituals in his absence to communicate with this god. They even had priests who claimed to talk to this god and had mediums who who go into fits when being 'posessed'. These cults sprang up independently and reliably over a widespread area of different, isolated communities.

To me, this means that, in the absence of adequate evidence to explain something, humans have a natural tendency to invoke the 'supernatural'. History is littered with these stories. Forgive me for thinking they may not be true.

Many, if not all of these cults were scams to get something off the natives. They sometimes were perpetrated by their own leaders who were not some sort of "noble savage" but were far devious than that. Bit similar to Scientology today?


Fair enough. Back it up. Here's my effort:
http://zhe.stanford.edu/spring05/Kazakhstan2.pdf (http://zhe.stanford.edu/spring05/Kazakhstan2.pdf)

Quick wiki refs:

The last major famine (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Soviet_Famine_of_1947) in the USSR (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/USSR) happened mainly in 1947 (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/1947) as a cumulative effect of consequences of collectivization, war damage, the severe drought (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Drought) in 1946 in over 50% of the grain-productive zone of the country and government social policy and mismanagement of grain reserves.[7] (http://www.hibs.net/message/#cite_note-Ellman-6)

The second Soviet famine (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1932-1933) happened during the collectivisation in the USSR (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Collectivisation_in_the_USSR). In 1932-1933 confiscations of grain (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Grain) and other food by the Soviet (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Soviet) authorities[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droughts_and_famines_in_Russia_and_the_Soviet_Unio n#endnote_CongressCommission) caused a famine which affected more than 40 million people, especially in the south on the Don (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Don_River,_Russia) and Kuban (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Kuban) areas and in Ukraine (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Ukraine), where by various estimates from 5 to 10 million may have starved to death (the event known as Holodomor (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Holodomor)).[4] (http://www.hibs.net/message/#cite_note-3)

But what was the Marxist/Leninist philosophy underlying the economic approach that caused these catastrophes? The denial of the value of the individual person.


Atheists, IMO, don't have an obsession with *something that doesn't exist*. We don't argue with God. We argue with theists. They exist.

Unlikely anyone on this board has had their views on God/religion changed by the arguments on it. The vast majority of which are started by atheists ironically.

Take a look at the encyclical letter "Fides et Ratio" (Faith and Reason) to see an RC perspective on things. Not light reading mind :devil:

[J-C]

Dealt with by paragraph below:

Aye right. Few people who believe in God are brainwashed. I'm one of six children, 3 believe in God (2 weekly church-goers), 1 is an agnostic, 1 calls himself atheist and 1 is actively anti-religion/God. All brought up the same but have made up their own minds up in the light of the different life experiences they have had.

This humanist crap of allowing children to "decide" for themselves about political and religious belief is a lot of post-modern claptrap. Would you allow your child to support the BNP? I wouldn't. They'd get a good kick up the arse.

Apart from every culture having a creation story and a belief in a higher power/powers.

I think atheism had plenty to do with communism and led to it's worst excesses.

Sorted :wink:

Oh and back to topic, why are God dodgers so obsessed with something that doesn't exist :confused: Another thing that annoys me about atheists.


Were all 6 kids brought up to believe in God or were they allowed to grow up and choose for themselves.

So you'd give your kid a " kick up the erse" for choosing which political party they wished to follow, so much for freedom of choice and speech, obviously not in your household then eh!

Could you please give us a link where atheism had anything to do with communism.
China....Buddhism/Taoism
USSR....Christian Orthodox
Cuba.....Roman Catholic


I don't think Atheists are God dodgers as you say, we're more realists, accepting the facts put in front of us, rather than believing in some higher being whose teachings are very dubious to say the least.

[J-C]

So what you are saying is that children shouldn't be taught religion because then they might believe it even though you were taught religion at Sunday school and you grew out of it.


Like most kids brought up in the 50's, I went to sunday school even though my parents weren't religious one bit, we went because then it was the done thing to go along with most of the other kids in our street.

[Twa Cairpets]

All children are impressionable. As adults they stand and fall by their own choices. I don't know any adults who believe in the Big Bad Wolf anymore.


The point would be valid if there was any evidence that the Big Bad Wolf was being touted as incontovertible fact, and that it was responsible for the creation of the Earth and the basis for all morality. When children are read the story, they are made aware by the adult that its a fairy tale. And because they are impressionable and trust what is said by their parents, this becomes fact because they beleive it to be true.

Can the same be said about religion?

[--------]

Dawkins style may be as infuriating to theists as that of Jim and Tammy Baker may be to atheists.

Dawkins has become the arch-evangelist for an atheistic society, so the issues with him go much deeper than just presentation.

For example, one of Dawkins arguments is that 'religious belief is a virus that infects inferior genes' and then he also says that 'religion... is a pernicious kind of insanity'

Is it any wonder then so many academics and religious teachers have taken him face on and demolished his arguments. Personally, I think Dawkins time has come and gone, because he himself has shown by his 'own shoddy arguments that there is very little left in his arguments' (from Dinesh D'Souza).:greengrin

:agree:


I think that Dawkins (when not communicating directly with someone, for example to a TV audience or in one of his books) has in his mind the most extreme examples of negative influence of religion as well as some of the most horrible theists, especially the more stone-age ones. And Pat Robertson. Which may go some way to explaining his 'manner'. I have no evidence for this, it's the impression I get from reading his books and listening to him. I expect I feel less defensive as I do not feel that he is arguing against me. I can also see why people make comparisions between him and religious evangelists.

However, I symphathise with Hibstitis here, when I say that Dawkins is only as relevant as his argument. Ad hominem attacks on him, including inferring 'what sort of person he is', is merely a symptom of the difficulty in arguing against his logic (as it is very hard to do, Dawkins is very good at logic).

Yet Dawkins doesn't use his argument to make spurious claims on the law, or how people should live their lives, or how they should be punished. Religion does, and often to the cost of great misery on some groups of people.

You don't need to trust Dawkins. You just need to listen to him. How he says things might offend you and I am sure he would be more successful if he toned things down a bit. But it's what he says that counts, not how he says it.

As he openly admits, his 'message' is far more relevant to the US, than to Britain. Which probably explains his rotten manner.


His claims that religion is something that 'infects' the 'genetically inferior', or that it's a 'pernicious kind of insanity' are the sorts of things that count in my mind.

Discounting those with whom he disagrees as being genetically inferior or insane? Hmmm. Where have I Heard of THAT sort of thing before?

As for arguments 'ad hominem' - this thread was originally about what criticisms about what criticisms can be made of atheists. I mentioned him as an example of the sort of atheist who can be criticised as being ill-mannered, over-dogmatic, and arrogant. I specifically said that these faults apply to some believers as well.

That's all.

AS I said, I was trying to keep out of this.

Good-bye.

[Twa Cairpets]

:agree:




His claims that religion is something that 'infects' the 'genetically inferior', or that it's a 'pernicious kind of insanity' are the sorts of things that count in my mind.

Discounting those with whom he disagrees as being genetically inferior or insane? Hmmm. Where have I Heard of THAT sort of thing before?

As for arguments 'ad hominem' - this thread was originally about what criticisms about what criticisms can be made of atheists. I mentioned him as an example of the sort of atheist who can be criticised as being ill-mannered, over-dogmatic, and arrogant. I specifically said that these faults apply to some believers as well.

That's all.

AS I said, I was trying to keep out of this.

Good-bye.

Doddie, I dont know if you will be reding this, or if you are ducking out for good, but to seriously compare Dawkins to Hitler - which is what you are doing - is deeply below the level you normally are at.

It does suggest, strongly, that you haven't read any of Dawkins work, and are relying on the quote-mined, twisted perversion of his views often presented by those of faith.

You response is not aimed at atheists, its aimed at one one particular atheist, and your view of his manners, forcefulness and attitude. Thats nothing to do with his beliefs, and doesnt add to this, or any other debate.

Edit - also - I'd love to see the source for the "infects genetically inferior" quote (a) to see if it exists, and (b) if it does, what is the context.

[IndieHibby]

:agree:
As for arguments 'ad hominem' - this thread was originally about what criticisms about what criticisms can be made of atheists. I mentioned him as an example of the sort of atheist who can be criticised as being ill-mannered, over-dogmatic, and arrogant. I specifically said that these faults apply to some believers as well.

That's all.

AS I said, I was trying to keep out of this.

Good-bye.

Fair comment. On reflection I should have said atheism, or at least included it, although for other reasons I was more concerned about making it clear that I wanted to hear particularly from theists, for precisely the reason that we have been unable to avoid - i.e. people who, I feel, have something valuable to offer the debate, withdrawing from it having been upset by it.

It's also the reason I would like to avoid criticisms of inviduals of either creed and deal with criticisms of ideas etc.

I do feel that you took my post the wrong way, though. Apologies...

[Speedway]

In reading the posts here, I am very encouraged with the spirit of openness in most of the discussions despite wildly differing views. I wonder if that's because we're all Hibees and a mutual respect is offered that may not be otherwise, though we'd like to think it would.

I would like to introduce a new element to the conversation that touches on a thread running throughout the other points and topics that we are covering here.

For the religious person, there is a vast world of difference between 'knowledge' arrived at physically and that which is arrived at Spiritually.

There isn't an argument for a 'knowledge' that God exists that satifies those requiring physical evidence. Hence a need for faith.

Paul wrote about this difference eloquently in the New Testement and what I find almost impossible to explain, is the strength of conviction one gets when a spiritual witness or testimony or whatever we're calling it, is obtained.

The critic would call that 'fooling yourself' and the Religious man would point to the folly of reaching conclusions based on physical evidence alone, in return.

One can argue further that everyone is their own God, but again, I don't subscribe to that when there are universal laws that apply throughout life and were not of our making.

Therefore, to get back onto subject, a criticism I would make of athiests, or at least the ones in my own circle, is that they condemn the existence of God and therefore Religion, Bible and other texts etc as opium for the masses and man's need to control man etc but they have never experienced a spiritual confirmation and until you've felt that, I find it impossible to understand Religion or God, as I genuinely don't believe that I can manufacture or get my brain to concede to such feelings without 'celestial' influence.

Carry on. :greengrin

[--------]

Doddie, I dont know if you will be reding this, or if you are ducking out for good, but to seriously compare Dawkins to Hitler - which is what you are doing - is deeply below the level you normally are at.

It does suggest, strongly, that you haven't read any of Dawkins work, and are relying on the quote-mined, twisted perversion of his views often presented by those of faith.

You response is not aimed at atheists, its aimed at one one particular atheist, and your view of his manners, forcefulness and attitude. Thats nothing to do with his beliefs, and doesnt add to this, or any other debate.

Edit - also - I'd love to see the source for the "infects genetically inferior" quote (a) to see if it exists, and (b) if it does, what is the context.


Not Hitler as such, TC.

Rosenberg, yes.

Also the late-19th century eugenicists whose work laid the foundations for Hitler - there was a lot of seriously nasty ideas going around in what would otherwise be considered respectable circles in those days.

The references I am now hunting - I know I heard the bit about "faith = insanity" in a recording of a TV interview he gave in the US some time ago; IIRC the genetically inferior reference was in the same clip but right now I can't place it. Ancienthibby mentioned it in an earlier post and I just picked up on it.

If I find it, I'll post it. If not, not.

And it's quite possible that RD's mouth just ran away with him and he said more than he meant - it wouldn't be the first time that had happened? :wink:


Edit: he was being asked about the relationship between his work in genetics in evolution and his stance on religion. his response was that his work was all interrelated - no surprise, that's what i would have expected him to say. The interviewer then asked him if he viewed religion belief as genetic - as a materialist it must have a material cause, and since Dawkins is a geneticist, it's a reasonable question. His response was that religious belief could be seen as a form of insanity infecting inferior genes - not 'the genetically inferior' - slight misquotation, my bad.

However, on reflection, I'd say it's a VERY short step from saying that to saying that religious belief is a form of insanity affecting the genetically inferior.

And on reflection, he wasn't speaking without thinking - he was very serious and under control.

(Still looking for the reference....)

And please - it's a bit difficult if my reservations about the implications of certain theories of genetics-shading-into-eugenics are automatically interpreted as 'comparing someone to Hitler'.

[Twa Cairpets]

Not Hitler as such, TC.

Rosenberg, yes.

Also the late-19th century eugenicists whose work laid the foundations for Hitler - there was a lot of seriously nasty ideas going around in what would otherwise be considered respectable circles in those days.

If any prominent atheist thinkers or believers of the modern era tried to use the absence of belief or Evolution through Natural Selection as a defense for eugenics, racism or any type of selective breeding I would be right up there on the barricades.

Dawkins has gone to great lengths to state that a narrowly defined Darwinian view of humanity would be horrible, and that the conflation of his (Darwins) original theory and eugenics is as a result of wilful and fraudulent misunderstanding to dovetail with political views.


The references I am now hunting - I know I heard the bit about "faith = insanity" in a recording of a TV interview he gave in the US some time ago; IIRC the genetically inferior reference was in the same clip but right now I can't place it. Ancienthibby mentioned it in an earlier post and I just picked up on it.

If I find it, I'll post it. If not, not.

I'll have scout through too. I'll be interested where we end up.

[--------]

If any prominent atheist thinkers or believers of the modern era tried to use the absence of belief or Evolution through Natural Selection as a defense for eugenics, racism or any type of selective breeding I would be right up there on the barricades.

Dawkins has gone to great lengths to state that a narrowly defined Darwinian view of humanity would be horrible, and that the conflation of his (Darwins) original theory and eugenics is as a result of wilful and fraudulent misunderstanding to dovetail with political views.

I'll have scout through too. I'll be interested where we end up.

http://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/Can_you_call_religion_a_virus.aspx?ArticleID=989&PageID=47

There are bits of it in there, I'd swear. It's this 'meme' thing - ideas like viruses affecting the mind. Scientific memes good, religious memes bad....

:rolleyes:

[Twa Cairpets]

http://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/Can_you_call_religion_a_virus.aspx?ArticleID=989&PageID=47

There are bits of it in there, I'd swear. It's this 'meme' thing - ideas like viruses affecting the mind. Scientific memes good, religious memes bad....

Glad to see you've seen the light :wink:

Ive had a look at the link, and read it. It refers specifically to a Dawkins book called "The Devils Chaplain", which I happen to have to hand. I followed the helpfully noted page numbers, and found - guess what - quote-mining of the highest order. Nothing, for example, in the blog entry saying Dawkins was "humanly repelled by the thought of self-replicating ideas leaping from mind-to-mind". that wouldnt help the bloggers position, so it is omitted.

Theres lots of other examples, but I would direct you to just getting the book and making your opinions first hand.

[Twa Cairpets]

And please - it's a bit difficult if my reservations about the implications of certain theories of genetics-shading-into-eugenics are automatically interpreted as 'comparing someone to Hitler'.

In fairness, when you post the following:

Discounting those with whom he disagrees as being genetically inferior or insane? Hmmm. Where have I Heard of THAT sort of thing before?

I think that it is not unreasonable to assume to whom the reference refers, unless you wish to point me in the direction of another eugenicist whom could be readily identified with the equivalent of a nod and a wink.

[Leicester Fan]

Atheists aren't taught to be atheists by their parents. They are left to make up their own minds. That's what Atheists do. It's a type of freedom.
.

So if your children ask you if there is a god you will turn around and say 'I don't know, maybe, make your own mind up.' Or will you say 'of course not don't be stupid.'



So you are atrributing the millions upon millions of deaths caused by Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot to Atheism? Seriously? Don't you think that Communism had something to do with it? And, no, Communism is not the same thing as Atheism, and Communism is not caused by Athiesm, nor is Atheism the justification for Communism.


Well they can't be attributed to religion which seems to blame for all evils by atheists.

It could be argued that the atrocities perpetrated by these dictators were to advance their beliefs which included atheism.

I'd just like to add that I consider myself agnostic. I doubt the existence of god but I'm not arrogant enough to claim to know for sure.

[Twa Cairpets]

So if your children ask you if there is a god you will turn around and say 'I don't know, maybe, make your own mind up.' Or will you say 'of course not don't be stupid.'

When mine asked me, I say, "well, I dont believe, but its up to you to decide what you want". And then we'll talk about it. I go/went to pains not to foist my beliefs on them when they were to young to understand. As they get/got older, then the more polarised the discussions can become



Well they can't be attributed to religion which seems to blame for all evils by atheists.

Rubbish. Nonsensical generalisation



I'd just like to add that I consider myself agnostic. I doubt the existence of god but I'm not arrogant enough to claim to know for sure.

I cant disprove the existence of God, but I can say that having weighed up the evidence from both sides, it is my belief that there is not a divine creator, and certainly not one which conforms to the major tenets of any of the abrahamic religions. Thats not arrogant. Its considered. Feel free to come off the fence anytime you like :wink:

[--------]

Glad to see you've seen the light :wink:

Ive had a look at the link, and read it. It refers specifically to a Dawkins book called "The Devils Chaplain", which I happen to have to hand. I followed the helpfully noted page numbers, and found - guess what - quote-mining of the highest order. Nothing, for example, in the blog entry saying Dawkins was "humanly repelled by the thought of self-replicating ideas leaping from mind-to-mind". that wouldnt help the bloggers position, so it is omitted.

Theres lots of other examples, but I would direct you to just getting the book and making your opinions first hand.


Yes, but I do. The whole link-up of moral philosophy with genetic/memetic/eugenicist science that I can see in places throughout everything I've read of his, and in the interviews and documentaries I've watched about him. That blog-entry isn't the reference I was looking for - it was the first thing that came to hand as i was hunting the place I first heard his comments.

But in my opinion, regardless of whether he happened to be a believer or non-believer, he would represent to me a combination of science, philosophy and political influence which is indistinguishable in nature from the politicisation of organised religion which you and I both see in phenomena like the Moral Majority in the US and militant political Islamism.

Politicised religion leads to trouble - or at least, it has in the past, I think you'll agree. Politicised philosophy/ideology in many cases does the same - see the history of the 20th century if you don't believe me. And when science steps up to provide a justification for the ideology - so that no one can argue or oppose it without being labelled 'insane' or 'genetically inferior', then IMO we do have trouble.

RD may not himself be intending to head down the road to a scientific totalitarianism, but I'll bet that he knows a few guys who do. The whole thrust of his writing and speaking is intolerant of anyone who disagrees with him.

[IndieHibby]

So if your children ask you if there is a god you will turn around and say 'I don't know, maybe, make your own mind up.' Or will you say 'of course not don't be stupid.'


The only truly honest answer that anyone can give is "I don't know", because no one does.

[IndieHibby]

All children are impressionable. As adults they stand and fall by their own choices. I don't know any adults who believe in the Big Bad Wolf anymore

But you must have witnessed some people who believe things that they were told when they were young, which they only realise are nonsense when they repeat them in adulthood, right?

I know first hand how easy it is to get kids to believe the most nonsensical rubbish. It is hilarious, but also scary in that they are pretty much completely open to suggestion.

Hence why I feel telling them seductive stories about God, Angels, Heaven, Hell and the afterlife is somewhat underhand.

It really astonishes me when theists defend some of the nastier/ridiculous stuff in the Bible by invoking metaphoric and symbolistic interpretations. Do they really think kids are sophisticated enough to decipher anything other than literal interpretations?



Plenty people with above average IQ's support the BNP.


I sincerely think that the proportion of BNP supporters with balanced and informed views is miniscule. Point me in the direction of evidence to the contrary.


Many, if not all of these cults were scams to get something off the natives. They sometimes were perpetrated by their own leaders who were not some sort of "noble savage" but were far devious than that. Bit similar to Scientology today? Again, given my only sources for these stories are David Attenborough and Richard Dawkins, I would need to read your sources before accepting your argument. Got any links?


Unlikely anyone on this board has had their views on God/religion changed by the arguments on it. The vast majority of which are started by atheists ironically.

Take a look at the encyclical letter "Fides et Ratio" (Faith and Reason) to see an RC perspective on things. Not light reading mind :devil:

I may not have had my views changed, but I am certainly more informed. I happen to consider this valuable.

I will look up that letter. Sounds interesting.

[Twa Cairpets]

Yes, but I do. The whole link-up of moral philosophy with genetic/memetic/eugenicist science that I can see in places throughout everything I've read of his, and in the interviews and documentaries I've watched about him. That blog-entry isn't the reference I was looking for - it was the first thing that came to hand as i was hunting the place I first heard his comments.

A couple of things on this. I think it is very unfair to equate anything Dawkins has said or written with the theory of eugenics. It is a gross misrepresentation of his views, and across his writing he is at pains to say this. Secondly, i dont think he tries to link his science with moral phiosophy, other than to say it doesnt need to come from a divine source. In fact, his view is that science doesnt have anything to say about morality. Saying it doesnt come from God does not mean it therefore must come from science.



But in my opinion, regardless of whether he happened to be a believer or non-believer, he would represent to me a combination of science, philosophy and political influence which is indistinguishable in nature from the politicisation of organised religion which you and I both see in phenomena like the Moral Majority in the US and militant political Islamism.

Politicised religion leads to trouble - or at least, it has in the past, I think you'll agree. Politicised philosophy/ideology in many cases does the same - see the history of the 20th century if you don't believe me. And when science steps up to provide a justification for the ideology - so that no one can argue or oppose it without being labelled 'insane' or 'genetically inferior', then IMO we do have trouble.

I completely agree that extremism of any variety leads to trouble. However, Dawkins absolutely does not suggest that atheism or, for example, an acceptance of evolution is a basis for any moral or political direction. The argument he has is with religion having a strong voice in this area.

The "labelling", as you put it, is - as stated above - much more a reaction to the American version of evangelical christianity. You dont have to look too far on the websites of these organisation (try www.answersingenesis.org (http://www.answersingenesis.org) for an example) to be convinced that there does need to be strong opposition to the outright lies, distortions and anti-thought nonsense that emanates from these vocal and influential bodies.


RD may not himself be intending to head down the road to a scientific totalitarianism, but I'll bet that he knows a few guys who do.

Oh come on. I know a few jambos but that doesnt make me one...


The whole thrust of his writing and speaking is intolerant of anyone who disagrees with him.

Nothing wrong being intolerant of wilful stupidity, when it is presented as fact. Look at the Dawkins/Wendy Wright discussion I mentioned above.

Summary:

WW: Where are the transitional fossils?
RD: There are many clearly on show in museums, the smithsonian...
WW: But where are they? In books, its drawings, not pictures
RD: They are in the musems
WW: If they were real, they'd be in the museums.
RD: They are. they are in the museums.Ive just said that.
WW: But if there really were transitional fossils,they would be in the museum

Im not making this up. Surely in the face of this level of stupidity and blank refusal to engage in anything that challenges their view, a certain amount of intolerance is justified.

[Bergkamp]

I am an atheïst. But I will never attack someone else on their belief or religion. I don't want to be forced in religions. That's just my nature.
I wouldn't consider myself being a bad person because I do not believe.

[Woody1985]

I am an atheïst. But I will never attack someone else on their belief or religion. I don't want to be forced in religions. That's just my nature.
I wouldn't consider myself being a bad person because I do not believe.

I think that's the problem and most likely why atheists like to argue quite strongly against it. Society, secular as it might be, is still influenced by religion and I personally take no interest in religion because I choose to yet I hear about it every day (I should maybe stop reading this thread :tee hee:).

[--------]

A couple of things on this. I think it is very unfair to equate anything Dawkins has said or written with the theory of eugenics. It is a gross misrepresentation of his views, and across his writing he is at pains to say this. Secondly, i dont think he tries to link his science with moral phiosophy, other than to say it doesnt need to come from a divine source. In fact, his view is that science doesnt have anything to say about morality. Saying it doesnt come from God does not mean it therefore must come from science.

I'm not convinced here, TC. I think it's a question of authority first of all - what one believes, and who one believes, is always going to affect one's moral stance on all sorts of things. That's why so many of my co-religionists (by name) frighten me - they maybe say the 'right' words, but their conception of morality doesn't ring true. And I would suggest that that's because behind the 'right' words they hold different concepts of God...


I completely agree that extremism of any variety leads to trouble. However, Dawkins absolutely does not suggest that atheism or, for example, an acceptance of evolution is a basis for any moral or political direction. The argument he has is with religion having a strong voice in this area.

The "labelling", as you put it, is - as stated above - much more a reaction to the American version of evangelical christianity. You dont have to look too far on the websites of these organisation (try www.answersingenesis.org (http://www.answersingenesis.org) for an example) to be convinced that there does need to be strong opposition to the outright lies, distortions and anti-thought nonsense that emanates from these vocal and influential bodies.

Look, I don't hold any brief for Yanqui Armageddon-peddlers. But I don't like being lumped in with them either, which is what I find many non-believers do. What's odd is that a lot of those same Armageddon-peddlers of whatever particular religious hue are only too ready to get into bed with anyone and everyone who agrees with their political agenda - with no regard to anyone and everyone's religious position.

Do all neocons believe in God? Don't think so.

Oh come on. I know a few jambos but that doesnt make me one...

Sorry - that was flippant and uncalled-for. It's not even what I meant to say. :rolleyes:

I'm quite sure that neither Dawkins nor you yourself share any of the moral standpoints of Herr Doktor Rosenberg. (At least I hope not.) The problem is that while RD may not hold those positions, there are more extreme political-scientific atheist thinkers who do.

In a sense RD is the 'acceptable' face of something I find utterly unacceptable - politicised science dictating morality and determining values without regard to those who disagree. And using scientific theory and jargon to justify itself.

Nothing wrong being intolerant of wilful stupidity, when it is presented as fact. Look at the Dawkins/Wendy Wright discussion I mentioned above.

Summary:

WW: Where are the transitional fossils?
RD: There are many clearly on show in museums, the smithsonian...
WW: But where are they? In books, its drawings, not pictures
RD: They are in the musems
WW: If they were real, they'd be in the museums.
RD: They are. they are in the museums.Ive just said that.
WW: But if there really were transitional fossils,they would be in the museum

Im not making this up. Surely in the face of this level of stupidity and blank refusal to engage in anything that challenges their view, a certain amount of intolerance is justified.

I have to admit it - I'd have lost patience with Wendy myself there. Bad case of unprepared interviewer with homework not done. :faf:




I'm not being wilfully obtuse here, TC. I know whom I believe, and it's taken a long life and a lot of hard experience to bring me to where I am right now. I don't claim the right to force my beliefs on anyone else, but equally I see no reason why I shouldn't be allowed to make them known when I'm asked, or to join with those who share my beliefs in public worship.

And you're right - RD has been demonised. This may be partly because of his talent for publicity - I don't mean that in a derogatory sense, I just mean he's good at getting airtime for his views - and partly because people who feel threatened need a demon to focus their anger.

I'm more concerned with the ideas, and the way in which those ideas can be used to change our view of what makes a human being human, what makes society humane, and what sprt of world there will be for our grandchildren and grat-grandchildren to live in.

I don't want them to live in a theocracy (believe me, I don't) but equally I don't want them to live in a materialist/utilitarian dystopia...

[Twa Cairpets]

I'm not being wilfully obtuse here, TC. I know whom I believe, and it's taken a long life and a lot of hard experience to bring me to where I am right now. I don't claim the right to force my beliefs on anyone else, but equally I see no reason why I shouldn't be allowed to make them known when I'm asked, or to join with those who share my beliefs in public worship. Cant disagree with you there

And you're right - RD has been demonised. This may be partly because of his talent for publicity - I don't mean that in a derogatory sense, I just mean he's good at getting airtime for his views - and partly because people who feel threatened need a demon to focus their anger. Thats fair

I'm more concerned with the ideas, and the way in which those ideas can be used to change our view of what makes a human being human, what makes society humane, and what sprt of world there will be for our grandchildren and grat-grandchildren to live in.

I don't want them to live in a theocracy (believe me, I don't) but equally I don't want them to live in a materialist/utilitarian dystopia... Nor me. Atheism isnt the route to the latter


Thats a good post Doddie, and interesting reading. I dont think for a minute you're a "Yanqui Armageddon-peddler", but the way. I dont think you'd get away with in North Lanarkshire for a kick-off...

Just a couple of other points.

On the Dawkins/Eugenics point, you are absolutely and categorically wrong. Apologies for being so blunt - and I am happy to stand corrected in th elight of any evidence to the contrary - but you won't find anything to support the claim that his stance backs eugenics as an acceptable science because (a) he doesn't, and (b) eugenics is an outdated pseudo-science spawned from an incorrect grasp of what evolution is, what it means and how it works.


You wrote:
In a sense RD is the 'acceptable' face of something I find utterly unacceptable - politicised science dictating morality and determining values without regard to those who disagree. And using scientific theory and jargon to justify itself.

If you change just a few words,it gets to where atheists are, I suppose:

In a sense mainstream religion is the 'acceptable' face of something I find utterly unacceptable - politicised dogma dictating morality and determining values without regard to those who disagree. And using theology and scripture to justify itself.

This maybe boils it down to the fundamental difference. I want evidence that will outweigh my (to my mind) rational analysis that there is no God. I view scientific theory - and, yes, the correct use of jargon of it if it is justified to be crystal clear on meaning - as a fantastically good way of understanding the world and how it works and how we got here. I think it should be used relentlessly in the definition of political direction and policy but only where it is relevant. Where it is not relevant, it should not be used.

You (I think), on the other hand, through your personal experience of life and the world, through the work that you do and the study you have done of the bible and theology are entirely convinced that Jesus is your personal saviour. You see the fundamental goodness contained in the teachings of Christianity have stood the test of time, and as a guidebook to moral living cannot be beaten.

I have no problem in you believing this - why should I? I think you're wrong, and you think I'm wrong, but I suspect we're both basically fairly decent individuals. I suppose we'll find out which of us was right before too long.

[hibsitis]

Thats a good post Doddie, and interesting reading. I dont think for a minute you're a "Yanqui Armageddon-peddler", but the way. I dont think you'd get away with in North Lanarkshire for a kick-off...

Just a couple of other points.

On the Dawkins/Eugenics point, you are absolutely and categorically wrong. Apologies for being so blunt - and I am happy to stand corrected in th elight of any evidence to the contrary - but you won't find anything to support the claim that his stance backs eugenics as an acceptable science because (a) he doesn't, and (b) eugenics is an outdated pseudo-science spawned from an incorrect grasp of what evolution is, what it means and how it works.


You wrote:
In a sense RD is the 'acceptable' face of something I find utterly unacceptable - politicised science dictating morality and determining values without regard to those who disagree. And using scientific theory and jargon to justify itself.

If you change just a few words,it gets to where atheists are, I suppose:

In a sense mainstream religion is the 'acceptable' face of something I find utterly unacceptable - politicised dogma dictating morality and determining values without regard to those who disagree. And using theology and scripture to justify itself.

This maybe boils it down to the fundamental difference. I want evidence that will outweigh my (to my mind) rational analysis that there is no God. I view scientific theory - and, yes, the correct use of jargon of it if it is justified to be crystal clear on meaning - as a fantastically good way of understanding the world and how it works and how we got here. I think it should be used relentlessly in the definition of political direction and policy but only where it is relevant. Where it is not relevant, it should not be used.

You (I think), on the other hand, through your personal experience of life and the world, through the work that you do and the study you have done of the bible and theology are entirely convinced that Jesus is your personal saviour. You see the fundamental goodness contained in the teachings of Christianity have stood the test of time, and as a guidebook to moral living cannot be beaten.

I have no problem in you believing this - why should I? I think you're wrong, and you think I'm wrong, but I suspect we're both basically fairly decent individuals. I suppose we'll find out which of us was right before too long.

I think TC summarises the reasonable atheist point well here. What frustrates some atheists, and this is perhaps where Dawkins' exasperation comes across as hectoring, is a wilful failure by theists to take on board rational argument against there being a god. To try to rationalise all the many inconsistencies that enquiring behind the historical facade of belief in the supernatural throws up does not add to religion's credibility.

I asked a question earlier in this thread about where religion would be without the indoctrination of the young. If theists have the courage of their convictions, stop trying to teach religion to children and let them decide for themselves when they are able.

The only point on which I'd take issue with you, TC, is that if we're right, we won't find out anything before too long!

[Speedway]

I think TC summarises the reasonable atheist point well here. What frustrates some atheists, and this is perhaps where Dawkins' exasperation comes across as hectoring, is a wilful failure by theists to take on board rational argument against there being a god. To try to rationalise all the many inconsistencies that enquiring behind the historical facade of belief in the supernatural throws up does not add to religion's credibility.

I asked a question earlier in this thread about where religion would be without the indoctrination of the young. If theists have the courage of their convictions, stop trying to teach religion to children and let them decide for themselves when they are able.

The only point on which I'd take issue with you, TC, is that if we're right, we won't find out anything before too long!

Would that not therefore be an upbringing of athiestic indoctrination?

[hibsitis]

Would that not therefore be an upbringing of athiestic indoctrination?

No. That would imply bringing children up to believe there was no god. I am suggesting children are brought up to understand there is a choice to believe or not believe and not to skew the outcome by forcing them to believe something at an impressionable age.

[Bookkeeper]

Just signed on to Hibs.net today after viewing as a guest for a while and came across this thread. Having spent the last hour or so reading through it, firstly I'm amazed at the weighty discussions that take place on a football supporters site and secondly at the good natured, eloquent and informed debate.

For what it's worth i'm on the Christian (not necessarily religious) side of the debate and again for what it's worth I have no real problem with, or criticism of, people who consider themselves atheist. There does though, seem to be some misconceptions of God and religion that have been touched on by previous posters. A book I found helpful recently was 'The Shack' by William Paul Young and would recommend it to anyone(religious or atheist).

Hope I've not strayed too far off topic.

[IndieHibby]

No. That would imply bringing children up to believe there was no god. I am suggesting children are brought up to understand there is a choice to believe or not believe and not to skew the outcome by forcing them to believe something at an impressionable age.

That's it in a nutshell for me :agree:

[IndieHibby]

Just signed on to Hibs.net today after viewing as a guest for a while and came across this thread. Having spent the last hour or so reading through it, firstly I'm amazed at the weighty discussions that take place on a football supporters site and secondly at the good natured, eloquent and informed debate.

For what it's worth i'm on the Christian (not necessarily religious) side of the debate and again for what it's worth I have no real problem with, or criticism of, people who consider themselves atheist. There does though, seem to be some misconceptions of God and religion that have been touched on by previous posters. A book I found helpful recently was 'The Shack' by William Paul Young and would recommend it to anyone(religious or atheist).

Hope I've not strayed too far off topic.

Welcome to hibs.net! I look forward to your contributions. The Holy Ground is one of my favourite places on the internet :thumbsup:(sometimes, anyway :wink:)

Fancy becoming a Private Member? - it's only a tenner and helps to keep the site running!

[ancienthibby]

I think TC summarises the reasonable atheist point well here. What frustrates some atheists, and this is perhaps where Dawkins' exasperation comes across as hectoring, is a wilful failure by theists to take on board rational argument against there being a god. To try to rationalise all the many inconsistencies that enquiring behind the historical facade of belief in the supernatural throws up does not add to religion's credibility.

I asked a question earlier in this thread about where religion would be without the indoctrination of the young. If theists have the courage of their convictions, stop trying to teach religion to children and let them decide for themselves when they are able.

The only point on which I'd take issue with you, TC, is that if we're right, we won't find out anything before too long!

You are now touching on the nub of the whole issue. Theists (hopefully) will have no issue with believers in scientific rationalism sticking firmly to their key principles, usually led by the tenet - 'show me the evidence'. Likewise, I hope, but do not see a lot of evidence for it, that atheists would accept that the Christian gospel cannot work without faith and belief!

Scripture makes it abundantly clear that those who were witnesses to the Lord's time on earth believed 'because you have seen me', but then says 'blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed'! (John20:29).

For a Christian believer, faith is the fundamental tenet that cannot be overturned.

[hibsitis]

You are now touching on the nub of the whole issue. Theists (hopefully) will have no issue with believers in scientific rationalism sticking firmly to their key principles, usually led by the tenet - 'show me the evidence'. Likewise, I hope, but do not see a lot of evidence for it, that atheists would accept that the Christian gospel cannot work without faith and belief!

Scripture makes it abundantly clear that those who were witnesses to the Lord's time on earth believed 'because you have seen me', but then says 'blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed'! (John20:29).

For a Christian believer, faith is the fundamental tenet that cannot be overturned.

AH - I understand the faith side of the debate quite well, having been raised a catholic. However, I now find this an unnecessary requirement to explain the existence of anything, especially in light of all the inconsistencies thrown up when theists try to explain/defend belief in the supernatural against rationality.

It also begs the question of, if he does exist, what involvement god has in our lives and more specifically, issues like......

Which bits of the bible do we we believe and which bits are allegorical, mistranslated, misunderstood?
Does prayer work?
Does god intervene - are there miracles? If so why doesn't he stop really bad things happening?
Is there a devil/hell?

These are just example and the tip of the iceberg and don't even get near what some non-Christian religions do in the name of god and whether he might approve of this.

The debate is muddied further by creationists contradicting scientific findings and, in my opinion, undermining the credibility of more rational theists.

It's easy to see why the like of Dawkins (and a few of us on this thread!) is less than persuaded by religious arguments.

To me, it seems that faith based and other irrational explanations were perhaps logical in the past but we have since discovered that many things that were held to be undoubtedly true (flat earth, sun orbiting the earth, creationism etc.) were nothing more than best guesses or scripture based and debunked by science. I believe religion falls into that category. It was quite rational for people to believe in gods thousands of years ago as this helped explain things that they couldn't otherwise.

If it wasn't for faith being passed onto children, it would have died out long ago as science progressed.

[Bookkeeper]

Welcome to hibs.net! I look forward to your contributions. The Holy Ground is one of my favourite places on the internet :thumbsup:(sometimes, anyway :wink:)

Fancy becoming a Private Member? - it's only a tenner and helps to keep the site running!


Thanks IndieHibby. Aye looks like some good discussions to be had here. Private Member seems a good idea, site well worth a tenner:thumbsup:

[Twa Cairpets]

You are now touching on the nub of the whole issue. Theists (hopefully) will have no issue with believers in scientific rationalism sticking firmly to their key principles, usually led by the tenet - 'show me the evidence'. Likewise, I hope, but do not see a lot of evidence for it, that atheists would accept that the Christian gospel cannot work without faith and belief!

Scripture makes it abundantly clear that those who were witnesses to the Lord's time on earth believed 'because you have seen me', but then says 'blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed'! (John20:29).

For a Christian believer, faith is the fundamental tenet that cannot be overturned.

Related to this (I think) is an excerpt from a blog I read calld Pharyngula. (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/) Its written by a guy called PZ Myers, a Professor of Biology in Minnesota. Pharygula is a very widely read blog on atheism (and, bizarrely, on cephalopods). In an article about an evolutionary science book for children posted yesterday, he makes the following comment:

"...Science as a whole has nothing to say about religion." Of course it can. We can confidently say that nearly all religions are definitely wrong, if for no other reason than that they contradict each other. We also have a multitude of religions that make claims about the world that are contradicted by the evidence..."

I hadnt thought about it like that before, and it must surely add to the need to have quite astonishing faith in ones' particular version of theology.

[ancienthibby]

Related to this (I think) is an excerpt from a blog I read calld Pharyngula. (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/) Its written by a guy called PZ Myers, a Professor of Biology in Minnesota. Pharygula is a very widely read blog on atheism (and, bizarrely, on cephalopods). In an article about an evolutionary science book for children posted yesterday, he makes the following comment:

"...Science as a whole has nothing to say about religion." Of course it can. We can confidently say that nearly all religions are definitely wrong, if for no other reason than that they contradict each other. We also have a multitude of religions that make claims about the world that are contradicted by the evidence..."

I hadnt thought about it like that before, and it must surely add to the need to have quite astonishing faith in ones' particular version of theology.

You should not think for a minute think that I am about to persuaded by the strength(?) of that emboldened argument!!

I do acknowledge that there is a need for an astonishing faith. Not as you might think but, simply, because God chooses to deal with all of his recalcitrant children, including you and me, and offers us all forgiveness and pardon - and that quite astonishes me!

[Twa Cairpets]

You should not think for a minute think that I am about to persuaded by the strength(?) of that emboldened argument!!

I do acknowledge that there is a need for an astonishing faith. Not as you might think but, simply, because God chooses to deal with all of his recalcitrant children, including you and me, and offers us all forgiveness and pardon - and that quite astonishes me!

I dont, but its a difficult thought process to argue against isnt it?

[Speedway]

No. That would imply bringing children up to believe there was no god. I am suggesting children are brought up to understand there is a choice to believe or not believe and not to skew the outcome by forcing them to believe something at an impressionable age.

Kids, like Adults will take the path of least effort required.

After 8-16 years of believing nowt, having less required of them in terms of standards/behaviours and being given little encouragement to develop the spiriutal side of their identity; we mightas well in doctrinate them in athiesm. What's the incentive to do anything else?

I don't believe you can force anyone into believing anything, you can only influence. Belief is still choice and if you believe in God there's still plenty of opportunity to be educated on the alternatives.

[Tinyclothes]

Kids, like Adults will take the path of least effort required.

After 8-16 years of believing nowt, having less required of them in terms of standards/behaviours and being given little encouragement to develop the spiriutal side of their identity; we mightas well in doctrinate them in athiesm. What's the incentive to do anything else?

I don't believe you can force anyone into believing anything, you can only influence. Belief is still choice and if you believe in God there's still plenty of opportunity to be educated on the alternatives.

Why does not believing in a god automatically mean less is required of you? Do you honestly think that, as a rule, people who do subscribe to a religion are generally better people? Obtuse in my opinion.

As for your emboldened section you contradict yourself. Believing in God as you say, is a choice so why does it matter what age you are? It sounds to me like you want to catch them when they're young so that there is less chance of them being able to make an informed decision. This is in keeping with my personal belief that religion and the religious have a tendency to prey (excuse the pun) on the vulnerable and those less affected by the logic of reason.

[Speedway]

Why does not believing in a god automatically mean less is required of you? Do you honestly think that, as a rule, people who do subscribe to a religion are generally better people? Obtuse in my opinion.

As for your emboldened section you contradict yourself. Believing in God as you say, is a choice so why does it matter what age you are? It sounds to me like you want to catch them when they're young so that there is less chance of them being able to make an informed decision. This is in keeping with my personal belief that religion and the religious have a tendency to prey (excuse the pun) on the vulnerable and those less affected by the logic of reason.

Is human logic infallible?

To answer your questions in a one-er, I refer you to my earlier statement about developing the spiritual side of an individual.

I do not see in my community nor any other I'm aware of, youths anxiously engaged in this. I do see, an increase of crime, lack of moral behaviour, porn as a mass market accepted form of entertainment and glamourisation of drug use. Anyway you slice it, that's a product of Liberalisation and it's not for our progress IMO.

This was less present is the less liberal British society of our parents. That said, earlier repressive societies had different ills.

The point being, that religious upbringing, whilst not perfect, leads to an more communal based aspirational mindset than a godless society does.

Call God, Dave, if you want and open the Church of Dave. Moral Discipline is evidently higher in society when conforming to principles widely accepted of God-Worshipping origin, than not.

Left to our own devices and the removal of Religion, I don't see the same standards upheld.

Liberalism has liberated, and at what cost?

[Twa Cairpets]

Is human logic infallible?

To answer your questions in a one-er, I refer you to my earlier statement about developing the spiritual side of an individual.

I do not see in my community nor any other I'm aware of, youths anxiously engaged in this. I do see, an increase of crime, lack of moral behaviour, porn as a mass market accepted form of entertainment and glamourisation of drug use. Anyway you slice it, that's a product of Liberalisation and it's not for our progress IMO.

This was less present is the less liberal British society of our parents. That said, earlier repressive societies had different ills.

The point being, that religious upbringing, whilst not perfect, leads to an more communal based aspirational mindset than a godless society does.

Call God, Dave, if you want and open the Church of Dave. Moral Discipline is evidently higher in society when conforming to principles widely accepted of God-Worshipping origin, than not.

Left to our own devices and the removal of Religion, I don't see the same standards upheld.

Liberalism has liberated, and at what cost?

Atheism is less prevalent in the USA than any Christian nation. Its hardly an example of "moral discipline being evidently higher".

Liberalism and Conservatism arguments for the value of faith are, to my mind mind, lazy correlations of dubious accuracy.

[Speedway]

Atheism is less prevalent in the USA than any Christian nation. Its hardly an example of "moral discipline being evidently higher".

Liberalism and Conservatism arguments for the value of faith are, to my mind mind, lazy correlations of dubious accuracy.

You pick a good example.

Divorce, Truency, Absent Father Families, Delinquent Crime Rates etc amongst American Southern Baptists and American Mormons (US Top Religions 5 and 6 I believe) are amongst the lowest in the world, never mind the US.

[Twa Cairpets]

You pick a good example.

Divorce, Truency, Absent Father Families, Delinquent Crime Rates etc amongst American Southern Baptists and American Mormons (US Top Religions 5 and 6 I believe) are amongst the lowest in the world, never mind the US.

Ooohh now there's a challenge to do some research...:greengrin

Want to give me a starter for ten link to any back-up for this?

[Twa Cairpets]

You pick a good example.

Divorce, Truency, Absent Father Families, Delinquent Crime Rates etc amongst American Southern Baptists and American Mormons (US Top Religions 5 and 6 I believe) are amongst the lowest in the world, never mind the US.

Here's one to suggest that religion has a statistically significant negative effect on the incidence of teen preganancy (and by extension one would think absent father families, although in fairness I cant find evidence either way):

Religiosity and teen birth rate (http://www.reproductive-health-journal.com/content/6/1/14)

I'm not saying that all of the beliefs of the religious are bad, by the way. Not at all. But for every ying there's a yang, as demonstrated above.

There is a link, particularly in the US, between the political right and evangelical christianity. This is where to me the mixing of the two is dangerous, and the use of religion to justify "anti-liberalism" especialy so.

Preaching only abstinence, for example, and not educating young people on what sex is is a dangerous route. Can you think of any other sphere of education or human life where the imparting of vital knowledge to kids is actively discouraged for no other reason than belief in a particular interpretation of the bible?

[Leicester Fan]

Religiosity and teen birth rate (http://www.reproductive-health-journal.com/content/6/1/14)




Results

Increased religiosity in residents of states in the U.S. strongly predicted a higher teen birth rate, with r = 0.73 (p < 0.0005). Religiosity correlated negatively with median household income, with r = -0.66, and income correlated negatively with teen birth rate, with r = -0.63. But the correlation between religiosity and teen birth rate remained highly significant when income was controlled for via partial correlation: the partial correlation between religiosity and teen birth rate, controlling for income, was 0.53 (p < 0.0005). Abortion rate correlated negatively with religiosity, with r = -0.45, p = 0.002. However, the partial correlation between teen birth rate and religiosity remained high and significant when controlling for abortion rate (partial correlation = 0.68, p < 0.0005) and when controlling for both abortion rate and income (partial correlation = 0.54, p = 0.001).
:confused: well that's cleared that up.

[Speedway]

Here's one to suggest that religion has a statistically significant negative effect on the incidence of teen preganancy (and by extension one would think absent father families, although in fairness I cant find evidence either way):

Religiosity and teen birth rate (http://www.reproductive-health-journal.com/content/6/1/14)

I'm not saying that all of the beliefs of the religious are bad, by the way. Not at all. But for every ying there's a yang, as demonstrated above.

There is a link, particularly in the US, between the political right and evangelical christianity. This is where to me the mixing of the two is dangerous, and the use of religion to justify "anti-liberalism" especialy so.

Preaching only abstinence, for example, and not educating young people on what sex is is a dangerous route. Can you think of any other sphere of education or human life where the imparting of vital knowledge to kids is actively discouraged for no other reason than belief in a particular interpretation of the bible?

Don't disagree with any of that TC. Curiousity often 'kills the cat' in the absence of education. That's not the religion at fault, that's the quality of teaching/education given from the parents.

So my next discussion point already made but not explored earlier is:

Let's say my last point is wrong and that generally, non-religious parents rear children with the same or better moral code than religious parents.

What is the ultimate origin of the moral code taught by non-religious parents. Of course their own parents are the likely immediate source but trace it back far enough and that is the ultimate source for base values of 'right' and 'wrong'?

[Speedway]

No. That would imply bringing children up to believe there was no god. I am suggesting children are brought up to understand there is a choice to believe or not believe and not to skew the outcome by forcing them to believe something at an impressionable age.

I've already quoted this post to make a point but I do so again to ask another question.

Using your reasoning, why on earth therefore, should we teach kids (at an impressionable age) not the kick the **** out of some other kid at school or not to pee on the sofa whilst wearing a swastika or that there's any need to go to school at all, or even to eat food.

With your reasoning as I understand it, we should be advising children of all things that exist and let them make their own choices. If not, why would Religion be singled out and drug use, violence or the other random examples above, not be?

Kids are impressionable so that those whom have a responsibility to raise them have a chance to guide them.

[hibsitis]

I've already quoted this post to make a point but I do so again to ask another question.

Using your reasoning, why on earth therefore, should we teach kids (at an impressionable age) not the kick the **** out of some other kid at school or not to pee on the sofa whilst wearing a swastika or that there's any need to go to school at all, or even to eat food.

With your reasoning as I understand it, we should be advising children of all things that exist and let them make their own choices. If not, why would Religion be singled out and drug use, violence or the other random examples above, not be?

Kids are impressionable so that those whom have a responsibility to raise them have a chance to guide them.

I'm glad you've asked as this is fundamental to the debate.

There are good reasons for bringing up children not to do the sort of things you refer to. Most of them revolve around the quality of life your child could expect. Getting your child to live by a humanist code and to aspire will make them a loved, productive and aspirational member of society who adds to the greater good. It also means they will have less chance of, for example, ending up in jail, friendless or depressed.

I'm sure we can agree these are good reasons for giving your child sound moral direction. However, this doesn't have to be done within a religious context and you could argue that not doing so and letting the child make up their own mind about god is fairer. After all, why should someone be forced to believe in something which cannot be proved to exist just because its been handed down through generation of family?

As I said in an earlier post, society, aided by scientific advance, has moved on and this is reflected in the growing numbers who don't believe in the supernatural. It is simply not necessary or justifiable unless you are scared of there being no afterlife.

In short, religion is singled out because it is based on the irrationality of 'faith' and not only are you teaching children about something which probably isn't true, it may inhibit their ability to live life to the full.

[Speedway]

I'm glad you've asked as this is fundamental to the debate.

There are good reasons for bringing up children not to do the sort of things you refer to. Most of them revolve around the quality of life your child could expect. Getting your child to live by a humanist code and to aspire will make them a loved, productive and aspirational member of society who adds to the greater good. It also means they will have less chance of, for example, ending up in jail, friendless or depressed.

I'm sure we can agree these are good reasons for giving your child sound moral direction. However, this doesn't have to be done within a religious context and you could argue that not doing so and letting the child make up their own mind about god is fairer. After all, why should someone be forced to believe in something which cannot be proved to exist just because its been handed down through generation of family?

As I said in an earlier post, society, aided by scientific advance, has moved on and this is reflected in the growing numbers who don't believe in the supernatural. It is simply not necessary or justifiable unless you are scared of there being no afterlife.

In short, religion is singled out because it is based on the irrationality of 'faith' and not only are you teaching children about something which probably isn't true, it may inhibit their ability to live life to the full.

If there is no afterlife, or no God, then there is no central source for Good and Bad. Good and Bad simply become labels we choose randomly assign based on how we feel and are educated.

So if our life span begins and ends here, why strive for Happiness, why be law abiding, why respect your peers, colleagues and friends. None of it ultimately matters. Just do what you want. The bits highlighted in bold are irrelevant in a finite life, are they not?

[Twa Cairpets]

If there is no afterlife, or no God, then there is no central source for Good and Bad. Good and Bad simply become labels we choose randomly assign based on how we feel and are educated.

Why does there need to be "a central source"? Especially one which - apart from half of the ten commandments - is exceptionally woolly and open to misinterpretation? Definitions of good/bad or acceptable/unacceptable has been such a moveable feast over the last 2000 years that it is, surely, indisputable changed and evolved as the human race and the society within which it operates changes and evolves. If good and bad are unchangable pillars of truth as defined by a divine will in the bible, then what right to do we have to interpret it how we see fit?

Equally, and this is where this argument falls down completely to me, is that religions other than Christianity have a different moral code and moral law. I believe it a very arrogant stance that any one of them has the undisputed monopoly on moral truths.


So if our life span begins and ends here, why strive for Happiness, Because being happy is better than being sad why be law abiding because of you're not the society within which you live will remove your liberty or impose some other punishment on you, why respect your peers colleagues and friendsbecause that way you will be worthy of/earn respect yourself, . None of it ultimately matters. Just do what you want. The bits highlighted in bold are irrelevant in a finite life, are they not?

Ultimately I suppose youre right - it doesnt matter. A few hundred years from now, nobody who my life has directly touched will be around, and I'll be an interesting search on a future Carpets geneological search. But that doesnt stop me living a "good" life now, I hope. Why should it?

[LiverpoolHibs]

If there is no afterlife, or no God, then there is no central source for Good and Bad. Good and Bad simply become labels we choose randomly assign based on how we feel and are educated.

So if our life span begins and ends here, why strive for Happiness, why be law abiding, why respect your peers, colleagues and friends. None of it ultimately matters. Just do what you want. The bits highlighted in bold are irrelevant in a finite life, are they not?

Just as a small point, what explanation would you give for the existence of the Golden Rule (in one form or another) in pretty much every single societal group since the dawn of time, regardless of religious affiliation?

[Speedway]

Ultimately I suppose youre right - it doesnt matter. A few hundred years from now, nobody who my life has directly touched will be around, and I'll be an interesting search on a future Carpets geneological search. But that doesnt stop me living a "good" life now, I hope. Why should it?[/QUOTE]

But why bother, it's effort for no ultimate point?

[QUOTE=LiverpoolHibs;2350536]Just as a small point, what explanation would you give for the existence of the Golden Rule (in one form or another) in pretty much every single societal group since the dawn of time, regardless of religious affiliation?

Which Golden Rule do you refer to?

[LiverpoolHibs]

Which Golden Rule do you refer to?

The Golden Rule.

Reciprocal ethics, 'Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you'.

[ancienthibby]

The Golden Rule.

Reciprocal ethics, 'Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you'.

So, where did you get that one from, then??:greengrin

[Twa Cairpets]

But why bother, it's effort for no ultimate point?


What an odd question.

Because I like being happy. I like the fact that I have a close and loving family, good friends and I take pleasure in doing most things that I do. I like seeing the people I care about happy. I realise, as does almost every human being, that living absolutely selfishly does not give happiness.

I have no fear of existing in hell for eternity because it is an entirely human construct.

[LiverpoolHibs]

So, where did you get that one from, then??:greengrin

Well, that's sort of the point...

[ancienthibby]

AH - I understand the faith side of the debate quite well, having been raised a catholic. However, I now find this an unnecessary requirement to explain the existence of anything, especially in light of all the inconsistencies thrown up when theists try to explain/defend belief in the supernatural against rationality.

It also begs the question of, if he does exist, what involvement god has in our lives and more specifically, issues like......

Which bits of the bible do we we believe and which bits are allegorical, mistranslated, misunderstood?
Does prayer work?
Does god intervene - are there miracles? If so why doesn't he stop really bad things happening?
Is there a devil/hell?

These are just example and the tip of the iceberg and don't even get near what some non-Christian religions do in the name of god and whether he might approve of this.

The debate is muddied further by creationists contradicting scientific findings and, in my opinion, undermining the credibility of more rational theists.

It's easy to see why the like of Dawkins (and a few of us on this thread!) is less than persuaded by religious arguments.

To me, it seems that faith based and other irrational explanations were perhaps logical in the past but we have since discovered that many things that were held to be undoubtedly true (flat earth, sun orbiting the earth, creationism etc.) were nothing more than best guesses or scripture based and debunked by science. I believe religion falls into that category. It was quite rational for people to believe in gods thousands of years ago as this helped explain things that they couldn't otherwise.

If it wasn't for faith being passed onto children, it would have died out long ago as science progressed.

Hibsitis,

Apologies for taking some to get back to you.

Aside from a dodgy keyboard, I am also NOT a theologian (though they can be found on this thread!).

I cannot deal adequately with all the questions you raise, but I will offer the following as partial answers:

1. The rational/faith issue should be no barrier to continuing debate between atheists/theists/deists. Theists/deists do not deny the rational position as held in integrity, but do ask that atheists at least recognise that faith/belief has arisen in a believer's life because of personal experience with the Living God!.

2. The arguments pro/contra a Creator God never seem to me to go far enough, in that you cannot speak about God unless you extend the discussion/argument to what He has done for a 'fallen race' (us) in the giving of His Son on the Cross. The nub of the Christian Gospel is the Cross and any debate without that is incomplete and futile.

3. Scripture is written in a number of literary styles, of that there is no doubt. I am not an expert to tell you what is mistranslated or misunderstood, although the quick answer to the second point would be: most! What we can say is clear, is that the parables of the four Gospels are given as 'stories of the time' to illustrate how God deals/works with his fallen people.

4. I also believe that there is a real separation between heaven and hell, with the latter I see as being a complete separation from God in eternity without any hope of repatriation! Scripture speaks eloquently to this when it portrays (in allegory form!) a non-believer in hell crying out to a saint in heaven - 'Please go and tell my relatives so that they do not make the same mistake as myself'!!

5. Do we believe in prayer?? Absolutely!! I know completely in my recent experience that prayers are absolutely answered (not necessarily in the ways you might expect, but to your eternal benefit nonetheless!). There are hundreds of thousands of prayer groups across the world who could confirm this!

Hope this helps in some way.
AH.

[hibsitis]

Hibsitis,

Apologies for taking some to get back to you.

Aside from a dodgy keyboard, I am also NOT a theologian (though they can be found on this thread!).

I cannot deal adequately with all the questions you raise, but I will offer the following as partial answers:

1. The rational/faith issue should be no barrier to continuing debate between atheists/theists/deists. Theists/deists do not deny the rational position as held in integrity, but do ask that atheists at least recognise that faith/belief has arisen in a believer's life because of personal experience with the Living God!.

2. The arguments pro/contra a Creator God never seem to me to go far enough, in that you cannot speak about God unless you extend the discussion/argument to what He has done for a 'fallen race' (us) in the giving of His Son on the Cross. The nub of the Christian Gospel is the Cross and any debate without that is incomplete and futile.

3. Scripture is written in a number of literary styles, of that there is no doubt. I am not an expert to tell you what is mistranslated or misunderstood, although the quick answer to the second point would be: most! What we can say is clear, is that the parables of the four Gospels are given as 'stories of the time' to illustrate how God deals/works with his fallen people.

4. I also believe that there is a real separation between heaven and hell, with the latter I see as being a complete separation from God in eternity without any hope of repatriation! Scripture speaks eloquently to this when it portrays (in allegory form!) a non-believer in hell crying out to a saint in heaven - 'Please go and tell my relatives so that they do not make the same mistake as myself'!!

5. Do we believe in prayer?? Absolutely!! I know completely in my recent experience that prayers are absolutely answered (not necessarily in the ways you might expect, but to your eternal benefit nonetheless!). There are hundreds of thousands of prayer groups across the world who could confirm this!

Hope this helps in some way.
AH.

Right! Let's get to work on doing something about the 108 year old bogey!

Seriously, I raised that as an example of some of the difficulties we non-believers have with faith and how god is supposed to act. Why do some prayers get answered and others not? Does god really cause miracles to happen where one person is cured yet not intervene to stop the holocaust?

I realise that is a small part of the discussion but one which has pperplexed me for years. I realise you may not believe in an interventionist god but prayer does seem to imply this.

[hibsitis]

If there is no afterlife, or no God, then there is no central source for Good and Bad. Good and Bad simply become labels we choose randomly assign based on how we feel and are educated.

So if our life span begins and ends here, why strive for Happiness, why be law abiding, why respect your peers, colleagues and friends. None of it ultimately matters. Just do what you want. The bits highlighted in bold are irrelevant in a finite life, are they not?

What an odd post. So if you could be convinced there was no afterlife, you couldn't be happy or want others to be happy or see a rationale for acting like a good and law abiding person?

How do you think the rest of us manage it?

[ancienthibby]

Right! Let's get to work on doing something about the 108 year old bogey!

Seriously, I raised that as an example of some of the difficulties we non-believers have with faith and how god is supposed to act. Why do some prayers get answered and others not? Does god really cause miracles to happen where one person is cured yet not intervene to stop the holocaust?

I realise that is a small part of the discussion but one which has pperplexed me for years. I realise you may not believe in an interventionist god but prayer does seem to imply this.

Bait!!

Not taken:devil:

[Twa Cairpets]

Hibsitis,

Apologies for taking some to get back to you.

Aside from a dodgy keyboard, I am also NOT a theologian (though they can be found on this thread!).

I cannot deal adequately with all the questions you raise, but I will offer the following as partial answers:

1. The rational/faith issue should be no barrier to continuing debate between atheists/theists/deists. Theists/deists do not deny the rational position as held in integrity, but do ask that atheists at least recognise that faith/belief has arisen in a believer's life because of personal experience with the Living God!.

2. The arguments pro/contra a Creator God never seem to me to go far enough, in that you cannot speak about God unless you extend the discussion/argument to what He has done for a 'fallen race' (us) in the giving of His Son on the Cross. The nub of the Christian Gospel is the Cross and any debate without that is incomplete and futile.

3. Scripture is written in a number of literary styles, of that there is no doubt. I am not an expert to tell you what is mistranslated or misunderstood, although the quick answer to the second point would be: most! What we can say is clear, is that the parables of the four Gospels are given as 'stories of the time' to illustrate how God deals/works with his fallen people.

4. I also believe that there is a real separation between heaven and hell, with the latter I see as being a complete separation from God in eternity without any hope of repatriation! Scripture speaks eloquently to this when it portrays (in allegory form!) a non-believer in hell crying out to a saint in heaven - 'Please go and tell my relatives so that they do not make the same mistake as myself'!!

5. Do we believe in prayer?? Absolutely!! I know completely in my recent experience that prayers are absolutely answered (not necessarily in the ways you might expect, but to your eternal benefit nonetheless!). There are hundreds of thousands of prayer groups across the world who could confirm this!

Hope this helps in some way.
AH.

Thats a good post, but, likes Hibsitis I'm going to come back on the prayer point.

As one of the few claims of the faithful that can be measured objectively, it has been absolutely shown to be the case that the intercessionary prayer doesnt work, ever.

This is different from saying that individuals dont gain some level of personal comfort from praying, and possibly speaking out loud to oneself about problems does lead to sorting them out, but as for the power of prayer groups and personal prayer affecting events, it just doesnt happen.

There is, In fact, an exceptionally good study relating to cardiac surgery and post-op complications that suggests that not only does it have no positive effect, but if individuals are aware they are being prayed over, it actually increases the liklihood of complications. (This is of course to do with how the prayed-for reacts, nothing to do with prayer itself).

This is the link (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16569567) - there are many wider discussions of this and other similar studies all over the net.

Where the issues come in are that individuals will have experience of prayers coming true, but this is just down to the laws governing large numbers. For every prayer that appears to be answered, lots and lots arent, but these get forgotten or "rationalised" away (I didnt pray hard enough, I didnt believe sufficiently). As a tiny list examples, think of the number of prayers from the truly devout sent heavenwards for Haiti, for Madeleine McCann, for family members that are in pain or suffering. A few coincidences or anecdotes to the contrary does not constitute evidence, or vindication in faith

[ancienthibby]

Thats a good post, but, likes Hibsitis I'm going to come back on the prayer point.

1 As one of the few claims of the faithful that can be measured objectively, it has been absolutely shown to be the case that the intercessionary prayer doesnt work, ever.

This is different from saying that individuals dont gain some level of personal comfort from praying, and possibly speaking out loud to oneself about problems does lead to sorting them out,2 but as for the power of prayer groups and personal prayer affecting events, it just doesnt happen.

There is, In fact, an exceptionally good study relating to cardiac surgery and post-op complications that suggests that not only does it have no positive effect, but if individuals are aware they are being prayed over, it actually increases the liklihood of complications. (This is of course to do with how the prayed-for reacts, nothing to do with prayer itself).

This is the link (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16569567) - there are many wider discussions of this and other similar studies all over the net.

Where the issues come in are that individuals will have experience of prayers coming true, but this is just down to the laws governing large numbers. For every prayer that appears to be answered, lots and lots arent, but these get forgotten or "rationalised" away (I didnt pray hard enough, I didnt believe sufficiently). As a tiny list examples, think of the number of prayers from the truly devout sent heavenwards for Haiti, for Madeleine McCann, for family members that are in pain or suffering. A few coincidences or anecdotes to the contrary does not constitute evidence, or vindication in faith

1. Just not so! To do this you would need to know the mind of God, and Scripture says that quite clearly this is not possible.

2.Scripture also tells us very clearly that God answers those prayers which are in accordance with His Holy will!!

The Apostle Paul tells us in that well known passage of Scripture in 1 Corinthians 13 v12 :

12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known.We cannot know in this world!!

And, in this world, I am unaware of any mass congregation being the be all and end all!! I repeat the need to get to grips with a Personal God! That's where it begins and ends!

[Twa Cairpets]

1. Just not so! To do this you would need to know the mind of God, and Scripture says that quite clearly this is not possible.

2.Scripture also tells us very clearly that God answers those prayers which are in accordance with His Holy will!!

The Apostle Paul tells us in that well known passage of Scripture in 1 Corinthians 13 v12 :

12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known.We cannot know in this world!!

And, in this world, I am unaware of any mass congregation being the be all and end all!! I repeat the need to get to grips with a Personal God! That's where it begins and ends!

Ancient, you and I have some interesting yet civil disagreements, and this is going to be another one...

Earlier you said

"I know completely in my recent experience that prayers are absolutely answered (not necessarily in the ways you might expect, but to your eternal benefit nonetheless!). There are hundreds of thousands of prayer groups across the world who could confirm this!"

If you have no evidence to suggest intercessionary prayer works, then you simply cannot claim that it does. This is nothing to do with the knowing the will of God, or being in accordance with his plan.

It would be plain and demonstrable that those prayers that happened to fall in line with Gods will were answered more than those which werent.

And I'm afraid I dont see how the scripture you quote demonstrates anything clearly.

[hibsitis]

1. Just not so! To do this you would need to know the mind of God, and Scripture says that quite clearly this is not possible.

2.Scripture also tells us very clearly that God answers those prayers which are in accordance with His Holy will!!

The Apostle Paul tells us in that well known passage of Scripture in 1 Corinthians 13 v12 :

12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known.We cannot know in this world!!

And, in this world, I am unaware of any mass congregation being the be all and end all!! I repeat the need to get to grips with a Personal God! That's where it begins and ends!

AH - I admire the eloquence of your replies but they seem to avoid some of the more searching questions. Are we to infer that it was 'god's holy will' that umpteen million Jews be killed in the holocaust but that occasional people should have their suffering relieved through prayer?

I'm sure you can understand how these apparent inconsistencies make no sense to athiests.

[J-C]

If the bible is the word of God and the Devil is meant to be God's opposite, then why do we not have any writings from the Devils point of view.

I know there have been the dark occults, which dedicate their lives to Devil worship, so therefore there must be writings about it, so why are these writings not taught at school as they have a valid view point the same as teaching God's words.

Not that I'm into that stuff obviiously, just another view point to look at.

[Fantic]

If the bible is the word of God and the Devil is meant to be God's opposite, then why do we not have any writings from the Devils point of view.

I know there have been the dark occults, which dedicate their lives to Devil worship, so therefore there must be writings about it, so why are these writings not taught at school as they have a valid view point the same as teaching God's words.

Not that I'm into that stuff obviiously, just another view point to look at.

The devil is commonly thought of as goodness gone bad. Everything started off good, and some got corrupted to become bad.
Why would you want to teach children bad things.

[J-C]

The devil is commonly thought of as goodness gone bad. Everything started off good, and some got corrupted to become bad.
Why would you want to teach children bad things.

I don't want to teach them bad things, just that people do worship the Devil as opposed to worshiping God or any other deity.

Did the Devil ever have any teachings put into script and if so why do we never here about it, he was a fallen angel was he not. :confused:

As an athiest I don't believe in either God or the Devil, I feel the Devil is used as a ploy by the Theist's to show what bad is, where you go to when you die, to try and stop you from becoming bad and keep you God fearing.

[Fantic]

I don't want to teach them bad things, just that people do worship the Devil as opposed to worshiping God or any other deity.

Did the Devil ever have any teachings put into script and if so why do we never here about it, he was a fallen angel was he not. :confused:

As an athiest I don't believe in either God or the Devil, I feel the Devil is used as a ploy by the Theist's to show what bad is, where you go to when you die, to try and stop you from becoming bad and keep you God fearing.

Well you asked why the devil isn't taught at school and its because no-one want to teach bad things. As for devil worshippers you would need to ask them why.

Lucifer is believed to be a fallen angel and therefore he doesn't have his own source. Every single thing is a result of something else. Time and space are expanding. For example you reading this post is a result of something else etc.. Trace it back and there will be a source.

[J-C]

Well you asked why the devil isn't taught at school and its because no-one want to teach bad things. As for devil worshippers you would need to ask them why.

Lucifer is believed to be a fallen angel and therefore he doesn't have his own source. Every single thing is a result of something else. Time and space are expanding. For example you reading this post is a result of something else etc.. Trace it back and there will be a source.

I meant, if the Devil is the adversary of God and seen as the fallen angel Lucifer, then why are his points of view not taught so as children can then choose. This is a debate and I'm only puting forward another viewpoint to look at.

We teach children the teachings of Christ, Old Testiment, Koran, etc to expand their knowledge of religion, then why don't we teach them about the Devil, or is that just taboo and we think it may hearm them.

Or is it just better to not teach them any religion and allow them to choose when they become more educated and mature.

If you wish to educate children in moral and religious studies at school, which is being done at the present then you must teach them all the religions that exist, whether it's a good one or even a bad one.


What do you actually mean by his own source, he was the fallen angel who could differentiate between good and evil, he chose evil and is meant to fight for the soles of humans with God.


Satanism

Main articles: Satanism (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Satanism), LaVeyan Satanism (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/LaVeyan_Satanism), Setianism (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Setianism), and Theistic Satanism (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Theistic_Satanism)
Some religions worship the Devil. This can be in a polytheistic sense where "God", Satan, and others are all deities with Satan as the preferred patron; or it can be from a more monotheistic viewpoint, where God is regarded as a true god, but is nevertheless defied.
Some variants deny the existence of God and the Devil altogether, but still call themselves Satanists (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Satanism), such as Anton LaVey's (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Anton_LaVey) Church Of Satan (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Church_Of_Satan) which sees Satan as a representation of the primal and natural state of mankind.[21] (http://www.hibs.net/message/#cite_note-20)
Much "Satanic" lore does not originate from actual Satanists, but from Christians. Best-known would be the medieval (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Medieval) folklore (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Folklore) and theology (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Theology) surrounding demons (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Demons) and witches (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Witches). A more recent example is the Satanic ritual abuse (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Satanic_ritual_abuse) scare of the 1980s – beginning with the memoir Michelle Remembers (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Michelle_Remembers) – which depicts Satanism as a vast (and unsubstantiated) conspiracy of elites with a predilection for child abuse (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Child_abuse) and human sacrifice (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Human_sacrifice). This genre regularly describes Satan as actually appearing in person in order to receive worship.


Now I'm not advocating this worship but it is a viewpoint which should not be ignored, as far as I'm concerned it's as much bunkum as the writing and teachings of God and all other forms of religions.

[Twa Cairpets]

I meant, if the Devil is the adversary of God and seen as the fallen angel Lucifer, then why are his points of view not taught so as children can then choose. This is a debate and I'm only puting forward another viewpoint to look at.

We teach children the teachings of Christ, Old Testiment, Koran, etc to expand their knowledge of religion, then why don't we teach them about the Devil, or is that just taboo and we think it may hearm them.

Or is it just better to not teach them any religion and allow them to choose when they become more educated and mature.

If you wish to educate children in moral and religious studies at school, which is being done at the present then you must teach them all the religions that exist, whether it's a good one or even a bad one.


What do you actually mean by his own source, he was the fallen angel who could differentiate between good and evil, he chose evil and is meant to fight for the soles of humans with God.


Satanism

Main articles: Satanism (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Satanism), LaVeyan Satanism (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/LaVeyan_Satanism), Setianism (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Setianism), and Theistic Satanism (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Theistic_Satanism)
Some religions worship the Devil. This can be in a polytheistic sense where "God", Satan, and others are all deities with Satan as the preferred patron; or it can be from a more monotheistic viewpoint, where God is regarded as a true god, but is nevertheless defied.
Some variants deny the existence of God and the Devil altogether, but still call themselves Satanists (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Satanism), such as Anton LaVey's (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Anton_LaVey) Church Of Satan (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Church_Of_Satan) which sees Satan as a representation of the primal and natural state of mankind.[21] (http://www.hibs.net/message/#cite_note-20)
Much "Satanic" lore does not originate from actual Satanists, but from Christians. Best-known would be the medieval (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Medieval) folklore (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Folklore) and theology (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Theology) surrounding demons (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Demons) and witches (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Witches). A more recent example is the Satanic ritual abuse (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Satanic_ritual_abuse) scare of the 1980s – beginning with the memoir Michelle Remembers (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Michelle_Remembers) – which depicts Satanism as a vast (and unsubstantiated) conspiracy of elites with a predilection for child abuse (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Child_abuse) and human sacrifice (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Human_sacrifice). This genre regularly describes Satan as actually appearing in person in order to receive worship.

Now I'm not advocating this worship but it is a viewpoint which should not be ignored, as far as I'm concerned it's as much bunkum as the writing and teachings of God and all other forms of religions.

There is a difference though.

Whilst I agree that it is equally "wrong" (in the sense of it being not correct), satanism does not follow a (generally) moral path. It is not in line in any way shape or form with what both spiritual and secular elements of society would regard as being acceptable. It has no public face, and no verifiable history, and cannot be treated on a par with the main religions.

But yoir general point though is a very interesting one. If one accepts that religion is going to be around for a while, and that it is wrong (in the sense of improper) to deny people the right to faith, I think the teaching of comparative religion would be an excellent thing, allowing for a few conditions. No ideology is presented in preference to another and the different belief systems are explained in a social and religious context and go nowhere near science.

If nothing else, it would take the geographical lottery out of your access to the afterlife, which has always struck me as being cripplingly unfair.

[J-C]

Here's a thought for all you religious guys on here, if being evil is seen as a sin and you do not repent, you end up in Hell beside the Devil himself.

Now the little nagging question I have is why would the Devil make your afterlife such a misery when you've been doing his evil deeds for him on this earth, surely the Devil would be thanking you for being evil and would give you all he can to enjoy your afterlife, albeit in Hell.:confused:

So there'd be plenty of prostitutes, cocaine, heroin etc you get my drift.

[Removed]

Here's a thought for all you religious guys on here, if being evil is seen as a sin and you do not repent, you end up in Hell beside the Devil himself.

Now the little nagging question I have is why would the Devil make your afterlife such a misery when you've been doing his evil deeds for him on this earth, surely the Devil would be thanking you for being evil and would give you all he can to enjoy your afterlife, albeit in Hell.:confused:

So there'd be plenty of prostitutes, cocaine, heroin etc you get my drift.

Probably because the devil will also be cast into a lake of fire as well and suffer eternal torment. Don't think hell will be the party some folk joke about.

[J-C]

Probably because the devil will also be cast into a lake of fire as well and suffer eternal torment. Don't think hell will be the party some folk joke about.


Surely Hell is the Devils land and what he says goes.............as an athiest I can look at this objectively and with a wee bit of a sense of humour, If you believe then there are two opposites heaven and hell, God looks after you in heaven and the Devil in hell, so why would the Devil allow eternal damnation be allowed for all the people doing his dirty work here??

Remember I don't believe, just curious why all the religious guys think the other way.

[Removed]

Surely Hell is the Devils land and what he says goes.............as an athiest I can look at this objectively and with a wee bit of a sense of humour, If you believe then there are two opposites heaven and hell, God looks after you in heaven and the Devil in hell, so why would the Devil allow eternal damnation be allowed for all the people doing his dirty work here??

Remember I don't believe, just curious why all the religious guys think the other way.

Not sure that the devil looks after anyone apart from himself, as long as you are not causing him any hassle he doesn't care, and from what the bible says, he's fighting a losing battle anyway.

If you believe in an omnipotent God and a judgement day then it does logically follow in my mind that God will have final judgement over the world, and that includes the devil. So in terms of the bit in bold, he won't have any control over anything so how can he stop it.

[LiverpoolHibs]

If the bible is the word of God and the Devil is meant to be God's opposite, then why do we not have any writings from the Devils point of view.

I know there have been the dark occults, which dedicate their lives to Devil worship, so therefore there must be writings about it, so why are these writings not taught at school as they have a valid view point the same as teaching God's words.

Not that I'm into that stuff obviiously, just another view point to look at.

Obviously they're not really 'writings from the devil's point of view' but there are plenty of literary interpretations of the Devil and the Satan-myth more generally that are sympathetic or semi-sympathetic. Authors and artists associated with Romanticism were very fond of the Devil/Lucifer as a romantic hero - taking their cue from Milton's portrayal of the Fall of Lucifer in Paradise Lost. Lucifer (along with Prometheus) were seen as rebellious outsiders refusing to conform to the dogmatic, authoritarian, autocratic control of God. The Devil became the religious embodiment of secular revolutionary fervour; the archetypal Romantic hero is essentially Lucifer, "placed outside the structure of civilization and therefore represents the force of physical nature, amoral or ruthless, yet with a sense of power, and often of leadership, that society has impoverished itself by rejecting."

Even Blake's depiction of Evil, Hell and the Devil isn't as anything bad (per se) just that it's the counterpoint to Good, Heaven and God.

Without contraries is no progression.
Attraction and Repulsion, Reason and Energy,
Love and Hate, are necessary to Human existence.
From these contraries spring what the religious call Good & Evil.
Good is the passive that obeys Reason.
Evil is the active springing from Energy.
Good is Heaven. Evil is Hell.

See also Geef's Le Génie du Mal (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/Lucifer_Liege_Luc_Viatour_new.jpg)

[J-C]

Not sure that the devil looks after anyone apart from himself, as long as you are not causing him any hassle he doesn't care, and from what the bible says, he's fighting a losing battle anyway.

If you believe in an omnipotent God and a judgement day then it does logically follow in my mind that God will have final judgement over the world, and that includes the devil. So in terms of the bit in bold, he won't have any control over anything so how can he stop it.


I think some are looking too literally at my posts, they were typed with tongue firmly in cheek.

I was trying to look at things from a slighly different angle, obviously not intending to be too serious, this is one of the main reasons I find it impossible to believe in a god or even a devil, it is all implausible in my mind.

[Removed]

I think some are looking too literally at my posts, they were typed with tongue firmly in cheek.

I was trying to look at things from a slighly different angle, obviously not intending to be too serious, this is one of the main reasons I find it impossible to believe in a god or even a devil, it is all implausible in my mind.

I do realise that, I could see you smiling (metaphorically :greengrin) when you were typing. I was just answering your questions with my thoughts, can't answer for anyone else though.

[ancienthibby]

Ancient, you and I have some interesting yet civil disagreements, and this is going to be another one...

Earlier you said

"I know completely in my recent experience that prayers are absolutely answered (not necessarily in the ways you might expect, but to your eternal benefit nonetheless!). There are hundreds of thousands of prayer groups across the world who could confirm this!"

If you have no evidence to suggest intercessionary prayer works, then you simply cannot claim that it does. This is nothing to do with the knowing the will of God, or being in accordance with his plan.

It would be plain and demonstrable that those prayers that happened to fall in line with Gods will were answered more than those which werent.

And I'm afraid I dont see how the scripture you quote demonstrates anything clearly.

But you are the arch-rationalist sceptic!!

No one has measured what has happened in my own situation (what individual goes about doing that on a daily basis??).

But I knew full well that a direction that others (medics) had recommended for me was not the 'right' one for me and I was fully prepared to tell them that at the next meeting, and a number of others (family and friends) were aware of the situation. I prayed every day about the situation and at the next meeting, the medics advised that something else had occurred since I last met them and a NEW ROUTE WAS OFFERRED!!

And I have been on that programme ever since with rich, rich blessings.

Prayer works for those who believe in the Living God!!

[hibsitis]

AH - 2 points.

First, how can you confidently attribute that incident to prayer? For example, are you suggesting that someone in the same situation as you who did not pray would not have been offered this 'improved' treatment. That the medical people would somehow have withheld it from them? Coincidence is a much more plausible explanation.

Second, in an earlier post I asked why God is so selective in his interventions? That is why did he help you but not 6 million jews?

Your claims would carry marginally more weight if you could persuasively address this type of question.

[Twa Cairpets]

But you are the arch-rationalist sceptic!!

Now I like that! :greengrin


No one has measured what has happened in my own situation (what individual goes about doing that on a daily basis??).

But I knew full well that a direction that others (medics) had recommended for me was not the 'right' one for me and I was fully prepared to tell them that at the next meeting, and a number of others (family and friends) were aware of the situation. I prayed every day about the situation and at the next meeting, the medics advised that something else had occurred since I last met them and a NEW ROUTE WAS OFFERRED!!

And I have been on that programme ever since with rich, rich blessings.

Prayer works for those who believe in the Living God!!

I'm delighted the programme works for you, but dipping into arch-rationalist skeptic mode, I would suggest that this is a c um hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy - you did something (prayed) and something happened (your medication changed). The two are not necessarily related.

From my point of view, if you knew it wasnt working and you weren't happy, the medical indications would presumably have shown this to be the case. Your clinicians reviewed what you were on and identified a new course of treatment. If prayer worked, then cures or at the very least alleviation of symptoms would happen without the intervention of science, in the form of medicine, surely?

Have you prayed before for something similar and something hasnt happened? Of course it has. Have you prayed not to fall ill, or to feel better, and it hasn't happened? Of course you have - everyone on the planet who has ever prayed has experienced this. You remember the times the times that the coincidental outcome happens, but ignore/forget the times it doesnt.

[Fantic]

I meant, if the Devil is the adversary of God and seen as the fallen angel Lucifer, then why are his points of view not taught so as children can then choose. This is a debate and I'm only puting forward another viewpoint to look at.

We teach children the teachings of Christ, Old Testiment, Koran, etc to expand their knowledge of religion, then why don't we teach them about the Devil, or is that just taboo and we think it may hearm them.

Or is it just better to not teach them any religion and allow them to choose when they become more educated and mature.

If you wish to educate children in moral and religious studies at school, which is being done at the present then you must teach them all the religions that exist, whether it's a good one or even a bad one.


What do you actually mean by his own source, he was the fallen angel who could differentiate between good and evil, he chose evil and is meant to fight for the soles of humans with God.



I suppose what i mean is original source. If the devil came from heaven then his original source is god. He chose his path by the free will that was given to him. We all have free will or else we'd be robots.
I can see your point about teaching evil but its done by showing the difference between right and wrong. Not as a religion.

[Bookkeeper]

Its my understanding that God created man in his own image in order that there would be a close relationship between them, not as equals but as supernatural God and created physical man. God loves His creation and made man to love Him back. In order to do that he gave man free will as you can only have true love when it is freely given, you cannot be compelled to love.

With his free will, man chose to rebel against God (just as Satan had before) and thus altered the plan that God had for us all as Adam and Eve's descendants. This is where sin entered the world. Sin is seperation from God and living apart from God's plan. It is evidenced in all the immoral, unethical and criminal acts that we do, but in essence it is seperation from God.

Over the period of the old testament God punished his peoples many times and in many different ways, sometimes in extremely harsh ways to our minds, but always done as a father disciplining a wayward child. Again, its only my understanding but I think we need to view the relationship between us and God in a family context.

With Jesus, God set out His new covenant with us and gave us the opportunity to come back to him through the spilled blood of Jesus on the cross.

Sorry if thats a bit long winded and not trying to preach to anyone, but I think its important to understand the Christian perspective that the way things are now, is not the way God intended. They are this way because of us. It is our responsibility, we have free will and must take responsibility for our actions.

With regard to Prayer, God delights in our prayers and in all interactions with Him, and I sincerely believe that He answers prayer and like others above I know from first hand experience that God has answered my prayers. And while I can't prove that to a scientific certainty, it is no less real.

[J-C]

Its my understanding that God created man in his own image in order that there would be a close relationship between them, not as equals but as supernatural God and created physical man. God loves His creation and made man to love Him back. In order to do that he gave man free will as you can only have true love when it is freely given, you cannot be compelled to love.

With his free will, man chose to rebel against God (just as Satan had before) and thus altered the plan that God had for us all as Adam and Eve's descendants. This is where sin entered the world. Sin is seperation from God and living apart from God's plan. It is evidenced in all the immoral, unethical and criminal acts that we do, but in essence it is seperation from God.

Over the period of the old testament God punished his peoples many times and in many different ways, sometimes in extremely harsh ways to our minds, but always done as a father disciplining a wayward child. Again, its only my understanding but I think we need to view the relationship between us and God in a family context.

With Jesus, God set out His new covenant with us and gave us the opportunity to come back to him through the spilled blood of Jesus on the cross.

Sorry if thats a bit long winded and not trying to preach to anyone, but I think its important to understand the Christian perspective that the way things are now, is not the way God intended. They are this way because of us. It is our responsibility, we have free will and must take responsibility for our actions.

With regard to Prayer, God delights in our prayers and in all interactions with Him, and I sincerely believe that He answers prayer and like others above I know from first hand experience that God has answered my prayers. And while I can't prove that to a scientific certainty, it is no less real.


So tell me then, scientists have proved the existence of early caveman, prehistoric animals, Greek, Egyptian societies etc all dating way back before the time the bible says when time began.

Why did caveman not have a God or drawings in caves depicting a god, only drawings of the animals they hunted and other men etc.

The Greeks, Egyptians, Romans etc even the people of the rainforest and aboriginals all believed in many gods, even close to home in Scandinavia they had more than one god. Some of these societies had vast empires that ruled the lands, so why if there is the one true God did he not smite these peoples and make sure they understood there was only he.

Or is it that since man became more intelligent that he has started to look for a reason as to why we are here and hence the theory of either one or many gods started.

Now as we get even more intelligent and have now learned so much that we have realised that the Earth is infact millions of years old and not the few thousand the scriptures state and infact we are just very intelligent apes who became so adaptepble that for the short tme we have been here have taken over the ruling of this planet.

Religion has controlled the psyche of man since the begining of history, whether using many gods or even the one. By controlling man's emotions you can control man himself, the religious leaders realised this many thousands of years ago and people are still being controlled today, not as many as before due to man becoming more realistic inhis reason for being here.

[ancienthibby]

Its my understanding that God created man in his own image in order that there would be a close relationship between them, not as equals but as supernatural God and created physical man. God loves His creation and made man to love Him back. In order to do that he gave man free will as you can only have true love when it is freely given, you cannot be compelled to love.

With his free will, man chose to rebel against God (just as Satan had before) and thus altered the plan that God had for us all as Adam and Eve's descendants. This is where sin entered the world. Sin is seperation from God and living apart from God's plan. It is evidenced in all the immoral, unethical and criminal acts that we do, but in essence it is seperation from God.

Over the period of the old testament God punished his peoples many times and in many different ways, sometimes in extremely harsh ways to our minds, but always done as a father disciplining a wayward child. Again, its only my understanding but I think we need to view the relationship between us and God in a family context.

With Jesus, God set out His new covenant with us and gave us the opportunity to come back to him through the spilled blood of Jesus on the cross.

Sorry if thats a bit long winded and not trying to preach to anyone, but I think its important to understand the Christian perspective that the way things are now, is not the way God intended. They are this way because of us. It is our responsibility, we have free will and must take responsibility for our actions.

With regard to Prayer, God delights in our prayers and in all interactions with Him, and I sincerely believe that He answers prayer and like others above I know from first hand experience that God has answered my prayers. And while I can't prove that to a scientific certainty, it is no less real.

Excellent post, BK!!

You are a welcome addition to this thread:agree:

[ancienthibby]

Now I like that! :greengrin



I'm delighted the programme works for you, but dipping into arch-rationalist skeptic mode, I would suggest that this is a c um hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy - you did something (prayed) and something happened (your medication changed). The two are not necessarily related.

From my point of view, if you knew it wasnt working and you weren't happy, the medical indications would presumably have shown this to be the case. Your clinicians reviewed what you were on and identified a new course of treatment. If prayer worked, then cures or at the very least alleviation of symptoms would happen without the intervention of science, in the form of medicine, surely?

Have you prayed before for something similar and something hasnt happened? Of course it has. Have you prayed not to fall ill, or to feel better, and it hasn't happened? Of course you have - everyone on the planet who has ever prayed has experienced this. You remember the times the times that the coincidental outcome happens, but ignore/forget the times it doesnt.

I suspect you will always see things from that perspective, but I should add that the position that I found myself in, was not changed by the medics controlling my treatment. What happened was that 'a new entrant from left field' emerged - one that neither I nor the medics had any control over. I was on 6-weekly reviews and at one of these they candidly admitted that they had no knowledge that this (the new treatment) was becoming available but, now that it had, it was their recommendation that I should go on it.

So it's clear that forces outwith their, and my own, control were brought to bear on my circumstances. Now, I see that quite precisely as to how God answers prayers. There is no miracle needed. But forces, aspects, etc that were not at play earlier are suddenly 'put on the table' and an answer to prayer is received. You may call that co-incidence - I call it Divine provision!!

I can agree with your last para up to the final sentence. I am sure I am not alone in saying that I do not forget those times when prayer is not or does not seem to be answered. For a believer, these are vital, since they teach us about what God's will is. And that is still the most important part of it all. That we should learn and understand what His good and perfect will is, and go forward to serve Him whether our every prayer is answered or not!

[J-C]

I suspect you will always see things from that perspective, but I should add that the position that I found myself in, was not changed by the medics controlling my treatment. What happened was that 'a new entrant from left field' emerged - one that neither I nor the medics had any control over. I was on 6-weekly reviews and at one of these they candidly admitted that they had no knowledge that this (the new treatment) was becoming available but, now that it had, it was their recommendation that I should go on it.

So it's clear that forces outwith their, and my own, control were brought to bear on my circumstances. Now, I see that quite precisely as to how God answers prayers. There is no miracle needed. But forces, aspects, etc that were not at play earlier are suddenly 'put on the table' and an answer to prayer is received. You may call that co-incidence - I call it Divine provision!!

I can agree with your last para up to the final sentence. I am sure I am not alone in saying that I do not forget those times when prayer is not or does not seem to be answered. For a believer, these are vital, since they teach us about what God's will is. And that is still the most important part of it all. That we should learn and understand what His good and perfect will is, and go forward to serve Him whether our every prayer is answered or not!


I'm delighted this new treatment became available for you and your health got better but I see this as pure coincidental.

Had you prayed before and received nothing during your ill health, so why did God not step in right away and aid you, why wait until your health deteriorates to do this.

Where there other patients in the hospital who were praying and did their prayers get answered, you'd have to find out that answer. If the answer is yes and they all received miracle last minute cures then you've got a good case on your hands for the existance of God. If the answer is yes but only 1 o 2 got better, then God had nothing to do with it, just pue coincidence that they prayed and also lived, maybe their will to live was stronger than the others.


You see Ancient, we need to see physical evidence of God not heresay or so called answered prayers.

If prayers were the answer and God listened then why has he ignored the McCann family and all the other people mourning for their loved ones?

[ancienthibby]

I'm delighted this new treatment became available for you and your health got better but I see this as pure coincidental.

Had you prayed before and received nothing during your ill health, so why did God not step in right away and aid you, why wait until your health deteriorates to do this.

Where there other patients in the hospital who were praying and did their prayers get answered, you'd have to find out that answer. If the answer is yes and they all received miracle last minute cures then you've got a good case on your hands for the existance of God. If the answer is yes but only 1 o 2 got better, then God had nothing to do with it, just pue coincidence that they prayed and also lived, maybe their will to live was stronger than the others.


You see Ancient, we need to see physical evidence of God not heresay or so called answered prayers.

If prayers were the answer and God listened then why has he ignored the McCann family and all the other people mourning for their loved ones?

First, you are making a raft of assumptions about my condition and which I have never indicated, like being in hospital and waiting till health deteriorates!! I'm happy to use my own recent experiences to illustrate my beliefs, but I'll never offer chapter and verse on my medical state - that would be unfair on any/all readers!!:agree:

Second, I know you have responded to 'Bookkeeper's' latest post and I would recommend his final paragraph again to your attention.

Third, to comment on the Holocaust is beyond me - there have entire libraries filled with arguments pro and con on this and I could add nothing.

Fourth, you do seem to have some view that God is a 'prayer tap' that we can turn on at our will when we have a crisis which needs immediate remedy! I only know that God's timing is perfect and that He always does what is right for His children - bearing in mind that that will be concerned with our spiritual growth and not necessarily our health or economic well-being.

You make a fair point about the McCanns - and I do remember them and trust that they will be given an answer at the right time. I am reminded of many faithful mothers who prayed ever day that one /all of her children would turn to the Lord and have gone to the grave with that prayer unanswered. Indeed, the same can be said about a believing spouse praying for their non-believing partner.

Also, bear in mind that believers should not be praying for some kind of personal enhancement in this world, but to be enabled to know God's will for their life and, in living that out, bring glory to God. As I know full well, we are daily given sufficient of God's grace and mercy to be able to cope, whatever the circumstances.:agree:

[Twa Cairpets]

First, you are making a raft of assumptions about my condition and which I have never indicated, like being in hospital and waiting till health deteriorates!! I'm happy to use my own recent experiences to illustrate my beliefs, but I'll never offer chapter and verse on my medical state - that would be unfair on any/all readers!!:agree:

Second, I know you have responded to 'Bookkeeper's' latest post and I would recommend his final paragraph again to your attention.

Third, to comment on the Holocaust is beyond me - there have entire libraries filled with arguments pro and con on this and I could add nothing.

Fourth, you do seem to have some view that God is a 'prayer tap' that we can turn on at our will when we have a crisis which needs immediate remedy! I only know that God's timing is perfect and that He always does what is right for His children - bearing in mind that that will be concerned with our spiritual growth and not necessarily our health or economic well-being.

You make a fair point about the McCanns - and I do remember them and trust that they will be given an answer at the right time. I am reminded of many faithful mothers who prayed ever day that one /all of her children would turn to the Lord and have gone to the grave with that prayer unanswered. Indeed, the same can be said about a believing spouse praying for their non-believing partner.

Also, bear in mind that believers should not be praying for some kind of personal enhancement in this world, but to be enabled to know God's will for their life and, in living that out, bring glory to God. As I know full well, we are daily given sufficient of God's grace and mercy to be able to cope, whatever the circumstances.:agree:

So essentially the argument from faith is that if a prayer is (apparently)answered its because its Gods will, and if its not answered it is because it is not Gods will?

Thats a tough one to argue against, becuase the "unknowable will of the Lord" card will always come in to play.

What is undisputable is that every earthly attempt to measure the power of prayer has proven it to be utterly ineffective, and this is uncontestable. For every anecdote of personal prayers being answered, a counter argument of prayers not being answered resulting in monstrous cruelty is available. As I've said before, the plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not evidence.

A randomly benevolent God with an apparent predeliction for ignoring the prayers of the genuinely suffering (yet devout) isn't one who I would want to glory and worship.

[J-C]

First, you are making a raft of assumptions about my condition and which I have never indicated, like being in hospital and waiting till health deteriorates!! I'm happy to use my own recent experiences to illustrate my beliefs, but I'll never offer chapter and verse on my medical state - that would be unfair on any/all readers!!:agree:

Second, I know you have responded to 'Bookkeeper's' latest post and I would recommend his final paragraph again to your attention.

Third, to comment on the Holocaust is beyond me - there have entire libraries filled with arguments pro and con on this and I could add nothing.

Fourth, you do seem to have some view that God is a 'prayer tap' that we can turn on at our will when we have a crisis which needs immediate remedy! I only know that God's timing is perfect and that He always does what is right for His children - bearing in mind that that will be concerned with our spiritual growth and not necessarily our health or economic well-being.

You make a fair point about the McCanns - and I do remember them and trust that they will be given an answer at the right time. I am reminded of many faithful mothers who prayed ever day that one /all of her children would turn to the Lord and have gone to the grave with that prayer unanswered. Indeed, the same can be said about a believing spouse praying for their non-believing partner.

Also, bear in mind that believers should not be praying for some kind of personal enhancement in this world, but to be enabled to know God's will for their life and, in living that out, bring glory to God. As I know full well, we are daily given sufficient of God's grace and mercy to be able to cope, whatever the circumstances.:agree:


I mentioned your health as you yourself mentioned the fact that after several treatment nothing worked until a new treatment became available to the medics.

I don't think I even mentioned the holocaust in any of my posts:confused:
Merely the fact that many people mourn and pray for loved ones without God responding to their pleas.

If you are a believer, then yes, God is a prayer tap as you call it, what's the point of having a great and almighty creator, if you can't turn round every now and then and ask for help in a prayer. At the same time if those prayers are ignored, is it any wonder many more people are turning their backs on religion, realising it's a load of old bunkum.:greengrin

[hibsitis]

First, you are making a raft of assumptions about my condition and which I have never indicated, like being in hospital and waiting till health deteriorates!! I'm happy to use my own recent experiences to illustrate my beliefs, but I'll never offer chapter and verse on my medical state - that would be unfair on any/all readers!!:agree:

Second, I know you have responded to 'Bookkeeper's' latest post and I would recommend his final paragraph again to your attention.

Third, to comment on the Holocaust is beyond me - there have entire libraries filled with arguments pro and con on this and I could add nothing.

Fourth, you do seem to have some view that God is a 'prayer tap' that we can turn on at our will when we have a crisis which needs immediate remedy! I only know that God's timing is perfect and that He always does what is right for His children - bearing in mind that that will be concerned with our spiritual growth and not necessarily our health or economic well-being.
You make a fair point about the McCanns - and I do remember them and trust that they will be given an answer at the right time. I am reminded of many faithful mothers who prayed ever day that one /all of her children would turn to the Lord and have gone to the grave with that prayer unanswered. Indeed, the same can be said about a believing spouse praying for their non-believing partner.

Also, bear in mind that believers should not be praying for some kind of personal enhancement in this world, but to be enabled to know God's will for their life and, in living that out, bring glory to God. As I know full well, we are daily given sufficient of God's grace and mercy to be able to cope, whatever the circumstances.:agree:

AH - You can't go on making the claims you do and side stepping substantial questions which undermine your claims. In the context of this debate it's simply not good enough to say that the holocaust is beyond you. I used this as an example of the discriminating nature of God's approach to prayer and you don't have to have any knowledge beyond the fact that it happened to see how it makes god look capricious.

I mean - the McCann's will be 'given an answer at the right time'? When will this be? How many days do you have to suffer the loss of your child before god decides the time is right? This is sort of deity you worship? It's so far off the scale of inhumanity it beggars belief.

It's just not credible to say that god always does 'what's right for his children' and use personal experience to back this up when millions have died horrible deaths despite their prayers. It doesn't make any sense however you frame it and, as Two Carpets says, who wants to follow or worship anything as uncaring and whimsical?

[Bookkeeper]

Sorry guys, I was going to post on here last night, but when I got home after that shambles I was totally scunnered.:grr:

I’m probably stating the obvious that this topic, more than any other perhaps, depends on the standpoint you view it from since it is very difficult for one side to prove his case scientifically to the other. So the best I think I can do is make the case as I see it.

Would our Atheist friends suspend their belief for a few seconds and go with me on this version of events?

Lets make the following assumptions 1. that a loving God exists as described in the Bible 2.God creates man in order that he will live in close community with God and gives him the free will that will allow him to freely love God and make choices in his life (the alternative is that God directs and controls man’s every action) 3. Man chose to defy God and go against His wishes. 4. Man has removed himself from being a loving and worshipful creation living in close community with God and has arrogantly set himself as being on a par with God.

At this point in the story, sin (separation from God) enters into the world. As I said in a previous post this manifests itself in all kinds of criminal, immoral, unethical and evil acts. Man has made his choice and he chose to follow his own path in direct conflict to God. During this period man invents various gods to worship and basically sticks 2 fingers up to the Creator God. Thereafter follows centuries of mans ignorance, apathy, conflict (choose your own term) toward God and God trying to bring man back to Him by various means ranging from ‘an arm round the shoulder’ to severe chastisement. Some might see that as vengeful, but keeping to the assumptions that we are created in God’s image, take a look at your own actions and wonder if you would do otherwise.

God then tries to redeem mankind through a chosen people (the descendants of Abraham). The sequence of conflict between man and God continues until God sends His only Son Jesus to live among us and provide a template of how to live our lives. Now, for everyone who wants to criticise and find fault with ‘religion’ and ’religious people’ ( and I could do that plenty myself), stop and take a look at Jesus’ life, because it was truly faultless. Jesus and Christianity are not necessarily the same thing!

Again, I’m sorry if this has been a bit longwinded, but I believe that God intended a different world to this. We need to recognise that because of our sin and our corrupting of God’s plan, we have the world we live in today. At some point, we have to accept responsibilities for our own actions and stop blaming God. We have the means to change this world, we can change it by individually adopting the template of life that Jesus provided. This is the only sure means to prevent the atrocities and other things spoken of in previous posts.

[Bookkeeper]

So tell me then, scientists have proved the existence of early caveman, prehistoric animals, Greek, Egyptian societies etc all dating way back before the time the bible says when time began.

Why did caveman not have a God or drawings in caves depicting a god, only drawings of the animals they hunted and other men etc.

The Greeks, Egyptians, Romans etc even the people of the rainforest and aboriginals all believed in many gods, even close to home in Scandinavia they had more than one god. Some of these societies had vast empires that ruled the lands, so why if there is the one true God did he not smite these peoples and make sure they understood there was only he.

Or is it that since man became more intelligent that he has started to look for a reason as to why we are here and hence the theory of either one or many gods started.

Now as we get even more intelligent and have now learned so much that we have realised that the Earth is infact millions of years old and not the few thousand the scriptures state and infact we are just very intelligent apes who became so adaptepble that for the short tme we have been here have taken over the ruling of this planet.

Religion has controlled the psyche of man since the begining of history, whether using many gods or even the one. By controlling man's emotions you can control man himself, the religious leaders realised this many thousands of years ago and people are still being controlled today, not as many as before due to man becoming more realistic inhis reason for being here.

Prehistoric animals are mentioned in a variety of places in the old testament.

I also think that the dating of past (prehistoric if you want) times is open to quite a bit of scrutiny. I'm sure I've read that in many instances of finding 'dinosaur' fossils, human remains have been found in the same geological strata. Also if you accept that the Flood in Noah's time happened this would greatly distort scientific theories due to the pressure of how many hundreds of metres of water lay over the land masses.

With regard to cave paintings, I don't know enough about it to answer what things they drew. But if you accept that man had gone his separate way from God at this time, then maybe not surprising if they didn't draw God.

I've got a bit of sympathy with your last paragraph. Religions have been divisive over history and compelled people to be and do things that often the religious leaders wouldn't do. Again I would only ask you to look at the life of Jesus and how he dealt with the religious leaders of His time.

The 4 Gospels in the new testament and the book of Acts are exciting places to be.

[Bookkeeper]

Excellent post, BK!!

You are a welcome addition to this thread:agree:

Thanks Ancient. I need to start posting earlier though. Can't get up in the morning!:rolleyes:

[PeeJay]

I also think that the dating of past (prehistoric if you want) times is open to quite a bit of scrutiny. I'm sure I've read that in many instances of finding 'dinosaur' fossils, human remains have been found in the same geological strata.

Hi Bookkeeper - it is surely accepted by all reputable scientists and the scientific community in general that there is not ONE single instance of this being recorded anywhere on the planet: not one. If there is incontrovertible evidence, I personally, and surely the entire scientific community would also accept it as such a fact and then adapt its knowledge regarding this matter to suit. There is no evidence that this is the case, however - unless I missed something, of late?

As to "reading", well, I read on an internet site (of a creationist nature, I admit) that there were indeed dinosaurs on Noah's Ark: they were "baby ones" and they were vegetarian - gets round any "eat the other animals" problem, as I'm sure you'll agree. I think it's a cute and novel interpretation of a fairy tale, nothing more. Although, I must admit to being particularly worried that there are people who believe such fabrications, but hey ... :greengrin

[Twa Cairpets]

Prehistoric animals are mentioned in a variety of places in the old testament.

I also think that the dating of past (prehistoric if you want) times is open to quite a bit of scrutiny. I'm sure I've read that in many instances of finding 'dinosaur' fossils, human remains have been found in the same geological strata. Also if you accept that the Flood in Noah's time happened this would greatly distort scientific theories due to the pressure of how many hundreds of metres of water lay over the land masses.

Bookkeeper, glad you're posting - its interesting to hear another viewpoint.

However, the points you're making above, as Peejay mentions, are completely debunkable. The sources for this are just to many to mention - have a look through YouTube at Potholer54, AronRa or Thunderf00t to get a scientific, rationale, referenced and entertaining debunking of the fallacies often quoted, including the ones you've mentioned.

There is also zero - and I do mean zero - evidence of a Global Flood of Biblical proportions. It just did not happen.

[J-C]

Prehistoric animals are mentioned in a variety of places in the old testament.

I also think that the dating of past (prehistoric if you want) times is open to quite a bit of scrutiny. I'm sure I've read that in many instances of finding 'dinosaur' fossils, human remains have been found in the same geological strata. Also if you accept that the Flood in Noah's time happened this would greatly distort scientific theories due to the pressure of how many hundreds of metres of water lay over the land masses.

What do you think a Tsunami is, scientists have concidered the facts and evidence and drawn the conclusion that if Noah was real( as there is no real evidence to suggest he was ), a Tsunami or something similar caused a great flood, just look at what happened on New Orleans.

With regard to cave paintings, I don't know enough about it to answer what things they drew. But if you accept that man had gone his separate way from God at this time, then maybe not surprising if they didn't draw God.
They didn't draw God because they never knew about God, it's as simple as that. The problem with creationists is they always think "God" is involved somewhere and can never look at the actual facts in front of them,. Cavemen were simple creatures having only just developed from apes, their minds were basic and only knew what was around them, they had no concept of a"God" or any ather deity, their only object in life was to survive.

I've got a bit of sympathy with your last paragraph. Religions have been divisive over history and compelled people to be and do things that often the religious leaders wouldn't do. Again I would only ask you to look at the life of Jesus and how he dealt with the religious leaders of His time.

The 4 Gospels in the new testament and the book of Acts are exciting places to be..

[Twa Cairpets]

Sorry guys, I was going to post on here last night, but when I got home after that shambles I was totally scunnered.:grr:

I’m probably stating the obvious that this topic, more than any other perhaps, depends on the standpoint you view it from since it is very difficult for one side to prove his case scientifically to the other. So the best I think I can do is make the case as I see it.

Would our Atheist friends suspend their belief for a few seconds and go with me on this version of events?

Lets make the following assumptions 1. that a loving God exists as described in the Bible 2.God creates man in order that he will live in close community with God and gives him the free will that will allow him to freely love God and make choices in his life (the alternative is that God directs and controls man’s every action) 3. Man chose to defy God and go against His wishes. 4. Man has removed himself from being a loving and worshipful creation living in close community with God and has arrogantly set himself as being on a par with God.

At this point in the story, sin (separation from God) enters into the world. As I said in a previous post this manifests itself in all kinds of criminal, immoral, unethical and evil acts. Man has made his choice and he chose to follow his own path in direct conflict to God. During this period man invents various gods to worship and basically sticks 2 fingers up to the Creator God. Thereafter follows centuries of mans ignorance, apathy, conflict (choose your own term) toward God and God trying to bring man back to Him by various means ranging from ‘an arm round the shoulder’ to severe chastisement. Some might see that as vengeful, but keeping to the assumptions that we are created in God’s image, take a look at your own actions and wonder if you would do otherwise.

God then tries to redeem mankind through a chosen people (the descendants of Abraham). The sequence of conflict between man and God continues until God sends His only Son Jesus to live among us and provide a template of how to live our lives. Now, for everyone who wants to criticise and find fault with ‘religion’ and ’religious people’ ( and I could do that plenty myself), stop and take a look at Jesus’ life, because it was truly faultless. Jesus and Christianity are not necessarily the same thing!

Again, I’m sorry if this has been a bit longwinded, but I believe that God intended a different world to this. We need to recognise that because of our sin and our corrupting of God’s plan, we have the world we live in today. At some point, we have to accept responsibilities for our own actions and stop blaming God. We have the means to change this world, we can change it by individually adopting the template of life that Jesus provided. This is the only sure means to prevent the atrocities and other things spoken of in previous posts.

Ok, Accepting all the pre-conditions about belief, I would still ponder why a God with the ability to construct a universe as vast, intricate and complex as ours, with our own planet taking its own (insignificant) place amongst the stars, seemed to design failure into man?

If as a God with truly magnificent omnipotent power, you need to design a tiny species who are made to worship you, and make such a rocks up of it that you have to wipe them out once by drowning almost all of them, engage in other acts of genocidal slaughter, and then by some bizarre ritual sacrfice your son in an act of ultimate divine benvolence, then you would appear to have some "issues". Even the most basic questions such as "Why did God limit his appearance to a bronze age tribe in the middle east, and ignore every other human on the planet" are hard to reconcile.

The original topic of this thread was "What criticism can be made of atheists". One of them is that we are closed to receiving Gods love or seeing His divine message. This may be true, although I hope its not. I dont see this as being a criticism. The more I read about God, or look into the Bible (both Testaments), the more I am convinced that if there is a God, it's not an all-loving God,and frankly, his idea of justice, love and fair-play is not anywhere near being in line with mine. But I'm even more convinced that everything that people of any religion base their faith on is a completely man-made construct, passed down as a combination of rudimentary attempts to explain creation and purpose and a societal control mechanism.

[Twa Cairpets]

.
Originally Posted by Bookkeeper
Prehistoric animals are mentioned in a variety of places in the old testament.

I also think that the dating of past (prehistoric if you want) times is open to quite a bit of scrutiny. I'm sure I've read that in many instances of finding 'dinosaur' fossils, human remains have been found in the same geological strata. Also if you accept that the Flood in Noah's time happened this would greatly distort scientific theories due to the pressure of how many hundreds of metres of water lay over the land masses.

What do you think a Tsunami is, scientists have concidered the facts and evidence and drawn the conclusion that if Noah was real( as there is no real evidence to suggest he was ), a Tsunami or something similar caused a great flood, just look at what happened on New Orleans.

With regard to cave paintings, I don't know enough about it to answer what things they drew. But if you accept that man had gone his separate way from God at this time, then maybe not surprising if they didn't draw God.
They didn't draw God because they never knew about God, it's as simple as that. The problem with creationists is they always think "God" is involved somewhere and can never look at the actual facts in front of them,. Cavemen were simple creatures having only just developed from apes, their minds were basic and only knew what was around them, they had no concept of a"God" or any ather deity, their only object in life was to survive.

I've got a bit of sympathy with your last paragraph. Religions have been divisive over history and compelled people to be and do things that often the religious leaders wouldn't do. Again I would only ask you to look at the life of Jesus and how he dealt with the religious leaders of His time.

The 4 Gospels in the new testament and the book of Acts are exciting places to be.



Couple of points JC50 - the most prevalent theory for the "flood" is the "Minoan eruption" of 1630BC. there are lots of links on the net to this, but here's one. (http://a-deism.blogspot.com/2009/03/minoan-eruption-atlantis-biblical-flood_21.html)

Secondly - Cavemen did not descend from apes. We didnt evolve from apes. Creationists often say "If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes today". Its a bollox argument (used in fact recently by Steven Baldwin in celebrity BB - I almost kicked the telly). Homo sapiens, neanderthals, "cavemen", Australopithecus, apes, orangutans have not necessarily evolved from each other, but have common ancestors.

[J-C]

Couple of points JC50 - the most prevalent theory for the "flood" is the "Minoan eruption" of 1630BC. there are lots of links on the net to this, but here's one. (http://a-deism.blogspot.com/2009/03/minoan-eruption-atlantis-biblical-flood_21.html)

Secondly - Cavemen did not descend from apes. We didnt evolve from apes. Creationists often say "If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes today". Its a bollox argument (used in fact recently by Steven Baldwin in celebrity BB - I almost kicked the telly). Homo sapiens, neanderthals, "cavemen", Australopithecus, apes, orangutans have not necessarily evolved from each other, but have common ancestors.


The Minoan eruption, ye that's the one I was thinking of, ta.

I meant we as humans were originally an ape who over time beacame increasingly more clever and hence we evolved into what we are today. We used to be cavemen obviously as this was part of our evolution, maybe I didn't put this across as I should have.

I obviously know all other apes and hominids are different creatures and we as Humans are closely related but as you say are a different species.

[Bookkeeper]

Hi Bookkeeper - it is surely accepted by all reputable scientists and the scientific community in general that there is not ONE single instance of this being recorded anywhere on the planet: not one. If there is incontrovertible evidence, I personally, and surely the entire scientific community would also accept it as such a fact and then adapt its knowledge regarding this matter to suit. There is no evidence that this is the case, however - unless I missed something, of late?

As to "reading", well, I read on an internet site (of a creationist nature, I admit) that there were indeed dinosaurs on Noah's Ark: they were "baby ones" and they were vegetarian - gets round any "eat the other animals" problem, as I'm sure you'll agree. I think it's a cute and novel interpretation of a fairy tale, nothing more. Although, I must admit to being particularly worried that there are people who believe such fabrications, but hey ... :greengrin


PJ, I was thinking of instances I had read about in Texas and in Russia. I’m sure there are scientific viewpoints for and against though as with all such discoveries because if and when this discovery is made, it will end the theory of evolution forever.

By the way, I’m not sure where you stand on this subject but you should lose the patronising attitude because there is no incontrovertible evidence to support the theory of evolution.

[Bookkeeper]

Bookkeeper, glad you're posting - its interesting to hear another viewpoint.

However, the points you're making above, as Peejay mentions, are completely debunkable. The sources for this are just to many to mention - have a look through YouTube at Potholer54, AronRa or Thunderf00t to get a scientific, rationale, referenced and entertaining debunking of the fallacies often quoted, including the ones you've mentioned.

There is also zero - and I do mean zero - evidence of a Global Flood of Biblical proportions. It just did not happen.

TwoCarpets, I’m sure we could both quote websites, scientists etc all day and all night, that would debunk the other viewpoint, so rather than do that I will just suggest this website http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/creation-vs-evolution.htm (http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/creation-vs-evolution.htm). It seems quite a well balanced site and hopefully sums up the position without offending anyone.

With regard to the Flood, there is evidence - there is an eye-witness account, carefully written up and recorded in detail. Last time I looked this type of evidence is still accepted in most courts, whether of law or opinion.:wink:

---------- Post added at 09:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:56 PM ----------

[Bookkeeper]

Originally Posted by Bookkeeper
Prehistoric animals are mentioned in a variety of places in the old testament.

I also think that the dating of past (prehistoric if you want) times is open to quite a bit of scrutiny. I'm sure I've read that in many instances of finding 'dinosaur' fossils, human remains have been found in the same geological strata. Also if you accept that the Flood in Noah's time happened this would greatly distort scientific theories due to the pressure of how many hundreds of metres of water lay over the land masses.

What do you think a Tsunami is, scientists have concidered the facts and evidence and drawn the conclusion that if Noah was real( as there is no real evidence to suggest he was ), a Tsunami or something similar caused a great flood, just look at what happened on New Orleans.

With regard to cave paintings, I don't know enough about it to answer what things they drew. But if you accept that man had gone his separate way from God at this time, then maybe not surprising if they didn't draw God.
They didn't draw God because they never knew about God, it's as simple as that. The problem with creationists is they always think "God" is involved somewhere and can never look at the actual facts in front of them,. Cavemen were simple creatures having only just developed from apes, their minds were basic and only knew what was around them, they had no concept of a"God" or any ather deity, their only object in life was to survive.

I've got a bit of sympathy with your last paragraph. Religions have been divisive over history and compelled people to be and do things that often the religious leaders wouldn't do. Again I would only ask you to look at the life of Jesus and how he dealt with the religious leaders of His time.

The 4 Gospels in the new testament and the book of Acts are exciting places to be.



JC, We’ll have to agree to disagree on everything you’ve said.

[Bookkeeper]

Ok, Accepting all the pre-conditions about belief, I would still ponder why a God with the ability to construct a universe as vast, intricate and complex as ours, with our own planet taking its own (insignificant) place amongst the stars, seemed to design failure into man?

If as a God with truly magnificent omnipotent power, you need to design a tiny species who are made to worship you, and make such a rocks up of it that you have to wipe them out once by drowning almost all of them, engage in other acts of genocidal slaughter, and then by some bizarre ritual sacrfice your son in an act of ultimate divine benvolence, then you would appear to have some "issues". Even the most basic questions such as "Why did God limit his appearance to a bronze age tribe in the middle east, and ignore every other human on the planet" are hard to reconcile.

The original topic of this thread was "What criticism can be made of atheists". One of them is that we are closed to receiving Gods love or seeing His divine message. This may be true, although I hope its not. I dont see this as being a criticism. The more I read about God, or look into the Bible (both Testaments), the more I am convinced that if there is a God, it's not an all-loving God,and frankly, his idea of justice, love and fair-play is not anywhere near being in line with mine. But I'm even more convinced that everything that people of any religion base their faith on is a completely man-made construct, passed down as a combination of rudimentary attempts to explain creation and purpose and a societal control mechanism.

I can’t answer for God, nobody can. And please don’t think that’s a cop-out, I would love to have all the answers, but I guess that’s where faith comes in. We all look at the evidence such as it is and the experiences we have had in our lives and form a view. Mines has come down on the side opposite to yourself. What I find is that the God/bible/Jesus/creation view (with the religion removed) allows me to understand how the world is, as it is at the moment and how it got there. And also to make sense of my part in the world.

As you rightly say, the original post asked about criticism of Atheists. As I said in a previous post, I have no real criticisms other than a wee bit condescending attitude that can creep in (I’m sure this is true on both sides but that wasn’t asked :greengrin) and a predilection for relying on what is only a theory and using it to “debunk” other views. I am sorry you find God to be the way you described, I wish it was different. Again I would say don’t confuse God and Jesus with religion. There have been many wrong things done in the name of religion, but that’s maybe a discussion for another day.

[Twa Cairpets]

PJ, I was thinking of instances I had read about in Texas and in Russia. I’m sure there are scientific viewpoints for and against though as with all such discoveries because if and when this discovery is made, it will end the theory of evolution forever.

If discoveries were made to debunk evolution, or any other scientific piece of knowledge, then they would be embraced and the body of knowledge amended. That is what science is about. The general concepts originally mooted by Darwin have been challenged and widely amended as knowledge has been gained. The discovery of DNA, for example, has allowed it to be tuned and understood in detail.


By the way, I’m not sure where you stand on this subject but you should lose the patronising attitude because there is no incontrovertible evidence to support the theory of evolution.



TwoCarpets, I’m sure we could both quote websites, scientists etc all day and all night, that would debunk the other viewpoint, so rather than do that I will just suggest this website http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/cr...-evolution.htm. It seems quite a well balanced site and hopefully sums up the position without offending anyone.

I read your link. If that is your view of balanced, we have a very different definition of that word. Its understanding of what theory of evolution is grossly distorted. The first referenced definition is from Mein Kampf, for crying out loud, so insofar as I find anything offensive, I find a site like that offensive in its wilful ignorance couched in "reasonable" language.

The theory of evolution. Yes it is a theory. A theory, in scientific terms is very different to what it is in colloquial use. Here's one definition I found: "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena". (http://www.answers.com/topic/theory)

An incomplete understanding of what a theory is does not reduce its validity.

You said earlier that the theory of evolution could be destroyed by the certain discoveries. that may well be the case, but we would at the same time have to completely rewrite the laws of physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, geology, genetics - in fact pretty much any science you care to mention because they all - without exception -support the theory of evolution, making it ine of the most robust theories there is. Disproving evolution in favour of a creationist view - especially a young Earth creationist one - would invalidate absolutely everything we know.


With regard to the Flood, there is evidence - there is an eye-witness account, carefully written up and recorded in detail. Last time I looked this type of evidence is still accepted in most courts, whether of law or opinion.

In any law, a single piece of entirely uncorroborated evidence, with no support from any forensic evidence, would be thrown out of court. I'd be happy to be pointed to any site or source that claims physical evidence for a Global flood, backed by any real science.

[Bookkeeper]

If discoveries were made to debunk evolution, or any other scientific piece of knowledge, then they would be embraced and the body of knowledge amended. That is what science is about. The general concepts originally mooted by Darwin have been challenged and widely amended as knowledge has been gained. The discovery of DNA, for example, has allowed it to be tuned and understood in detail.

The more knowledge we gain, the further we get from Darwins original concepts.

I read your link. If that is your view of balanced, we have a very different definition of that word. Its understanding of what theory of evolution is grossly distorted. The first referenced definition is from Mein Kampf, for crying out loud, so insofar as I find anything offensive, I find a site like that offensive in its wilful ignorance couched in "reasonable" language.

The theory of evolution. Yes it is a theory. A theory, in scientific terms is very different to what it is in colloquial use. Here's one definition I found: "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena". (http://www.answers.com/topic/theory)

This theory seeks to link together unconnected 'facts' and 'phenomena' and cannot be tested. It may be widely accepted but it doesn't make it right.

An incomplete understanding of what a theory is does not reduce its validity.

Insofar as it cannot be tested I disagree


You said earlier that the theory of evolution could be destroyed by the certain discoveries. that may well be the case, but we would at the same time have to completely rewrite the laws of physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, geology, genetics - in fact pretty much any science you care to mention because they all - without exception -support the theory of evolution, making it ine of the most robust theories there is.

A very sweeping statement that I would like you to explain to me.

Disproving evolution in favour of a creationist view - especially a young Earth creationist one - would invalidate absolutely everything we know.

Another sweeping statement, please explain how you come to this view.

In any law, a single piece of entirely uncorroborated evidence, with no support from any forensic evidence, would be thrown out of court.

There was more than one eye-witness, hence corroboration.

I'd be happy to be pointed to any site or source that claims physical evidence for a Global flood, backed by any real science.

You've tried to debunk a lot of creationist thinking but again at the risk of repeating myself there is no proof on either side of the arguement that will settle the matter one way or the other. So please take that as a challenge if you will and prove to me beyond doubt, that creation is wrong.

[J-C]

You've tried to debunk a lot of creationist thinking but again at the risk of repeating myself there is no proof on either side of the arguement that will settle the matter one way or the other. So please take that as a challenge if you will and prove to me beyond doubt, that creation is wrong.


Forgetting about what was written in the Bible, as that as far as I'm concerned is a load of bunkum, who's origins are mostly unknown. Could you please state who these eye witnesses are to the great flood you speak of.

[IndieHibby]

prove to me beyond doubt, that creation is wrong.

Thuderf00t on you tube does quite a good job. It'll save you reading a lot. But it does mean that you will have to watch and listen with an open mind. If you don't, then it will be a waste of your time.

The title (and tone) of the videos will probably cause you to become defensive (if it is safe to presume you are a creationist, which I think it is).

If you truly wish to hear proof, it is there for you.

Please try to watch all of the clips (>30)

YouTube - Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 1) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY&feature=channel)[/URL]

And this:

YouTube - 1st Foundational Falsehood of Creationism (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY)

Interestingly, on his home page there is a video about AIDS denialists. It reminded me of the Jehovah's Witnesses who allow their children/themsleves to die at the cost of avoiding blood transfusions. This is a whole new level.
How they are allowed to campaign in Africa is beyond me.
It is bordering on the criminal to allow these charlatans to continue to deceive and willfully compromise vulnerable people.

[Twa Cairpets]

If discoveries were made to debunk evolution, or any other scientific piece of knowledge, then they would be embraced and the body of knowledge amended. That is what science is about. The general concepts originally mooted by Darwin have been challenged and widely amended as knowledge has been gained. The discovery of DNA, for example, has allowed it to be tuned and understood in detail.

The more knowledge we gain, the further we get from Darwins original concepts.

The more knowledge we gain, the more the theory can be refined and developed. The original fundamental correctness of Darwins ideas still stand. It is exactly and precisley analagous to the way in which Newtonian mechanics are refined and developed with the discovery of atoms.


I read your link. If that is your view of balanced, we have a very different definition of that word. Its understanding of what theory of evolution is grossly distorted. The first referenced definition is from Mein Kampf, for crying out loud, so insofar as I find anything offensive, I find a site like that offensive in its wilful ignorance couched in "reasonable" language.

The theory of evolution. Yes it is a theory. A theory, in scientific terms is very different to what it is in colloquial use. Here's one definition I found: "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena".

This theory seeks to link together unconnected 'facts' and 'phenomena' and cannot be tested. It may be widely accepted but it doesn't make it right.

An incomplete understanding of what a theory is does not reduce its validity.

Insofar as it cannot be tested I disagree

Evolution can be described scientifically as any change in allele frequency within a gene pool from one generation to the next. An allele is an alternative form of a gene (one member of a pair) that is located at a specific position on a specific chromosome. This can be tested, and has been tested time and time again to the point where it absolutely accepted by the global scientific community. As you dont want to trade references, look it uo - there are tens of thousands of examples to choose from.

I stress again, the scientific defintion of "theory" - what a hypothesis becomes after it is tested and examined to the point where the quantity of evidence is such that it becomes accepted as fact - is different to what the common idea of what a theory is. To dismiss evolution as "just a theory" is wrong, lazy and driven by a lack of understanding.


You said earlier that the theory of evolution could be destroyed by the certain discoveries. that may well be the case, but we would at the same time have to completely rewrite the laws of physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, geology, genetics - in fact pretty much any science you care to mention because they all - without exception -support the theory of evolution, making it ine of the most robust theories there is.

A very sweeping statement that I would like you to explain to me.

As this is an internet forum, and I havent the time to right several books on why this is the case, I'll offer the following as examples. Astronomy and physics have pretty conclusive laws that date the Universe. Young Earth creationism would suggest the universe is pretty young. If it is, then all the laws of physics and astronomy are wrong.

Carbon dating, based on the tested, measurable half life/decay rate of radioactive particles conclusively dates organic material (not fossils, by the way, fossils dont have carbon so cant be carbon dated, but there are many other methods of measuring the ages of fossils) to be tens of thousand sof years old - again, directly contradictory to a young earth scenario. If the creationist view is correct, everything understood within the science of physics as it relates to radioactivity, and atomic theory is wrong.

By the way, neither of these have things have anything to do with evolution. Evolution solely explains the diversity of life, not how it was created. But the evidence they provide supports the concept of huge timescales within which living creatures can evolve.




Disproving evolution in favour of a creationist view - especially a young Earth creationist one - would invalidate absolutely everything we know.

Another sweeping statement, please explain how you come to this view. see above


In any law, a single piece of entirely uncorroborated evidence, with no support from any forensic evidence, would be thrown out of court.

There was more than one eye-witness, hence corroboration.

Really? Noahs wife does not count as a corroborative eye witness. Would you not accept that if there has been a global flood at some point over the last 3-5000 years there may just be some physical trace?


You've tried to debunk a lot of creationist thinking but again at the risk of repeating myself there is no proof on either side of the arguement that will settle the matter one way or the other. So please take that as a challenge if you will and prove to me beyond doubt, that creation is wrong.

I can't prove something is wrong, in the same way as I can't disprove that the Earth is being supported by a giant invisible gerbil called Marmaduke. Equally, I wouldnt ask you to prove evolution is wrong.

You're probably right - no argument I can make is likely to influence you to believe that the Earth wasn't created fully formed and that life was magically dropped onto the surafce fully formed over the six days of the creation.

What I have chosen to do, however, is look at evidence - really look at it - and to me the answer is utterly clear. Masses and masses of inter-disciplinary evidence to back one theory, a single 2000 year old book to back the other.

[Bookkeeper]

Two Carpets & IndieHibby, I entered this debate merely to put forward my views and experience of God, Jesus and the Bible as an alternative to the viewpoint many of the people have on here regarding religion. I have watched the videos posted by IH and agree that like countless other fields in the human experience, ‘religion’ has produced it’s fair share of charlatans, nutters… call them what you will. I also agree that wars, atrocities, cruelties and many other terrible actions have been carried out in the name of religious people and institutions over the centuries. Also, lets not forget that Jesus was imprisoned and crucified by the religious leaders of His day. However, these terrible actions are not limited to ’religion’ , and I know I’m going to upset you again TC, but it could be argued that more people have been killed in the last century by regimes based on atheist principles than anything else - under Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.

TC, as you can probably tell, I am no scientist and I suspect you have a strong science background and you have skilfully turned the discussion onto science based subjects. I understand your arguments regarding evolution and creation and I understand that you have put your faith in things that can be scientifically proved. However, not everything in life can be scientifically measured or proved. How do you scientifically prove love, self esteem or a persons worth? Do they not exist?

You have made an assumption that I am a ‘creationist’. I believe that there was intelligent design behind the creation, (I call Him God.) I’ll be honest with you though, the first few chapters of Genesis are difficult to understand as the literal sequence of the creation. It may be that these chapters were written to frame man’s position in the creation and his relationship to God, and to state that we were deliberately intended as created beings. Nobody knows and certainly, nobody can prove this.

Watching IH’s videos, they seem to say that ‘evolution’ is contrary to ‘creationism’ not to God. Now I thought that atheism was choosing not to believe in any gods, so I’m confused as to why an atheist would use evolution as an argument against God. The second video says that most evolutionists are Christian and vice versa. It would appear that belief in evolution does not preclude the existence of God.

Just out of curiosity does atheism allow for anything of a supernatural or mysterious nature?

[Twa Cairpets]

Two Carpets & IndieHibby, I entered this debate merely to put forward my views and experience of God, Jesus and the Bible as an alternative to the viewpoint many of the people have on here regarding religion. I have watched the videos posted by IH and agree that like countless other fields in the human experience, ‘religion’ has produced it’s fair share of charlatans, nutters… call them what you will. I also agree that wars, atrocities, cruelties and many other terrible actions have been carried out in the name of religious people and institutions over the centuries. Also, lets not forget that Jesus was imprisoned and crucified by the religious leaders of His day. However, these terrible actions are not limited to ’religion’ , and I know I’m going to upset you again TC, but it could be argued that more people have been killed in the last century by regimes based on atheist principles than anything else - under Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. In a nutshell, none of these regimes had as their guiding principle a fervour for a deity.


TC, as you can probably tell, I am no scientist and I suspect you have a strong science background and you have skilfully turned the discussion onto science based subjects. I understand your arguments regarding evolution and creation and I understand that you have put your faith in things that can be scientifically proved. However, not everything in life can be scientifically measured or proved. How do you scientifically prove love, self esteem or a persons worth? Do they not exist?

You don't measure things like love, self esteem or a persons worth scientifically. In the bleakest of terms, they are by products of the evolutionary process. Interestingly, many other species can be observed to demonstrate love, caring, socialisation, and personal worth - these are not solely human traits.

As to your first point, yes, I have a science background. But I havent "cleverly turned" anything around. You asked me to explain statements to you, and I have done. You didn't understand what a theory is (as it is understood from a scientific standpoint), and I explained it to you, I hope politely and clearly


You have made an assumption that I am a ‘creationist’. I believe that there was intelligent design behind the creation, (I call Him God.) I’ll be honest with you though, the first few chapters of Genesis are difficult to understand as the literal sequence of the creation. It may be that these chapters were written to frame man’s position in the creation and his relationship to God, and to state that we were deliberately intended as created beings. Nobody knows and certainly, nobody can prove this.

Earlier I did qualify (as did IH) our assumptions that your stance was one of young earth creationsism. If its wrong, apologies. Intelligent Design is to my mind "creationism lite", working on the basis that if something is designed it needs a designer. It brings in concepts such as irreducable complexity and pointing to the human eye or the flagellum motor as examples of something that it irreducably complex - i.e. they are built up of elements that are so complex that the removal of any element makes the whole thing unworkable, and that they could not have been made by "chance". The standard analogy is that if you put a whirlwind through a scrapyard, you wouldnt make a Boeing 747. On face value, these are compelling ideas, but they are wrong, and again it comes down to a lack of understanding of evolution.

As for Genesis, we can agree that it is difficult to understand. It is contradictory and just plain wrong. If anyone wants to query the accuracy of the bible they need only look at Genesis 1:16 "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also." Erm. the moon isnt a light, and it spends as much time up in the day as it does in the night.

You are of course right in your last statement - it may be some type of "positioning" of mans place in the creation. If it is, and has been said elsewhere in this thread, choosing something monumentally vague with a plethora of alternative analyses is surely a very shaky premise upon which to base faith.


Watching IH’s videos, they seem to say that ‘evolution’ is contrary to ‘creationism’ not to God. Now I thought that atheism was choosing not to believe in any gods, so I’m confused as to why an atheist would use evolution as an argument against God. The second video says that most evolutionists are Christian and vice versa. It would appear that belief in evolution does not preclude the existence of God.

Just out of curiosity does atheism allow for anything of a supernatural or mysterious nature?

At the root of the vast majority of religions is a requirement to give devotion to and worship a creator. The science of evolution - not any moral philosophy derived from it - provides a clear mechanism for the development of the diversity of species that is pretty much directly at odds with what religions claim. Take Genesis again 1:20-28. Its pretty much all down the line of God created flora and fauna "after their kind". The science of evolution offers a pretty thorough disproof that life developed in this manner. it doesnt have all the answers, i hasten to add. The science of abiogenesis - concerned with how life first came into being - is one that is still developing and has yet to provide, to my knowledge, robust theories. But just because we don't know does not automatically mean "God done it"!

As to you last point. Supernatural - nah, don't buy into any of it, personally. Ghosts, psychics, spirit guides, chakras, all total bollox developed for the credulous by the greedy or earnestly unhinged. Mysterious - it just means that it hasn't been studied or examined to the point where it is no longer mysterious.

[PeeJay]

By the way, I’m not sure where you stand on this subject but you should lose the patronising attitude because there is no incontrovertible evidence to support the theory of evolution.

I was of course responding to your 'interesting' take on events, and what you may have read somewhere. Here's a link to what I would term a 'strange' site pushing a fairy tale: http://creationmuseum.org/ (http://creationmuseum.org/) There are many sites like this, and many people who believe this nonsense - all without any evidence, I might add. Incontrovertible evidence is demanded from those who accept Darwin's evolutionary "theory", and I personally believe that such evidence is indeed on the table. TC put it very eloquently in one of his posts. From the other side of the fence however, the religious faiths, groups, believers offer nothing by way of evidence: just faith. Faith is not evidence. Faith however is all they/you have. Martin Luther said the Church's biggest enemy was reason! Pope Benedict recently reiterated this by proclaiming that believers must choose faith over reason. Even the most neutral of observers ought to wonder why, surely? I personally find that a worrying aspect in this day and age.

FWIW I believe Noah's Ark, in particular, and the Christian faith in general to be nothing but a fairy tale, a fabrication. An evolutionary step in man's ignorant past to understand the world he was living in, an understandable one perhaps - but one firmly rooted in the past, where it should remain.
Surely the fact I happen to be of an opinion other than that held by 'religiously minded' people and that I feel free to express it (indeed I wholeheartedly embrace the opportunity to do so) does not per se make me patronising? My perceived ridicule of your belief may 'upset', but do remember there were times when I could have been burnt at the stake for simply thinking such things! Consider the contrast. I view this to be progress; the days of 'respect' for people with religious views, just because they happen to be religious, are well and truly over, surely? This is the 21st century, after all.


By the way your "...regimes based on atheist principles than anything else - under Hitler..." I ask you Hitler and an atheist regime?? Is this well thought through on your part Bookkeeper, I wonder? Many Nazis were indeed believers. Hitler himself was Roman Catholic. His hatred of the Jews may in part be deeply rooted in that particular institution's centuries old hatred and persecution of the Jews? In Hitler's final speech from the bunker, here in Berlin, he spoke to God the Almighty and said (OK, I paraphrase!) the "'Almighty's decision to save him from the July bomb" was a confirmation for him to "...to carry on with my work..." I put to you he was in fact religious (granted he was also an evil nut), and for you to limply post him here as an atheist and thus by inference be representative of atheists, to back up your outlook is insulting and certainly worse than any patronising "fairy tale" opinion on my part. In the event that you may be suggesting people who do bad things are irreligious I would point you to the centuries of persecution/killing/torture etc. as practised by an inherently intolerant Christian religion.

Seems typical of the religious minded, if you ask me- why bother with any evidence or facts when simple faith entitles you to shape a world far removed from reality!

[LiverpoolHibs]

The more knowledge we gain, the further we get from Darwins original concepts.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! That literally couldn't be further from the truth. Every single piece of new evidence found since Darwin's original formulation has been entirely consistent with, and reaffirmed, the fundamentals of the Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection. To claim otherwise really doesn't do you any favours.

[Woody1985]

I watched a few of those 'Why do people laugh at creationist videos'. :faf:

The Sarah Palin one is brilliant. What a ****ing idiot that woman is although I think that the video on her strays a way from her creationist views on some points and just focussed purely on her stupidity in general.

[ancienthibby]

I watched a few of those 'Why do people laugh at creationist videos'. :faf:

The Sarah Palin one is brilliant. What a ****ing idiot that woman is although I think that the video on her strays a way from her creationist views on some points and just focussed purely on her stupidity in general.

And I gave some now wasted time to watching the videos posted on 408.

Is this the best offering from the atheist camp??

I fell about, not laughing, but in astonishment, that anyone could offer such a set of caricatures as 'evidence'!!

Oh, and so that everyone understands what is at risk: Scripture tells us very clearly: God will not be mocked.

[Woody1985]

And I gave some now wasted time to watching the videos posted on 408.

Is this the best offering from the atheist camp??

I fell about, not laughing, but in astonishment, that anyone could offer such a set of caricatures as 'evidence'!!

Oh, and so that everyone understands what is at risk: Scripture tells us very clearly: God will not be mocked.


They title would suggest that they are all about mocking those people featured. There's a lot more supported evidence that's already been gone through that the world is not young.

Personally, I find it bizarre that anyone would base their life and devout so much of their time to worship on something written 1600-2000 years ago.

I would love it if God was proven to exist or not. Arguement settled. Sadly, I think disproving it isn't possible which will always lead to people believing. I'm of the opinion, which is pointed out above, that parents force their beliefs onto their kids and pass it on generation by generation. It's shameful.

People should be taught right from wrong. Not do right or the burning man downstairs will have you in the afterlife.

I find religion so tremendously stupid that I don't like getting into debate about it because I get worked up.

[ancienthibby]

They title would suggest that they are all about mocking those people featured. There's a lot more supported evidence that's already been gone through that the world is not young.

Personally, I find it bizarre that anyone would base their life and devout so much of their time to worship on something written 1600-2000 years ago.

I would love it if God was proven to exist or not. Arguement settled. Sadly, I think disproving it isn't possible which will always lead to people believing. I'm of the opinion, which is pointed out above, that parents force their beliefs onto their kids and pass it on generation by generation. It's shameful.

People should be taught right from wrong. Not do right or the burning man downstairs will have you in the afterlife.

I find religion so tremendously stupid that I don't like getting into debate about it because I get worked up.

Perhaps that's God's way of speaking to you!!:agree:

[J-C]

They title would suggest that they are all about mocking those people featured. There's a lot more supported evidence that's already been gone through that the world is not young.

Personally, I find it bizarre that anyone would base their life and devout so much of their time to worship on something written 1600-2000 years ago.

I would love it if God was proven to exist or not. Arguement settled. Sadly, I think disproving it isn't possible which will always lead to people believing. I'm of the opinion, which is pointed out above, that parents force their beliefs onto their kids and pass it on generation by generation. It's shameful.

People should be taught right from wrong. Not do right or the burning man downstairs will have you in the afterlife.

I find religion so tremendously stupid that I don't like getting into debate about it because I get worked up.

Perhaps that's God's way of speaking to you!!:agree:


Ancient, I love the fact that no matter what anyone says concerning religion, specially if it's a post against it, you always find a way of making it out as if it's God's mysterious way one way or another. I admire you deep rooted religious beliefs but please give up trying to convert some of the athiest posters on here, as I believe you are wasting your time and efforts.

[hibsitis]

And I gave some now wasted time to watching the videos posted on 408.

Is this the best offering from the atheist camp??

I fell about, not laughing, but in astonishment, that anyone could offer such a set of caricatures as 'evidence'!!

Oh, and so that everyone understands what is at risk: Scripture tells us very clearly: God will not be mocked.


Ancient - good to have you back! It's a little ironic that you find some of the atheist output underwhelming when you have ignored the issues I raised in earlier posts, specifically 380 and 391.

Criticising those on the other side of the debate is one thing, supporting your own claims is another.

Out of interest, if God intervenes on earth, what is going to be our punishment for mocking him? It can't be the Scottish Cup again, there must be atheists who support other teams. :big grin:

[IndieHibby]

And I gave some now wasted time to watching the videos posted on 408.

Is this the best offering from the atheist camp??

I fell about, not laughing, but in astonishment, that anyone could offer such a set of caricatures as 'evidence'!!

Oh, and so that everyone understands what is at risk: Scripture tells us very clearly: God will not be mocked.


You clearly didn't watch or listen hard enough :wink: :
1) God is not being mocked; some creationists are
2) None of what those clips show is evidence against God. They were posted in response to Bookkeeper who clearly stated that he wanted to hear a rebuttal of the creationist viewpoint.

By-the-by, do you think God is petty enough to care whether I, or anyone else for that matter, 'mocks' him? Surely he is a bigger man than that? Or are you referring to O.T. God and not N.T. God? :tongue-firmly-in-cheek-smiley:

[Bookkeeper]

Ok, Accepting all the pre-conditions about belief, I would still ponder why a God with the ability to construct a universe as vast, intricate and complex as ours, with our own planet taking its own (insignificant) place amongst the stars, seemed to design failure into man?

If as a God with truly magnificent omnipotent power, you need to design a tiny species who are made to worship you, and make such a rocks up of it that you have to wipe them out once by drowning almost all of them, engage in other acts of genocidal slaughter, and then by some bizarre ritual sacrfice your son in an act of ultimate divine benvolence, then you would appear to have some "issues". Even the most basic questions such as "Why did God limit his appearance to a bronze age tribe in the middle east, and ignore every other human on the planet" are hard to reconcile.

The original topic of this thread was "What criticism can be made of atheists". One of them is that we are closed to receiving Gods love or seeing His divine message. This may be true, although I hope its not. I dont see this as being a criticism. The more I read about God, or look into the Bible (both Testaments), the more I am convinced that if there is a God, it's not an all-loving God,and frankly, his idea of justice, love and fair-play is not anywhere near being in line with mine. But I'm even more convinced that everything that people of any religion base their faith on is a completely man-made construct, passed down as a combination of rudimentary attempts to explain creation and purpose and a societal control mechanism.


TC, I missed this comment you made earlier, I think its important because there is nothing I can say to you to convince you about God’s existence (if there was, I’m sure better brains than mine would have come up with it before). The only way you may ever be convinced would be to hear God Himself because according to my beliefs, God loves each and every one of us and desires relationship with us.

With regard to the rest of this debate, I would like to apologise, not for my beliefs which I hold dearly and which play an important part in shaping my life and my view of the world, but for an element of ignorance and misunderstanding the atheist position. It was also never my intention to offend anyone with crass generalisations. Even though this can be levelled at both sides of the debate. I think I now understand the atheist position better (although I obviously disagree with it) and I also understand your using evolution as a means to argue against the biblical viewpoint. I think we may also agree that, whilst I’ll consider myself ‘agnostic’ over evolution, to date there is nothing to explain creation.

Where does that leave us? Where we both started I think, although I admit I am less ignorant of atheism now. I also believe as IndieHibby says that God can look after Himself. When man takes on the role of Gods protector we can end up in lots of problems. Going back to your quote, I do believe God is “an-loving God” and this was shown most notably in His only Son Jesus being sacrificed for our sin. I also believe that the world would be a better place if the Commandments ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart; with all your soul and with all your might’ and ‘Love your neighbour as yourself’ were taken into our hearts and acted out in our daily lives (especially by 'religious' people).

[Bookkeeper]

You clearly didn't watch or listen hard enough :wink: :
1) God is not being mocked; some creationists are
2) None of what those clips show is evidence against God. They were posted in response to Bookkeeper who clearly stated that he wanted to hear a rebuttal of the creationist viewpoint.

By-the-by, do you think God is petty enough to care whether I, or anyone else for that matter, 'mocks' him? Surely he is a bigger man than that? Or are you referring to O.T. God and not N.T. God? :tongue-firmly-in-cheek-smiley:

God cares about everyone, even atheists :wink:. God is unchanging, his character is the same today as in the beginning.

[Woody1985]

I'm going to make quite a big confession here, well, in relation to my view point.

I have actually prayed one time, about a year and a half ago, I got myself in a really bad way one night and was in serious trouble, won't go into why or how. But I prayed if I got out of the situation I was in then I wouldn't find myself in that position again.

Strange thing is, I've always held the same view point on God, even since an early age. I was never influenced by parents on religion and only really knew of it through the ***** pedalled at you from an early age at school (which is wrong :devil:).

I don't know why I found myself asking to get out of the situation I was in, but I did, and I still haven't changed my viewpoint.

Was there some kind of divine intervention? Not IMO. But I must admit, I was pretty ****ing desperate!

[ancienthibby]

[QUOTE=ancienthibby;2364286]


Ancient, I love the fact that no matter what anyone says concerning religion, specially if it's a post against it, you always find a way of making it out as if it's God's mysterious way one way or another. I admire you deep rooted religious beliefs but please give up trying to convert some of the athiest posters on here, as I believe you are wasting your time and efforts.

JC, I never see my postings as being to 'convert', rather I just seek to 'witness'.:greengrin

[ancienthibby]

Ancient - good to have you back! It's a little ironic that you find some of the atheist output underwhelming when you have ignored the issues I raised in earlier posts, specifically 380 and 391.

Criticising those on the other side of the debate is one thing, supporting your own claims is another.

Out of interest, if God intervenes on earth, what is going to be our punishment for mocking him? It can't be the Scottish Cup again, there must be atheists who support other teams. :big grin:

Hibsitis,

I am well aware that I have not responded to posts 380 and 391 and fully intend to do so in due course.

I find it very hard to create a post for the power of prayer when it is such a personal matter (and well done to Woody for his post on this matter!). I accept Two Carpets point about one anecdote and another anecdote amounting to two anecdotes and not evidence, and I am still searching for the best way to construct a response.

Mind you, that should not preclude the theologically trained posters, who can answer far better than I anyway, from making a response.:devil:

[Twa Cairpets]

TC, I missed this comment you made earlier, I think its important because there is nothing I can say to you to convince you about God’s existence (if there was, I’m sure better brains than mine would have come up with it before). The only way you may ever be convinced would be to hear God Himself because according to my beliefs, God loves each and every one of us and desires relationship with us.

I apologise for being a little bit trite and flippant here, but in any other sphere of life if I was to claim to be guided by voices in my head, or a divine revelation, I would be locked away. AH and I exchanged a little dialogue earlier in the thread about open-ness to hearing and seeing God - one or two others on this side of the fence agreed saying it would be great if God was to show himself and perform a miracle. I would certainly instantly become an evangelist for God if that type of proof was offered.

But it never is.

As for your last sentence, about God desiring a relationship with all of us. Are you sure about that? What about muslim kids brought up with no access whatsoever to the words of Jesus, or Buddhists for whom Christianity is just another weird Western cult. The christian God isnt breaking his neck to form a relationship with them. Are they less worthy? Is salvation and everlasting life denied them? If there is a God and im wrong, well, at least I've made a conscious choice not to believe. These people outlined above have never had the opportunity to believe - thats seems terribly unfair.

Wouldnt it be easier for a God whose overwhelming desire is to be worshipped and loved (bearing in mind the only unforgivable sin is blasphemy - Matthew 12 and Mark 3 - new testament mind you) to reveal himself in ways that did not involve the the occasional genocidal destruction of all life a la Old Testament or the wanderings of a charismatic carpenter in a bronze age desert society 2000 years ago doing a few conjuring tricks? Again, apologies if this is insulting to you, but I suppose it is bourne from a frustration in the willingness for the religious to simply ignore these questions or put them down to the "fact" that it is not down to us to understand Gods will.


With regard to the rest of this debate, I would like to apologise, not for my beliefs which I hold dearly and which play an important part in shaping my life and my view of the world, but for an element of ignorance and misunderstanding the atheist position. It was also never my intention to offend anyone with crass generalisations. Even though this can be levelled at both sides of the debate. I think I now understand the atheist position better (although I obviously disagree with it) and I also understand your using evolution as a means to argue against the biblical viewpoint. I think we may also agree that, whilst I’ll consider myself ‘agnostic’ over evolution, to date there is nothing to explain creation.

Hold on to your hat then bookkeeper, because you'll have to be agnostic about gravity, for example, as well.

There are theories to explain creation, both of the Universe and of life. The robustness of the theories may not be to the level of evolution, granted, but they do exist. You're filling a knowledge gap with one of many creation ideas that man has come up with, and from an evidential point of view, it is no more valid than the myths of the Norse, the Romans, or any other religious creed that has ever existed.


Where does that leave us? Where we both started I think, although I admit I am less ignorant of atheism now. I also believe as IndieHibby says that God can look after Himself. When man takes on the role of Gods protector we can end up in lots of problems. Going back to your quote, I do believe God is “an-loving God” and this was shown most notably in His only Son Jesus being sacrificed for our sin. I also believe that the world would be a better place if the Commandments ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart; with all your soul and with all your might’ and ‘Love your neighbour as yourself’ were taken into our hearts and acted out in our daily lives (especially by 'religious' people).

Sorry bookkeeper, I just dont buy this.

"He gave his only son" is a phrase that is trotted out time after time to defend everything that God does/did/mankind. countless families have "given" their sons and daughters to God, from dieing in wars or to be burned at the stake. Thousands of parents will have given their lives so that their children will live in all kinds of situations. It is arguably a noble act, but why should we worship just one instance of this, especially when the birth was through another mans wife (and isnt adultery pretty much a no-no?)?

Wasn't Adam Gods son, or does it make a difference that he was not born of woman? He wasnt treated too well, was he? How about Eve (fashioned from Adams rib, after he was formed from the dust of the ground, if I recall Genesis correctly), eternal sorrow and pain in childbirth is a bit of a hefty price to pay for eating an apple, if God just wants to love us all.

Time after time we are taken down a track of Gods love / personal relationship / scripture says this, scripture says that and anything that comes up that is awkward or difficult is "explained" away in a flash of pixie dust and dissembling hallelujahs without ever, ever addressing the points.

[J-C]

God cares about everyone, even atheists :wink:. God is unchanging, his character is the same today as in the beginning.

A quote like this depends if there is actually a God, once again this debate comes down to one thing proof.

We as athiests can prove many things with the use of science but as yet there is zero proof that God exists apart from in the minds of those that want to believe.

Yes we have written stories from long ago which have been put together to make either the bible or the koran, or any other religious text but we also have written stories from other ancient societies such as the Greeks and Romans which are clearly fables with no religious connotations, which try to guide our lives e.g. Aesop.

[Fantic]

I'm going to make quite a big confession here, well, in relation to my view point.

I have actually prayed one time, about a year and a half ago, I got myself in a really bad way one night and was in serious trouble, won't go into why or how. But I prayed if I got out of the situation I was in then I wouldn't find myself in that position again.

Strange thing is, I've always held the same view point on God, even since an early age. I was never influenced by parents on religion and only really knew of it through the ***** pedalled at you from an early age at school (which is wrong :devil:).

I don't know why I found myself asking to get out of the situation I was in, but I did, and I still haven't changed my viewpoint.

Was there some kind of divine intervention? Not IMO. But I must admit, I was pretty ****ing desperate!

Honest question - Did you get any comfort from the praying.. did you feel even a little better, without anything actually happening?

[Bookkeeper]

I apologise for being a little bit trite and flippant here, but in any other sphere of life if I was to claim to be guided by voices in my head, or a divine revelation, I would be locked away. AH and I exchanged a little dialogue earlier in the thread about open-ness to hearing and seeing God - one or two others on this side of the fence agreed saying it would be great if God was to show himself and perform a miracle. I would certainly instantly become an evangelist for God if that type of proof was offered.

Even if that divine revelation or miracle was for your eyes only and you couldn’t prove it to others?



But it never is.

As for your last sentence, about God desiring a relationship with all of us. Are you sure about that? What about muslim kids brought up with no access whatsoever to the words of Jesus, or Buddhists for whom Christianity is just another weird Western cult. The christian God isnt breaking his neck to form a relationship with them. Are they less worthy? Is salvation and everlasting life denied them? If there is a God and im wrong, well, at least I've made a conscious choice not to believe. These people outlined above have never had the opportunity to believe - thats seems terribly unfair.

Yes it does seem unfair and there are Christian missionaries working in many countries to spread the gospel of Jesus by word and deed. Some countries and peoples being more receptive that others.

Wouldnt it be easier for a God whose overwhelming desire is to be worshipped and loved (bearing in mind the only unforgivable sin is blasphemy - Matthew 12 and Mark 3 - new testament mind you) to reveal himself in ways that did not involve the the occasional genocidal destruction of all life a la Old Testament or the wanderings of a charismatic carpenter in a bronze age desert society 2000 years ago doing a few conjuring tricks? Again, apologies if this is insulting to you, but I suppose it is bourne from a frustration in the willingness for the religious to simply ignore these questions or put them down to the "fact" that it is not down to us to understand Gods will.


Yes, undoubtedly it would be easier, and no its not insulting to me. On the contrary I think it is important for us as Christians to seek out and understand God’s will as best as we can. I would love to have all the answers but I don’t (I can almost sense your frustration again). I agree with AH’s recent post that we are not trying to convert anyone, only to witness. I think I’m right in saying that the greatest expansion of the early church came about by the Apostles giving witness to what they had seen and heard.

Hold on to your hat then bookkeeper, because you'll have to be agnostic about gravity, for example, as well.

Not at all, seems to me that gravity is self evident, otherwise I’d be floating. I was using the word ‘agnostic’ I had hoped in a humorous way, as I haven’t studied the subject in depth and been convinced of its truth or otherwise. You should really lighten up a bit TC. :greengrin

There are theories to explain creation, both of the Universe and of life. The robustness of the theories may not be to the level of evolution, granted, but they do exist. You're filling a knowledge gap with one of many creation ideas that man has come up with, and from an evidential point of view, it is no more valid than the myths of the Norse, the Romans, or any other religious creed that has ever existed.

Sorry bookkeeper, I just dont buy this.

"He gave his only son" is a phrase that is trotted out time after time to defend everything that God does/did/mankind. countless families have "given" their sons and daughters to God, from dieing in wars or to be burned at the stake. Thousands of parents will have given their lives so that their children will live in all kinds of situations. It is arguably a noble act, but why should we worship just one instance of this, especially when the birth was through another mans wife (and isnt adultery pretty much a no-no?)?

The thing is, Jesus is God, within The Holy Trinity. God came and lived among us. God experienced our lifes, all the good and bad. God died on the cross to redeem us.


Wasn't Adam Gods son, or does it make a difference that he was not born of woman? He wasnt treated too well, was he? How about Eve (fashioned from Adams rib, after he was formed from the dust of the ground, if I recall Genesis correctly), eternal sorrow and pain in childbirth is a bit of a hefty price to pay for eating an apple, if God just wants to love us all.

Time after time we are taken down a track of Gods love / personal relationship / scripture says this, scripture says that and anything that comes up that is awkward or difficult is "explained" away in a flash of pixie dust and dissembling hallelujahs without ever, ever addressing the points.

I mentioned this book in an earlier post but I can see you have thought a lot about this and it might answer your points better than I can. Its called ‘The Shack’ by William P. Young. Worth a read, even if you do think it’s a fairy story!

[IndieHibby]

Open questions to all theists:

"What would shake your belief in God?"

(given that you don't know He exists. It's not called 'faith' for nothing)

[hibsitis]

Open questions to all theists:

"What would shake your belief in God?"

(given that you don't know He exists. It's not called 'faith' for nothing)

Indie, if reason and evidence (or lack thereof) don't do it, I wouldn't be holding my breath for any great revelations.

What I would like to know, as mentioned in an earlier post, is how many people who currently describe themselves as Christians would still do so if they were not indoctrinated as children. Therein lies the insecurity of the church underpinned by its knowledge that it's increasingly difficult to argue the existence of god in a better educated society.

Belief in god may have been rational hundreds or thousands of years ago to fill knowledge gaps. However, in a society characterised increasingly by better knowledge and education it's simply an anachronism perpetuated by indoctrination and the unquestioning minds of the theist community.

[J-C]

Open questions to all theists:

"What would shake your belief in God?"

(given that you don't know He exists. It's not called 'faith' for nothing)


The thing is neither do Theists know, they believe but have absolutely zero proof of his existance apart from dodgy scriptures written some 2,000 years ago approx. Now think on this, what if new scriptues were found like Judas's have been recently which states that everything written in the old testament was a load of tosh and was infact a big hoax created by the Jews, this was then carried on into the new testament by Jesus and his disciples.
Would you then still believe in God??

You see that's our problem, anyone can write whatever they wanted to all these years ago, infact there was many men claiming to be the Son of God at that time, I can't remember their names at this moment but watched a programme a few months back concerning it, they came from the same surrouding area as Jesus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithraic_Mysteries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithraic_Mysteries)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krishna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krishna)

http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/christianity_nojesus.html (http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/christianity_nojesus.html)

Hercules was also the Son of God, Zeus was his father, many things were written about them, so why does no-one follow thm as a deity or religion, probably cause they were written a thousand years earlier than the bible.

Hercules did not exist, he was a myth or legend, some say he was a great warrior and was given god like status because of this, the Roman's put an end to this and other myth's when they conquered that area of land.

So there we have the magical word "MYTH", very little evidence that any of what was in the bible actually took place, people that did or did not exist, so how can you believe so vehemently in a God that has no evidence to support it.

[Woody1985]

Honest question - Did you get any comfort from the praying.. did you feel even a little better, without anything actually happening?

Not really sure as I'm not a believer.

It only really consisted of 'if there is a God out there, help me out here and I won't get in this situation again'. :LOL:

[Bookkeeper]

Open questions to all theists:

"What would shake your belief in God?"

(given that you don't know He exists. It's not called 'faith' for nothing)

IH i can only say that i haven't come up against anything to this point in my life. Anything else is hypothetical i think.

[Fantic]

Not really sure as I'm not a believer.

It only really consisted of 'if there is a God out there, help me out here and I won't get in this situation again'. :LOL:

I think most people will plead with Him at least a couple of times in their lives.

[Bookkeeper]

Indie, if reason and evidence (or lack thereof) don't do it, I wouldn't be holding my breath for any great revelations.

What I would like to know, as mentioned in an earlier post, is how many people who currently describe themselves as Christians would still do so if they were not indoctrinated as children.

Me for one. I only had the same religious education as everyone else at school and it was certainly not indoctrination. As I recall (and it was a long time ago :wink:) a lot of stuff was taught, not just christianity. no indoctrination at home either.

Therein lies the insecurity of the church underpinned by its knowledge that it's increasingly difficult to argue the existence of god in a better educated society.

Belief in god may have been rational hundreds or thousands of years ago to fill knowledge gaps. However, in a society characterised increasingly by better knowledge and education it's simply an anachronism perpetuated by indoctrination and the unquestioning minds of the theist community.

Don't fall into the trap that Christians don't question anything to do with their faith, a quick check on any christian chat forum will find lots of question and discussion. With regard to indoctrination - christians are individuals with greatly varying backgrounds and from a wide diversity of society who come to their faith in many ways.

[IndieHibby]

IH i can only say that i haven't come up against anything to this point in my life. Anything else is hypothetical i think.

It is intended as a hypothetical question, but I take your answer for what it is.

Not sure I understand it, however. It seems you aren't prepared to even suggest what may shake your belief. Which raises two possibilities:

1) You don't want to think about it out of fear of what you may conclude
2) You can't think about it in that way



I may be wrong, of course. :wink:

[Bookkeeper]

It is intended as a hypothetical question, but I take your answer for what it is.

Not sure I understand it, however. It seems you aren't prepared to even suggest what may shake your belief. Which raises two possibilities:

1) You don't want to think about it out of fear of what you may conclude
2) You can't think about it in that way



I may be wrong, of course. :wink:

or 3) just as i answered. :greengrin

[Fantic]

What criticisms can be made of Athiests?

"What is certain is that those who want to live godless, self-centered lives have a vested interest in keeping God out of their thoughts."

"Without God there can be no absolute morality. That's the real reason for Atheism. It's nothing more than wanting to be your own god so you can do whatever you want."

[hibsitis]

Don't fall into the trap that Christians don't question anything to do with their faith, a quick check on any christian chat forum will find lots of question and discussion. With regard to indoctrination - christians are individuals with greatly varying backgrounds and from a wide diversity of society who come to their faith in many ways.

Bookkeeper - you are an anomaly as I think we both know that the majority of church attenders come from church attending families. No one would deny that there are others who make up their own minds and in many ways they are more interesting.

Though I wonder if you really did weigh up all or even the main pros and cons for there being a god before making a decision? That would mean sifting through a lot of evidence to the contrary before deciding that faith and a lot of unknowns were the preferred options. Those who make these decisions in adulthood when they have access to so much information are all the more puzzling.

I have no doubt that Christians disagree among each other. However my point was aimed at the relatively large numbers who chose to ignore the lack of evidence for a god and, indeed, the significant body of contrary evidence and continue to be religious largely because they always have been.

[J-C]

What criticisms can be made of Athiests?

"What is certain is that those who want to live godless, self-centered lives have a vested interest in keeping God out of their thoughts."

"Without God there can be no absolute morality. That's the real reason for Atheism. It's nothing more than wanting to be your own god so you can do whatever you want."

A bit of a statement here eh!

So all us athiests are self centred and are scared to allow God into our lives. This is the same God who as yet there has been NO evidence at all for, apart from a few written scripts a couple of thousand years ago, which to all accounts may have been written by a lunatic or as a prank to all humanity.
Also, please explain your comments about being self centred, where on earth do come off making sweeping generised statements like that.

So unless we believe, we have no morals eh!
Again another general sweeping statement, which I and I expect a few others on here will be slightly narked about. Don't dare get on your moral holier than thou high ground and tell me I have no morals and wish to be my own deity. Did you even realise as you were typing just how rediculous you were making yourself sound, Tell that to all the Paedo priest in the Catholic church, Tiger woods and any other so called God fearing person who have the morals of a snake.

[Twa Cairpets]

What criticisms can be made of Athiests?

"What is certain is that those who want to live godless, self-centered lives have a vested interest in keeping God out of their thoughts."

"Without God there can be no absolute morality. That's the real reason for Atheism. It's nothing more than wanting to be your own god so you can do whatever you want."

Interesting quotes. Taken from the oxymoronically named religioustolerance.org (http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist9.htm).

First one. Yes, if you want to live a Godless life you will keep god out of your thoughts. Farily obviously I would have thought. Nothing at all to do with being self centred, as is clearly and absolutely evidenced by just glancing at the behaviour of people in the world. Atheists give to charity, volunteer for community clubs/work, look to make people and friends happy, and dont go around hurting people wantonly. latest figures suggest Sweden is 85% atheist. I dont see them drowning under a sea of self-centred sin within a moral vacuum.

Second one. Trite, pap bunkum, and demonstrably untrue, once again. See above. Show me any evidence to back it up.

Absolute morality? A large amount of this thread has been about examining the massive discrepancies in the Bible regarding "absolute morality" I offer slavery, stoning, biblical punishment for adultery as examples of morality that was fine to Jesus.

[Sergio sledge]

Absolute morality? A large amount of this thread has been about examining the massive discrepancies in the Bible regarding "absolute morality" I offer slavery, stoning, biblical punishment for adultery as examples of morality that was fine to Jesus.

Oh ok then, I'll bite. Show me the passages that indicate these things are "fine to Jesus"?

[LiverpoolHibs]

"Without God there can be no absolute morality. That's the real reason for Atheism. It's nothing more than wanting to be your own god so you can do whatever you want."

That's incredibly stupid on a number of levels.

[Twa Cairpets]

Oh ok then, I'll bite. Show me the passages that indicate these things are "fine to Jesus"?

Ok, here's a few to keep you going - all New Testament.

Slaves: Titus 2.9-10, Philemon 1, Ephesians 6:5

New Testament acceptance of Old Testament laws - which I am sure you will agree is dripping with vengeance and punishment. Hebrews 10:28-30, Matthew 5:17, Luke 16:16-17

[Sergio sledge]

Ok, here's a few to keep you going - all New Testament.

Slaves: Titus 2.9-10

Encouraging Christian slaves to serve their masters willingly and wholeheartedly to show the Love and message of Jesus as an attractive proposition to their master. Be a "light to the world."


Philemon 1

An interesting passage, not quite sure how it supports your stance of Jesus being fine with slavery.

Onesimus ran away from his master Philemon and became a Christian after meeting with Paul. Because running away from their master was illegal in those days, and held quite a tough punishment, Paul sent him back to his Christian master, but appealed to him to treat Onesimus not like a slave, but like a brother, in fact like they would treat Paul himself if he was to visit. The encouragement in this letter is to free Onesimus, not keep him as a slave.

Unless you haven't read the passage, I'm not sure why you put that in support of your argument.


Ephesians 6:5

As with the first quote you included, this is merely a teaching to the slaves and masters on how Christians should live in their respective roles. Acceptance of slavery as part of the culture at the time does not amount to being happy with its existance, or encouraging it, in fact, Paul says in Galatians "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" All men are equal.


New Testament acceptance of Old Testament laws - which I am sure you will agree is dripping with vengeance and punishment. Hebrews 10:28-30

Not sure your point in including this? Says noting about accepting or rejecting the OT laws?


Matthew 5:17

Interesting that you have selected this verse from this passage, and not included any of the context before, or after, it. Seems like quote mining to me :agree:

The passage before this is called "the Beatitudes," encouraging meekness, mercifulness, righteousness, peacefulness and pureness. He then goes on to say things like:

"Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."

"Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you"

The verse you refer to is Jesus talking about how he is the fulfilment of the Law, and not here to abolish it. He then goes on to explain his comments by saying that no-one can enter heaven unless he keeps the law perfectly, and his righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees. The rest of the passage is about how it is impossible for anyone to keep all of God's law and be perfect. The only way to be perfect is to repent of our sins, and accept Jesus as our saviour, then when the day of Judgement comes, his perfection will be ours, and we will enter Heaven. This passage is specifically saying it is impossible to keep the OT law, and that we should turn to Jesus.

Jesus was not there to overthrow the government, abolish the law, or be a political figure, he was there as the fulfilment of prophesy to come and die on the cross to take the punishment for our sins.


Luke 16:16-17

Again, I don't see how this supports your conclusion. As above, Jesus is talking here about how the he fulfilled the law, and how people use their observance of the law to try to get into Heaven. The phrase, "It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law" is there to emphasis the impossibility of keeping the Law perfectly.

With reference to your comment about the "biblical punishment for adultery" being fine to Jesus, this is quite clearly wrong. I would direct you to John 8:1-11. Here, it is quite clear that Jesus is encouraging a loving, forgiving stance to sins. Jesus says;

"If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."

and

"Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"

"No one, sir," she said.
"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

It is easy, very easy, to quote mine passages and pick out phrases and sentences which you can use to put Jesus' message down and criticise him. In order to understand the Christian faith, and how to live, the Bible needs to be taken as a whole, the OT all points towards the coming of Jesus, and the NT teaches the Gospel, how we should live and treat other people. Jesus overriding message was one of love, patience, understanding and forgiveness, that much is clear from his teachings. To get a good summation of his teachings, see Mark 12:28-31. It is all about being loving to one another.

WWJD (What Would Jesus Do) I know some people don't like it, but it can be a useful tool. When thinking about these things (the ones you highlighted) it is worth thinking about what would Jesus do? Did Jesus have slaves? No, he states that all men are equal. Did Jesus encourage stoning or discourage it? (already proved to discourage it) Does Jesus punish adultery by stoning? No, he stopped a stoning, and loved and forgave the woman sending on her way telling her to stop her life of sin.

[HibsMax]

Wow, this thread still going, huh? ;)

I don't have the time to read through 12 pages of posts although I'm sure if I did I would learn a lot.

All I want to do here is reiterate that, to some, being an atheist isn't actually a choice. The same way as, to some, believing in God is not a choice. There are atheists out there who do wish there was a God. But just wishing there was a God isn't enough to make it so. I think there's more to being religious than simply saying, "I believe in God".....at least there should be in my opinion.

So what criticisms can be made of atheists? The exact same that can be made of anybody else.

I don't "choose" not to believe in God to make some sort of statement or as a convenience so I can live my life in a certain way. I don't believe in God because I haven't seen anything that suggests he / she / it actually exists. Simple as that.

Go on, prove me wrong. ;)

[LiverpoolHibs]

Have we actually established any proper criticisms?

As an atheist with a heavy dose of ex-Catholic guilt and a fairly substantial, completely irrational and barely latent continued attachment to Catholicism (especially aesthetically) that often amounts to annoyingly uncontrollable apologism; there are quite a few (widespread) tendencies within atheism that I find incredibly annoying - although, as has been repeatedly illustrated, there's no organised atheism that you can really criticise in general terms

The main one, I think, is the complete failing of people like Dawkins, Hitchens and the rest of that coterie to place religion within any sort of social or economic context. Dawkins' genetic fetishism leads him to almost completely disregard any analysis of the social conditions that produce religious (and other, to my mind, irrational) belief; see his comments on the apparent corrolation between IQ scores and religiosity. He just constantly imagines this belief as being in a binary struggle with science and rationality - between stupidity and enlightened thought. It's such a nonsense.

Unsurprisingly, Marx has it absolutely bang-on - even though it's the most widely misunderstood passage of (amazingly beautiful) writing that's probably ever existed.

Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man - state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion. Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering.

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

N.B. That's just me not really liking Richard Dawkins, isn't it? Oh well.

[IndieHibby]

The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.


What is a "vale of tears" and how would one be connected to a halo?

Otherwise, I think I get what Marx is on about.

But:



To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions.


If you believe it is a condition, then you must also believe it must have a cause (otherwise everyone would be religious). To attribute that, as Marx does in the passage (which centre's on your main point - that social and contextual factors are important in producing religion), to the state and society, is contrary to the evidence of where and when religion appears.

By that I mean, religion was/is likely to start when and where states and societies are small, weak, isolated and uninformed (as Dawkins illustrates in "The God Delusion")

The opposite is also true and the other end of this spectrum would be found in modern, urban societies. Which, imo, it is.

So Marx appears, again - imo, to be attempting to attribute religion, to state and society.

Dawkins appears to be taking the "reigion is a function of the brain - brains are probably heavily influenced by genes - therefore I need to find an evolutionary explanation of religion" stance.

He would, wouldn't he?

But I think his holds more substance than Marx's. Although Marx is far more poetic.

So, yeah, I do think you just like Marx more than Dawkins. :agree:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just thought - maybe they are both right;
Dawkins - on the origin of religion
Marx - on how it is maintained

? Dunno.....

[LiverpoolHibs]

What is a "vale of tears" and how would one be connected to a halo?

Otherwise, I think I get what Marx is on about.

'Vale of tears' is an allusion to the Salve Regina.

Ad te suspiramus gementes et flentes in hac lacrymarum valle/To thee we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this vale of tears.

The 'vale of tears' is life on earth and religion is the 'halo' which makes it bearable with the promise of the afterlife.


But:

If you believe it is a condition, then you must also believe it must have a cause (otherwise everyone would be religious). To attribute that, as Marx does in the passage (which centre's on your main point - that social and contextual factors are important in producing religion), to the state and society, is contrary to the evidence of where and when religion appears.

By that I mean, religion was/is likely to start when and where states and societies are small, weak, isolated and uninformed (as Dawkins illustrates in "The God Delusion")

The opposite is also true and the other end of this spectrum would be found in modern, urban societies. Which, imo, it is.

So Marx appears, again - imo, to be attempting to attribute religion, to state and society.

Dawkins appears to be taking the "reigion is a function of the brain - brains are probably heavily influenced by genes - therefore I need to find an evolutionary explanation of religion" stance.

He would, wouldn't he?

But I think his holds more substance than Marx's. Although Marx is far more poetic.

So, yeah, I do think you just like Marx more than Dawkins. :agree:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just thought - maybe they are both right;
Dawkins - on the origin of religion
Marx - on how it is maintained

? Dunno.....

By 'state and society' I don't think he's referring explicitly to the Western urban set-up, he's talking about the mode of production that underpins everything that is built on top of it - economic base begetting cultural superstructure.

A society is still a society even if it is 'small, weak isolated and uninformed'. And 'state' doesn't necessarily apply to what we think of as the modern nation state (Weber defined the 'state as polity' simply as whatever has the territorial monopoly on legitimate violence).

[ancienthibby]

'Vale of tears' is an allusion to the Salve Regina.

Ad te suspiramus gementes et flentes in hac lacrymarum valle/To thee we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this vale of tears.

The 'vale of tears' is life on earth and religion is the 'halo' which makes it bearable with the promise of the afterlife.



By 'state and society' I don't think he's referring explicitly to the Western urban set-up, he's talking about the mode of production that underpins everything that is built on top of it - economic base begetting cultural superstructure.

A society is still a society even if it is 'small, weak isolated and uninformed'. And 'state' doesn't necessarily apply to what we think of as the modern nation state (Weber defined the 'state as polity' simply as whatever has the territorial monopoly on legitimate violence).

Do you have a Christian response as opposed to a Catholic response??:devil:

[LiverpoolHibs]

Do you have a Christian response as opposed to a Catholic response??:devil:

Quidquid Latine dictum sit altum videtur...

[ancienthibby]

Open questions to all theists:

"What would shake your belief in God?"

(given that you don't know He exists. It's not called 'faith' for nothing)

Indie,

Just why do you and all the other atheist posters (hibsitis, Two Carpets, JC50, etc) make this a pre-condition for any debate?? You constantly ask for the kind of evidence that can only satisfy a scientific rationalistic perspective.

Yet, as has been pointed out before time and again, this is not something that the Christian gospel can ever do (in this life, anyway!:greengrin)

The absolute key for Christian believers is; FAITH and then FAITH and more FAITH!! Why?? Because God has revealed so much of Himself and His Son to individuals that reason (proof as you would have it) becomes completely redundant!!

I have posted before (and will do so again and again:greengrin) that you need to bring into your equation the existence, presence and activity of a personal God. The touching of your life by God through the Lord Jesus may not have happened yet, but when it does, you will know it 'full square and upfront'.:agree::agree:

[ancienthibby]

Quidquid Latine dictum sit altum videtur...

So, that's your personal motto then : 'Once a tube, always a tube':thumbsup:

[LiverpoolHibs]

[/B]

So, that's your personal motto then : 'Once a tube, always a tube':thumbsup:

Erm, aye...

[Twa Cairpets]

Encouraging Christian slaves to serve their masters willingly and wholeheartedly to show the Love and message of Jesus as an attractive proposition to their master. Be a "light to the world."



An interesting passage, not quite sure how it supports your stance of Jesus being fine with slavery.

Onesimus ran away from his master Philemon and became a Christian after meeting with Paul. Because running away from their master was illegal in those days, and held quite a tough punishment, Paul sent him back to his Christian master, but appealed to him to treat Onesimus not like a slave, but like a brother, in fact like they would treat Paul himself if he was to visit. The encouragement in this letter is to free Onesimus, not keep him as a slave.

Unless you haven't read the passage, I'm not sure why you put that in support of your argument.



As with the first quote you included, this is merely a teaching to the slaves and masters on how Christians should live in their respective roles. Acceptance of slavery as part of the culture at the time does not amount to being happy with its existance, or encouraging it, in fact, Paul says in Galatians "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" All men are equal.



Not sure your point in including this? Says noting about accepting or rejecting the OT laws?



Interesting that you have selected this verse from this passage, and not included any of the context before, or after, it. Seems like quote mining to me :agree:

The passage before this is called "the Beatitudes," encouraging meekness, mercifulness, righteousness, peacefulness and pureness. He then goes on to say things like:

"Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."

"Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you"

The verse you refer to is Jesus talking about how he is the fulfilment of the Law, and not here to abolish it. He then goes on to explain his comments by saying that no-one can enter heaven unless he keeps the law perfectly, and his righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees. The rest of the passage is about how it is impossible for anyone to keep all of God's law and be perfect. The only way to be perfect is to repent of our sins, and accept Jesus as our saviour, then when the day of Judgement comes, his perfection will be ours, and we will enter Heaven. This passage is specifically saying it is impossible to keep the OT law, and that we should turn to Jesus.

Jesus was not there to overthrow the government, abolish the law, or be a political figure, he was there as the fulfilment of prophesy to come and die on the cross to take the punishment for our sins.



Again, I don't see how this supports your conclusion. As above, Jesus is talking here about how the he fulfilled the law, and how people use their observance of the law to try to get into Heaven. The phrase, "It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law" is there to emphasis the impossibility of keeping the Law perfectly.

With reference to your comment about the "biblical punishment for adultery" being fine to Jesus, this is quite clearly wrong. I would direct you to John 8:1-11. Here, it is quite clear that Jesus is encouraging a loving, forgiving stance to sins. Jesus says;

"If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."

and

"Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"

"No one, sir," she said.
"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

It is easy, very easy, to quote mine passages and pick out phrases and sentences which you can use to put Jesus' message down and criticise him. In order to understand the Christian faith, and how to live, the Bible needs to be taken as a whole, the OT all points towards the coming of Jesus, and the NT teaches the Gospel, how we should live and treat other people. Jesus overriding message was one of love, patience, understanding and forgiveness, that much is clear from his teachings. To get a good summation of his teachings, see Mark 12:28-31. It is all about being loving to one another.

WWJD (What Would Jesus Do) I know some people don't like it, but it can be a useful tool. When thinking about these things (the ones you highlighted) it is worth thinking about what would Jesus do? Did Jesus have slaves? No, he states that all men are equal. Did Jesus encourage stoning or discourage it? (already proved to discourage it) Does Jesus punish adultery by stoning? No, he stopped a stoning, and loved and forgave the woman sending on her way telling her to stop her life of sin.

Thanks for the response Sergio - well argued.

You asked me for some specific passages, which i tried to do. I still think they hold water. It was not meant to be quote mining - a thing I loathe - but as scripture is often quoted in such bite sized chunks it seemed fair, and I think the arguments are still valid.

There are lots of good things in the bible - teachings of peace and love and such like are good things, regardless of your beliefs, and I would not dispute these for a moment. But the the less palatable areas - slavery in particular, is accepted by Jesus and his disciples in the New Testament.

Jesus does defend the Old Testament, and the Old Testament is not a nice thing.

[Leicester Fan]

They're very rude to each other.
[/URL][URL]http://timesonline.typepad.com/science/2010/02/richard-dawkins-unleashes-tirade-against-fans.html#more (http://timesonline.typepad.com/science/2010/02/richard-dawkins-unleashes-tirade-against-fans.html#more)

[lapsedhibee]

Have we actually established any proper criticisms?

As an atheist with a heavy dose of ex-Catholic guilt and a fairly substantial, completely irrational and barely latent continued attachment to Catholicism (especially aesthetically) that often amounts to annoyingly uncontrollable apologism; there are quite a few (widespread) tendencies within atheism that I find incredibly annoying - although, as has been repeatedly illustrated, there's no organised atheism that you can really criticise in general terms

The main one, I think, is the complete failing of people like Dawkins, Hitchens and the rest of that coterie to place religion within any sort of social or economic context. Dawkins' genetic fetishism leads him to almost completely disregard any analysis of the social conditions that produce religious (and other, to my mind, irrational) belief; see his comments on the apparent corrolation between IQ scores and religiosity. He just constantly imagines this belief as being in a binary struggle with science and rationality - between stupidity and enlightened thought. It's such a nonsense.

Unsurprisingly, Marx has it absolutely bang-on - even though it's the most widely misunderstood passage of (amazingly beautiful) writing that's probably ever existed.

Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man - state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion. Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering.

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

N.B. That's just me not really liking Richard Dawkins, isn't it? Oh well.

Good post Foxy.

[Fantic]

A bit of a statement here eh!

So all us athiests are self centred and are scared to allow God into our lives. This is the same God who as yet there has been NO evidence at all for, apart from a few written scripts a couple of thousand years ago, which to all accounts may have been written by a lunatic or as a prank to all humanity.
Also, please explain your comments about being self centred, where on earth do come off making sweeping generised statements like that.

So unless we believe, we have no morals eh!
Again another general sweeping statement, which I and I expect a few others on here will be slightly narked about. Don't dare get on your moral holier than thou high ground and tell me I have no morals and wish to be my own deity. Did you even realise as you were typing just how rediculous you were making yourself sound, Tell that to all the Paedo priest in the Catholic church, Tiger woods and any other so called God fearing person who have the morals of a snake.

Don't know why your getting on your high horse over a bit of critiscism, believers have been called morons and cowards on this website.
Its a sweeping generalisation so what. Wasn't aimed at you personally.

What about your bit in bold above? cheap shot - all the good that Christianity has done doesn't count for nothing i suppose.

Agree with you about Tiger Woods having the morals of a snake though:greengrin

[J-C]

Don't know why your getting on your high horse over a bit of critiscism, believers have been called morons and cowards on this website.
Its a sweeping generalisation so what. Wasn't aimed at you personally.

What about your bit in bold above? cheap shot - all the good that Christianity has done doesn't count for nothing i suppose.

Agree with you about Tiger Woods having the morals of a snake though:greengrin

Not getting on any high horse but you know nothing about me or any other athiest who posts on this site.
So by me not believing in a mthical person, that has no evidence of his existance, you decide that I am self centred and have no morals to speak of. I find those comments very derogitory indeed, whether it was a general comment towards athiests or not.

The comment I made about Priests was a just one , purely based on the fact that these people are supposed to be above all others and have the strictest of morals, yet you make assumptions about our morals because of our lack of faith.

You're quite repulsed about Tiger Woods infidelity, yet are happy to condone paedophile priests who's misdimeaners have been swept under the carpet by the very church and it's leaders you are willing to support and put your faith into. :confused:

[Fantic]

Not getting on any high horse but you know nothing about me or any other athiest who posts on this site.
So by me not believing in a mthical person, that has no evidence of his existance, you decide that I am self centred and have no morals to speak of. I find those comments very derogitory indeed, whether it was a general comment towards athiests or not.

The comment I made about Priests was a just one , purely based on the fact that these people are supposed to be above all others and have the strictest of morals, yet you make assumptions about our morals because of our lack of faith.

You're quite repulsed about Tiger Woods infidelity, yet are happy to condone paedophile priests who's misdimeaners have been swept under the carpet by the very church and it's leaders you are willing to support and put your faith into. :confused:

No sorry. Your just making things up now. Where did i condone anything like that! And the comment about Tiger Woods was meant to be light hearted thats why i put a :greengrin in there. But never mind.

You obviously are taking the quotes personally whereas i only put them on to an internet thread asking for criticisms about atheists, to spark debate which it has done. Your right i don't know you, and i haven't called you anything.

[Hibrandenburg]

"I see not what bad consequences follow, in the present age, from the character of an ifidel; especially if a man's conduct be in other respects irreproachable"

[J-C]

Don't know why your getting on your high horse over a bit of critiscism, believers have been called morons and cowards on this website.
Its a sweeping generalisation so what. Wasn't aimed at you personally.

What about your bit in bold above? cheap shot - all the good that Christianity has done doesn't count for nothing i suppose.

Agree with you about Tiger Woods having the morals of a snake though:greengrin

See above, saying my paedo comment was a cheap shot, then ignoring that fact and spouting on about what good the Christian church has done.



Making general assumpions about a group of people is the same as me calling the Irish stupid, Italians cowards and the Welsh sheep ****gers, it's just not the done thing.

[Twa Cairpets]

Indie,

Just why do you and all the other atheist posters (hibsitis, Two Carpets, JC50, etc) make this a pre-condition for any debate?? You constantly ask for the kind of evidence that can only satisfy a scientific rationalistic perspective.

Yet, as has been pointed out before time and again, this is not something that the Christian gospel can ever do (in this life, anyway!:greengrin)

The absolute key for Christian believers is; FAITH and then FAITH and more FAITH!! Why?? Because God has revealed so much of Himself and His Son to individuals that reason (proof as you would have it) becomes completely redundant!!

I have posted before (and will do so again and again:greengrin) that you need to bring into your equation the existence, presence and activity of a personal God. The touching of your life by God through the Lord Jesus may not have happened yet, but when it does, you will know it 'full square and upfront'


I dont think there are any preconditions for any debate here Ancient. Theres a difference between preconditions and asking questions, surely? So yes, I ask questions for evidence, as do all the other atheist posters, because evidence is the only justifiable way to make a decision.

The theist side of the argument say - "you need to hear God", "the evidence is the bible", "the evidence is the splendour of creation", "the evidence is the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross". It's not. It's faith, and faith in this case is a pejorative term.

Faith gives you the right to undertake actions that you believe are divinely inspired, with a zeal any atheist would find frightening. Faith allows your prejudices to be confirmed by whichever particular interpretation you choose to make of scripture. Faith abrogates your responsibility to think critically about science and philosophy. Faith, to my mind, even hinders the development of personal and societal morals because it is hidebound in the morals of the bronze age.

Evidence for your interpretation of God, therefore, is every bit as valid and potentially true as the religious beliefs of every single other person on the planet, whatever they believe. I can believe that the Earth was formed by a pink and yellow terrapin and present to you exactly the same amount of evidence you can for its validity, because neither has one.

Proof is redundant? This is one of the most depressing and disturbing sentences in this entire thread. proof is redundant only if you have the credulity of a child.

"... you need to bring into your equation the existence, presence and activity of a personal God."

No, I really really dont. I dont have one, no matter how much you and bookkeeper insists he loves me. I also find the evangelical promise that "Jesus will touch my life" somewhat distasteful and very arrogant. Why wont I be touched by Allah? Why won't Krishna make himself known? I find very many areas of religion unpleasant, but don't have any issues with people believing whatever they want as long as (a) it doesnt affect my life, and (b) i'm not told that my life will somehow be enriched (and therefore by direct implication that it is currently less worthy) if only I would accept the love of the Lord. Can't you see why this is so arrogant and - by any measure of reason or logic - completely indefensible?

[hibsitis]

Indie,

Just why do you and all the other atheist posters (hibsitis, Two Carpets, JC50, etc) make this a pre-condition for any debate?? You constantly ask for the kind of evidence that can only satisfy a scientific rationalistic perspective.

Yet, as has been pointed out before time and again, this is not something that the Christian gospel can ever do (in this life, anyway!:greengrin)

The absolute key for Christian believers is; FAITH and then FAITH and more FAITH!! Why?? Because God has revealed so much of Himself and His Son to individuals that reason (proof as you would have it) becomes completely redundant!!
I have posted before (and will do so again and again:greengrin) that you need to bring into your equation the existence, presence and activity of a personal God. The touching of your life by God through the Lord Jesus may not have happened yet, but when it does, you will know it 'full square and upfront'.:agree::agree:

I'm sure I can't do the justice in replying to this post that TC has done above but would like to add my tuppenceworth as it goes to the heart of a couple of points I've laboured in earlier posts.

First, the 'faith' heavy argument simply tosses aside believers' ability to question and think for themselves. It's like putting your fingers in your ears and saying na, na, na when reason comes knocking. 'I've always believed and because it's all based on 'faith' it's unchallengeable and not right for me to question.' It's a simply staggering mindset given how much society and thinking has advanced over the last two thousand years. How people can use 'faith' as an excuse for such an astounding lack of critical thinking is stunning.

Second, Ancient, you said in an earlier post that you were considering how to respond to questions I had raised in my earlier posts about the rationality of belief in the power of prayer and the selective use of evidence in support of your claims. This goes beyond 'faith' because you suggested that your personal god had intervened on your behalf which takes us into the realms of evidence. A very brief summary for anyone new to the thread was asking you to exaplain why god would have answered your prayers but ignored, for example, those who died horrible deaths in WW2 concentration camps.

The longer these sorts of questions (and many others) go unanswered the more certain atheists are of their position and the greater the notion of faith is undermined.

[Bookkeeper]

I just wanted to make a few points as I see it, following the previous couple of posts.

1. The bible is not a science book
2. Atheism is not believing in gods.
3. The atheists on here seem to want scientific proof for God.

This is a very good discussion thread and there have been a lot of good points made. We have had scientific evidence, theories, quotes , personal experiences and lots more. However the more I read, the more it shows the intractable nature of this debate. It almost seems like we are trying to compare apples with pears. Atheists use science as a basis to say that there is no proof for God, but God and his existence cannot be proved by science but by God’s personal revelation and working in peoples lives.

Now the original post asked about criticism of atheists. I think I would now add that the terms of reference for their non believing in God/gods need to be widened to allow for the existence of a supernatural element to the debate. There is more to this life we live than science alone and even if the atheist doesn’t believe in the supernatural (because it can’t be proved scientifically) I think they must accept it as a basis for the explanation of God. Now I understand that the atheist will say I am trying to explain one thing that doesn’t exist by using another. To your mind yes, to mine, no. Or is this a precondition that there aren’t any of? :wink:

Again for what its worth, If someone doesn’t believe in God, then that’s their choice to make. I don’t think its helpful for ‘religious’ people to ram their opinions down others throats or to make assumptions about non-believers life’s either. The difficulty with this kind of discussion on an internet forum is that there is no personal relationship involved and so it is difficult to accept when a believer says they have had their prayers answered or have heard God. Would an atheist believe this if a close relation or friend told them this?

I said above, the bible isn’t a science book and I accept that there are things in it, especially the creation, that science seems to disprove. Can I answer this? No. Does it mean the bible as a whole is wrong? No. I believe the bible to be the inspired word of God. I believe it to be the story of God’s personal relationship with man in all it’s glory and in all it’s failings. A story that has a beginning and an end.

[Bookkeeper]

Hi Hibsitis,


Bookkeeper - you are an anomaly as I think we both know that the majority of church attenders come from church attending families. No one would deny that there are others who make up their own minds and in many ways they are more interesting.

I’ve been called many things but never an anomaly before - not sure if that’s good or bad! :dizzy:

Though I wonder if you really did weigh up all or even the main pros and cons for there being a god before making a decision? That would mean sifting through a lot of evidence to the contrary before deciding that faith and a lot of unknowns were the preferred options. Those who make these decisions in adulthood when they have access to so much information are all the more puzzling.

I had access to a lot of information on both sides of this debate and I chose the way that was best for my life and gave the best context for the world around me.

I have no doubt that Christians disagree among each other. However my point was aimed at the relatively large numbers who chose to ignore the lack of evidence for a god and, indeed, the significant body of contrary evidence and continue to be religious largely because they always have been.

I think there is a difference between lack of evidence for God and proving God doesn't exist. Just curious, where do you get your figures to base your 'relatively large numbers' assumption on? I like to have all the evidence. :wink:

[J-C]

Bookkeeper, I think the number of people shunning the church is a good indication that they are turning their backs on religion, numbers have been falling for years, why?

[Twa Cairpets]

...I think there is a difference between lack of evidence for God and proving God doesn't exist. Just curious, where do you get your figures to base your 'relatively large numbers' assumption on? I like to have all the evidence.



Here you go...

http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html

[Twa Cairpets]

I just wanted to make a few points as I see it, following the previous couple of posts.

1. The bible is not a science book . Darn tootin'
2. Atheism is not believing in gods. Agreed
3. The atheists on here seem to want scientific proof for God. Personally, I'd be much more convinced by a non-scientific, supernatural yet unmistakeable act. Creation of life from a rib would work, as would any of the miracles descrivbed in the bible. The reason science cant prove those parts of the bible that lend itself to scientific analysis is that science has shown itself to be right and the bible wrong time after time after time.

This is a very good discussion thread and there have been a lot of good points made. We have had scientific evidence, theories, quotes , personal experiences and lots more. However the more I read, the more it shows the intractable nature of this debate. It almost seems like we are trying to compare apples with pears. Atheists use science as a basis to say that there is no proof for God, but God and his existence cannot be proved by science but by God’s personal revelation and working in peoples lives. So have any of Gods revelations on a personal basis ever - even potentially - been explicable to you in non-supernatural/divine terms? Occams razor can be very persuasive if you think about it.

Now the original post asked about criticism of atheists. I think I would now add that the terms of reference for their non believing in God/gods need to be widened to allow for the existence of a supernatural element to the debate. Good point and a fair one. Guess where I sit on this...:greengrin

There is more to this life we live than science alone and even if the atheist doesn’t believe in the supernatural (because it can’t be proved scientifically) I think they must accept it as a basis for the explanation of God. Now I understand that the atheist will say I am trying to explain one thing that doesn’t exist by using another. To your mind yes, to mine, no. Or is this a precondition that there aren’t any of? :wink: Of course there is more to life than science. For the avoidance of doubt, I believe science and the scientific method is excellent at what it does and is the perfect tool for understanding the world we live in and how it works. It can help us understand, and help supply evidence upon which choices can be made. It isnt everything, and the debate is not religion v science. It's better described as religion v reason.

Again for what its worth, If someone doesn’t believe in God, then that’s their choice to make. I don’t think its helpful for ‘religious’ people to ram their opinions down others throats or to make assumptions about non-believers life’s either. The difficulty with this kind of discussion on an internet forum is that there is no personal relationship involved and so it is difficult to accept when a believer says they have had their prayers answered or have heard God. Would an atheist believe this if a close relation or friend told them this? I have an evangelical, born-again cousin (who I try to avoid contact with, in fairness) who is a fairly well known christian theologist. I believe that he means it deeply when he tells me that I'm pretty much damned - asbestos underpants time for me if he's right. I absolutely believe that he believes he has a personal relationship with God, and that his prayers are answered and all the rest of it. He is impossible to discuss this stuff with because any point ever made is answered by scripture, which does my head in, frankly. The forum is much better because you can think, check and respond in exactly the way you want without submitting to the urge my cousin engenders which would result in an ABH charge. But would I believe people - yes, I'd believe there sincerity, but it would take a lot for me to believe they are correct. Looking at what happened and thinking of our old pal Occam and his razor again would probably take care of it.

I said above, the bible isn’t a science book and I accept that there are things in it, especially the creation, that science seems to disprove. Can I answer this? No. Does it mean the bible as a whole is wrong? No. I believe the bible to be the inspired word of God. I believe it to be the story of God’s personal relationship with man in all it’s glory and in all it’s failings. A story that has a beginning and an end.

So bits of it are fine, some bits a bit dodgy, and some bits inpenetrable. and youre happy to base your world view and morality on the bits youre happy with. That really is a leap of faith, and maybe you guys really are better people than me!:wink:

[therealgavmac]

Architecturally (and this borders on a serious point :greengrin), religion pisses all over atheism - the Parthenon, the Hagia Sophia, the Taj Mahal, Angkor, the Gothic cathedrals of Europe etc etc.

Deity-worshipping makes for aesthetically-pleasing construction :greengrin

There's a stadium built in the west of Edinburgh, but that doesn't mean the existence of football! :greengrin

[Bookkeeper]

Bookkeeper, I think the number of people shunning the church is a good indication that they are turning their backs on religion, numbers have been falling for years, why?

Hi JC, big question so I can only give you my own personal view, here goes.

I agree with your comment about falling numbers in the church and yes a large part of it is because people are shunning ‘religion’. Now I have tried in previous posts to separate ‘religion’ from God (mostly cackhandedly I admit) but just go with me here a bit further. To my mind ‘religion’ has become mostly institutionalised and like a lot of institutions has forgotten it’s reason for being. Yes that’s quite a generalisation and within it there are a lot of religious people and churches doing great things, however as you said, the numbers don’t lie. If it were a business it would be heading for administration or worse. There are also severe external pressures on the church in today’s society, however the early church suffered too and it grew at a huge rate!

You can also look at many churches, and you’ve already quoted a few elsewhere, where reprehensible acts have taken place and still do, which have been tolerated either implicitly or explicitly by the institutions involved. These are shameful and need to be accounted for. “Practice what you preach” seems quite fitting. I think the church also suffers from the general cynicism of the times, which you can see directed at most institutions of ‘power’.

However, in my opinion, God, Jesus, the church is not an institution, it is a personal relationship. The bible is not something to quote at people, it’s there to inspire. Jesus’ message was one of love, service and sacrifice, not power or control. Now I know you think that’s a load of mince, but if the church (and by that I mean people, not buildings or institutions) exhibited those characteristics more, then I think the church would be attracting people not turning them away. Thankfully, a lot of churches see this and are trying to change their ways and be more outward looking, but that means changing mindsets, which as we know on this thread, are jealously guarded.

[Bookkeeper]

So bits of it are fine, some bits a bit dodgy, and some bits inpenetrable. and youre happy to base your world view and morality on the bits youre happy with. That really is a leap of faith, and maybe you guys really are better people than me!:wink:


So have any of Gods revelations on a personal basis ever - even potentially - been explicable to you in non-supernatural/divine terms? Occams razor can be very persuasive if you think about it.


Honest answer - yes, probably. However there have been times where I was in no doubt that God had intervened in my life.


Of course there is more to life than science. For the avoidance of doubt, I believe science and the scientific method is excellent at what it does and is the perfect tool for understanding the world we live in and how it works. It can help us understand, and help supply evidence upon which choices can be made. It isnt everything, and the debate is not religion v science. It's better described as religion v reason.

Ok I can go with that. Guess that leads on to defining the parameters of the debate. Reason seems to me to be a difficult term to define.


I have an evangelical, born-again cousin (who I try to avoid contact with, in fairness) who is a fairly well known christian theologist. I believe that he means it deeply when he tells me that I'm pretty much damned - asbestos underpants time for me if he's right. I absolutely believe that he believes he has a personal relationship with God, and that his prayers are answered and all the rest of it. He is impossible to discuss this stuff with because any point ever made is answered by scripture, which does my head in, frankly. The forum is much better because you can think, check and respond in exactly the way you want without submitting to the urge my cousin engenders which would result in an ABH charge. But would I believe people - yes, I'd believe there sincerity, but it would take a lot for me to believe they are correct.


:greengrin Sorry JC, had a good laugh at that, probably shouldn’t though. Not a helpful way to engage with people and discuss things.

Yeah I know what you’re saying regarding the forum. My point was more about not knowing a person making it more difficult to make a decision on what they are saying when you don’t know their whole story.

[Bookkeeper]

Here you go...

http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html (http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html)


Hhmmmm! I may be missing something, but this quote is from that site...

Because Adherents.com (http://www.hibs.net/message/../) has such a large number of statistics and geography citations (over 45,000), we've prepared the following summary pages about the "Largest Communities" of various distinct religious groups. These pages are only about religious geography and statistics; they are not intended as sources of other information about the religious groups (such as history, doctrine, practice, etc.).


Site only gives geographic info, nothing to leap to the assumption made. Unless theres something I've missed.

[J-C]

Hi JC, big question so I can only give you my own personal view, here goes.

I agree with your comment about falling numbers in the church and yes a large part of it is because people are shunning ‘religion’. Now I have tried in previous posts to separate ‘religion’ from God (mostly cackhandedly I admit) but just go with me here a bit further. To my mind ‘religion’ has become mostly institutionalised and like a lot of institutions has forgotten it’s reason for being. Yes that’s quite a generalisation and within it there are a lot of religious people and churches doing great things, however as you said, the numbers don’t lie. If it were a business it would be heading for administration or worse. There are also severe external pressures on the church in today’s society, however the early church suffered too and it grew at a huge rate!

You can also look at many churches, and you’ve already quoted a few elsewhere, where reprehensible acts have taken place and still do, which have been tolerated either implicitly or explicitly by the institutions involved. These are shameful and need to be accounted for. “Practice what you preach” seems quite fitting. I think the church also suffers from the general cynicism of the times, which you can see directed at most institutions of ‘power’.

However, in my opinion, God, Jesus, the church is not an institution, it is a personal relationship. The bible is not something to quote at people, it’s there to inspire. Jesus’ message was one of love, service and sacrifice, not power or control. Now I know you think that’s a load of mince, but if the church (and by that I mean people, not buildings or institutions) exhibited those characteristics more, then I think the church would be attracting people not turning them away. Thankfully, a lot of churches see this and are trying to change their ways and be more outward looking, but that means changing mindsets, which as we know on this thread, are jealously guarded.


I understand all you've been saying and of course religion/God Jesus/Mohammad/Budha etc are all very personal to the individual and is spiritual and not really a solid thing like a building.

I was an agnostic at one point, I used to think there may be something but I'd like some proof. Over the years as I've became more knowledgable I have became totally athiest, realising there is no God or supernatural being who created everything and controls our world. we don't need the love of jesus to be a good person, to love our friends and neighbours, to abide by moral rules of life like having affairs etc. All these things can be done by being myself, a good person, husband, father and friend, I've only ever been to church for either a wedding or funeral and as yet haven't been smighted on by God. :greengrin

This debate has been good to enlighten each others thoughts on life in general, I'm glad the majority have not been drawn into personal sarcasm and kept the debate sensible and knowledgable.

[Twa Cairpets]

So have any of Gods revelations on a personal basis ever - even potentially - been explicable to you in non-supernatural/divine terms? Occams razor can be very persuasive if you think about it.


Honest answer - yes, probably. However there have been times where I was in no doubt that God had intervened in my life.


Could I ask what gave you this conviction?

[hibsitis]

Hi Hibsitis,

Quote:
Originally Posted by hibsitis
Bookkeeper - you are an anomaly as I think we both know that the majority of church attenders come from church attending families. No one would deny that there are others who make up their own minds and in many ways they are more interesting.

I’ve been called many things but never an anomaly before - not sure if that’s good or bad!

To the best of my knowledge, statistically anomalies tend to be fairly evenly distributed!

Though I wonder if you really did weigh up all or even the main pros and cons for there being a god before making a decision? That would mean sifting through a lot of evidence to the contrary before deciding that faith and a lot of unknowns were the preferred options. Those who make these decisions in adulthood when they have access to so much information are all the more puzzling.

I had access to a lot of information on both sides of this debate and I chose the way that was best for my life and gave the best context for the world around me.

This seems to suggest that you found plausibility in the idea of god despite much evidence to the contrary. I was raised to believe and it wasn't until a bit later in life that I put my sceptical hat on and asked myself whether blind adherence made sense. I couldn't justify it. Faith would be fine if there weren't so many inconsistencies and unanswered questions. When I was younger these questions weren't voiced as loudly as they are today, so it's little wonder more people are turning away from religion as they are challenged more often to think about it. Religion comes up wanting on so many levels.

I have no doubt that Christians disagree among each other. However my point was aimed at the relatively large numbers who chose to ignore the lack of evidence for a god and, indeed, the significant body of contrary evidence and continue to be religious largely because they always have been.

I think there is a difference between lack of evidence for God and proving God doesn't exist. Just curious, where do you get your figures to base your 'relatively large numbers' assumption on? I like to have all the evidence.

Maybe 'relatively large numbers' was misleading. I meant all of those who still choose to believe in a god despite the advances in science and the appeal of reason. It's interesting that you draw a distinction between proving and disproving god. Of course you can't do the latter but you can't disprove lots of things most of us are pretty sure don't exist (fairies, Romanov's love of Hearts), to the extent that, for atheists, the difference is effectively irrelevant.

TC's question to you above takes us back into territory I have visited so often I've now got a loyalty card.

Much is made of the importance of faith, yet theists talk about how god intervenes in their lives as a result of prayer. This is potential evidence, yet it has never stood up to scrutiny. Ever. Neither does an explanation for why god chooses to intervene for individuals in relatively minor issues yet apparently ignores the prayers of those in desperate need.

As long as theists choose to ignore or fail to explain the capriciousness of god's behaviour their claims will continue to be undermined.

[Bookkeeper]

Hi Hibsitis


Quote:


To the best of my knowledge, statistically anomalies tend to be fairly evenly distributed!

Not like you to be noncommital :greengrin


This seems to suggest that you found plausibility in the idea of god despite much evidence to the contrary. I was raised to believe and it wasn't until a bit later in life that I put my sceptical hat on and asked myself whether blind adherence made sense. I couldn't justify it. Faith would be fine if there weren't so many inconsistencies and unanswered questions. When I was younger these questions weren't voiced as loudly as they are today, so it's little wonder more people are turning away from religion as they are challenged more often to think about it. Religion comes up wanting on so many levels.

You know I have to disagree with this.


Maybe 'relatively large numbers' was misleading. I meant all of those who still choose to believe in a god despite the advances in science and the appeal of reason. It's interesting that you draw a distinction between proving and disproving god. Of course you can't do the latter but you can't disprove lots of things most of us are pretty sure don't exist (fairies, Romanov's love of Hearts), to the extent that, for atheists, the difference is effectively irrelevant.

Yip!

TC's question to you above takes us back into territory I have visited so often I've now got a loyalty card.

Much is made of the importance of faith, yet theists talk about how god intervenes in their lives as a result of prayer. This is potential evidence, yet it has never stood up to scrutiny. Ever. Neither does an explanation for why god chooses to intervene for individuals in relatively minor issues yet apparently ignores the prayers of those in desperate need.

Really? It obviously has! Otherwise how do you explain the hundreds of millions of people of faith in the world? By the crass generalisation that we are all unthinking, unreasonable duped idiots!!??

As long as theists choose to ignore or fail to explain the capriciousness of god's behaviour their claims will continue to be undermined.

Don't even know where to start with this comment.

[Bookkeeper]

Could I ask what gave you this conviction?


As I said earlier, its difficult to make judgements about the personal experiences of others, when you don’t know them. Its also difficult to share personal experiences with people who can’t place the experience in the context of your life. What I will say is that two occasions come to mind, both before I became a Christian, one where the actions of another had the potential to change my life completely and another where I had a physical experience. I also found out after I turned to the Lord that people I hadn’t known, but who knew of me, had been praying for this outcome. Does that make me proof of the power of prayer?

[PeeJay]

Really? It obviously has! Otherwise how do you explain the hundreds of millions of people of faith in the world? By the crass generalisation that we are all unthinking, unreasonable duped idiots!!??


I stated in a previous post that you perhaps missed whereby Martin Luther many years ago proclaimed that "reason" is the church's greatest danger; German Pope Bendict recently stated "faith" must take precedence over reason! Do you not wonder why? This is surely how the church kept/keeps it faithful flock under control: ignorance.

For centuries believers were unable to read the Bible, they believed what they were told. Later on, when they could read, they were then (at pain of death) unable to criticise the Bible (i.e. read it with a reasonable mind and questin it), so they believed what they were told and did not question. Surely centuries of social engineering and social pressure is how you arrive at millions around the world who now 'believe' the fairy tale? No need for evidence or reason.

In Germany they have a so-called "church tax": if you refuse to pay it (can't or won't) you must then officially leave the church, although many do so, the social pressures involved (for some) are tremendous. I would suggest social engineering is alive and well in the religious community.

[ancienthibby]

I'm sure I can't do the justice in replying to this post that TC has done above but would like to add my tuppenceworth as it goes to the heart of a couple of points I've laboured in earlier posts.

First, the 'faith' heavy argument simply tosses aside believers' ability to question and think for themselves. It's like putting your fingers in your ears and saying na, na, na when reason comes knocking. 'I've always believed and because it's all based on 'faith' it's unchallengeable and not right for me to question.' It's a simply staggering mindset given how much society and thinking has advanced over the last two thousand years. How people can use 'faith' as an excuse for such an astounding lack of critical thinking is stunning.

Second, Ancient, you said in an earlier post that you were considering how to respond to questions I had raised in my earlier posts about the rationality of belief in the power of prayer and the selective use of evidence in support of your claims. This goes beyond 'faith' because you suggested that your personal god had intervened on your behalf which takes us into the realms of evidence. A very brief summary for anyone new to the thread was asking you to exaplain why god would have answered your prayers but ignored, for example, those who died horrible deaths in WW2 concentration camps.

The longer these sorts of questions (and many others) go unanswered the more certain atheists are of their position and the greater the notion of faith is undermined.

My apologies for taking so long to respond - the past couple of weeks have been consumed by medical matters, but here we are and the grey matter is still functioning (to a degree, that is!).

I think we should all be very clear that our Creator God is appalled at the wickedness and evil that man chooses to inflict on innocent individuals and this is made very clear in the earliest reported case of murder. When Cain murdered his brother Abel, God said to him 'Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground'! (Gen 3.14). I have no doubt that every evil murder on whatever scale by man to man, causes God the same anguish today.

Moreover, the Lord Jesus responded in a similar manner when one of his friends (Lazarus) deceased in a seemingly ordinary way, and the Bible tells us (in the shortest verse): 'Jesus wept'. (John 11.35).

Beyond even that is the pain of God in the death of his own Son on the cross when darkness took over the whole earth (Matt. 27.45).

I have no doubt whatsoever that God indeed answers prayers. He answers in accordance with His perfect will alone and he does rescue people from their distressses. Scripture is very clear that God rescues us from our troubles (Rev 3.10) and I have no doubt that those who call out are heard and are rescued!

[Twa Cairpets]

My apologies for taking so long to respond - the past couple of weeks have been consumed by medical matters, but here we are and the grey matter is still functioning (to a degree, that is!).

I think we should all be very clear that our Creator God is appalled at the wickedness and evil that man chooses to inflict on innocent individuals and this is made very clear in the earliest reported case of murder. When Cain murdered his brother Abel, God said to him 'Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground'! (Gen 3.14). I have no doubt that every evil murder on whatever scale by man to man, causes God the same anguish today.

Moreover, the Lord Jesus responded in a similar manner when one of his friends (Lazarus) deceased in a seemingly ordinary way, and the Bible tells us (in the shortest verse): 'Jesus wept'. (John 11.35).

Beyond even that is the pain of God in the death of his own Son on the cross when darkness took over the whole earth (Matt. 27.45).

I have no doubt whatsoever that God indeed answers prayers. He answers in accordance with His perfect will alone and he does rescue people from their distressses. Scripture is very clear that God rescues us from our troubles (Rev 3.10) and I have no doubt that those who call out are heard and are rescued!

Firstly, I hope things are going well for you on the medical side AH - I know from previous threads you've not had your troubes to seek.

On the matter of your post, you've not really addressed any of the points at all, just quoted bits of scripture.

I've also always had a big issue with this "God is appalled, etc" viewpoint. Never mind free-will. If He created us, He designed us to fail, and then blames us for failing! This is one of the many irreconcilable contradictions, unpleastnesses and downright stupidities of the Bible that make me so determined in my atheism.

Scripture is very clear that God rescues us from our troubles (Rev 3.10) and I have no doubt that those who call out are heard and are rescued! unless, of course, someone calls out and is not rescued, as is patently, obviously and undeniably the case. Whats the issue there? Not praying hard enough? Wrong type of belief? Wrong god? Wrong type of prayer? Your argument is that Gods will is not to be questioned, so when a prayer is "answered" by something that you hoped for happening, then thats Gods will. If it isnt, then its also Gods will or its not part of his plan. In other words, pleasant coincidences or outcomes are attributed to God, non-occurences of prayed-for events are either forgotten or put down to Gods will also. In other words, its all pretty much random.

Unless you or anyone else can give me one example - just one - where something has happened that could not have occurred without the intervention of a supernatural power as the result of prayer, then Im afraid I must conclude that you are massively self-deluded in terms of the facts. Im not saying this to be rude, mean or unpleasant - Ive said before that the act of prayer can help people work out issues themselves by talking about them out loud, thinking about what they want etc - but this is purely a human act, and is not and cannot be attributable to a suprtnatural entitity. If it was, why do prayers of, say, Hindus, Taoists, Shintoists, Muslims, Jews, Christians of all sects and any other religion you care to mention all have the same "success" rate (none), but adherents will claim to have a personal relationship with their chosen deity that they just know is answering their prayers. If nothing else, it is an astonishingly arrogant stance to take.

[ancienthibby]

Firstly, I hope things are going well for you on the medical side AH - I know from previous threads you've not had your troubes to seek.

On the matter of your post, you've not really addressed any of the points at all, just quoted bits of scripture.

I've also always had a big issue with this "God is appalled, etc" viewpoint. Never mind free-will. If He created us, He designed us to fail, and then blames us for failing! This is one of the many irreconcilable contradictions, unpleastnesses and downright stupidities of the Bible that make me so determined in my atheism.

Scripture is very clear that God rescues us from our troubles (Rev 3.10) and I have no doubt that those who call out are heard and are rescued! unless, of course, someone calls out and is not rescued, as is patently, obviously and undeniably the case. Whats the issue there? Not praying hard enough? Wrong type of belief? Wrong god? Wrong type of prayer? Your argument is that Gods will is not to be questioned, so when a prayer is "answered" by something that you hoped for happening, then thats Gods will. If it isnt, then its also Gods will or its not part of his plan. In other words, pleasant coincidences or outcomes are attributed to God, non-occurences of prayed-for events are either forgotten or put down to Gods will also. In other words, its all pretty much random.

Unless you or anyone else can give me one example - just one - where something has happened that could not have occurred without the intervention of a supernatural power as the result of prayer, then Im afraid I must conclude that you are massively self-deluded in terms of the facts. Im not saying this to be rude, mean or unpleasant - Ive said before that the act of prayer can help people work out issues themselves by talking about them out loud, thinking about what they want etc - but this is purely a human act, and is not and cannot be attributable to a suprtnatural entitity. If it was, why do prayers of, say, Hindus, Taoists, Shintoists, Muslims, Jews, Christians of all sects and any other religion you care to mention all have the same "success" rate (none), but adherents will claim to have a personal relationship with their chosen deity that they just know is answering their prayers. If nothing else, it is an astonishingly arrogant stance to take.

I'll try and post on some other matters you raise, TC, but it won't be tonight! (And thanks for your kind words!)

Re this point you raise:
If He created us, He designed us to fail

God has never, ever created a people, other than to be His own. He calls us all to be His own (remember His own small voice?). Never, ever to fail, only to be His when we, failed human beings, FINALLY recognise His call on our lives!!

If I have posted any signs of 'arrogance', please forgive. The Christian gospel is VERY VERY clear - there should only be utmost humility!

[ancienthibby]

Thanks for the response Sergio - well argued.

You asked me for some specific passages, which i tried to do. I still think they hold water. It was not meant to be quote mining - a thing I loathe - but as scripture is often quoted in such bite sized chunks it seemed fair, and I think the arguments are still valid.

There are lots of good things in the bible - teachings of peace and love and such like are good things, regardless of your beliefs, and I would not dispute these for a moment. But the the less palatable areas - slavery in particular, is accepted by Jesus and his disciples in the New Testament.

Jesus does defend the Old Testament, and the Old Testament is not a nice thing.

What Jesus actually says is that he has not come to defend the Old Law, but to fulfill it - that is to say that He is the promised Savior from the earliest times of Scripture (Gen 3.16) and throughout all the Prophets.

The Old Testament contains some of the most wonderful, most uplifting parts of Scripture (go and read Song of Songs, the Psalms, Isaiah, etc, etc).

[Bookkeeper]

Interesting piece here (http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/guest-commentary/what-happened-to-our-moral-compass-1.1011535). Wondered what you all thought?

[Twa Cairpets]

Interesting piece here (http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/guest-commentary/what-happened-to-our-moral-compass-1.1011535). Wondered what you all thought?

Honest answer, I thought it was one of the wishy-washiest pieces of tortured justification for religion I've read in a while.

The author makes crass comparisons all the way through, for example:

"In losing touch with the source of moral meaning our moral thinking has become confused. We invoke the principle of the inviolability of innocent life when condemning the bombing of civilians, but set it aside when it comes to abortion. We assert the principle of non-exploitation in opposing slavery yet countenance the creation of “sibling saviours” for harvesting tissue. We deploy the language of innocence in relation to under-age sex, yet talk of a right to gratification with the passing of a birthday."

These things are not opposing ends of the same spectrum. It's like saying "We support the wearing of clothes but disapprove of people being fat". It's nonsense.

The one thing I will agree with is that the historical impact of the human interpretation of christianity in particular has helped shape moral values. The author is claiming, I think, that we've found nothing better than religion to act as a moral compass (which I disagree with anyway), and that therefore we should go back to religion. Is this not an utterly pathetic reason for devoting your life to faith? We don't have anything better? At least posters on this thread on both sides defend their stance with passion and positive points, not a kind of cravenly meek and defensive "it's the best we've got".

---------- Post added at 09:29 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:27 AM ----------


I'll try and post on some other matters you raise, TC, but it won't be tonight! (And thanks for your kind words!)

Re this point you raise:
If He created us, He designed us to fail

God has never, ever created a people, other than to be His own. He calls us all to be His own (remember His own small voice?). Never, ever to fail, only to be His when we, failed human beings, FINALLY recognise His call on our lives!!

If I have posted any signs of 'arrogance', please forgive. The Christian gospel is VERY VERY clear - there should only be utmost humility!

isn't there something if a massive contradiction here AH?

[J-C]

If we are of God's image then can some of the religious people on here explain why there in only a tiny % difference between ourselves and Chimps in the DNA structure. This alone surely proves that we as humans are a primate, who over time have evolved into the species you se before you, not born from Adam and Eve.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1541283,00.html (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1541283,00.html)

[Removed]

If we are of God's image then can some of the religious people on here explain why there in only a tiny % difference between ourselves and Chimps in the DNA structure. This alone surely proves that we as humans are a primate, who over time have evolved into the species you se before you, not born from Adam and Eve.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1541283,00.html (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1541283,00.html)

Here is the counter argument

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2070 (http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2070)

[J-C]

Here is the counter argument

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2070 (http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2070)


I uderstand all this and have read similar articles, my point being we are a primate, of the ape species, different to chimps, gorilla's etc but non the less of a similar genetic makeup to that of primates.

This can be seen all over the world in various species of animal where they are of the same genetic mould but are different species.

Girraffe/Okapi
All birds
Horses/donkeys/Zebra
Hyena/Civets/mongoose

You see where I'm going with this.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Interesting piece here (http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/guest-commentary/what-happened-to-our-moral-compass-1.1011535). Wondered what you all thought?

I think it's pretty dreadful. Constant references to 'Judeo-Christian values/morality' always set alarm bells ringing for me, and for someone of Haldane's standing to fundamentally misunderstand (or misrepresent) Camus is slightly worrying. There was nothing pessimistic or existential about him and his conclusion on the question Haldane mentions in the article is that suicide should be completely and utterly rejected as an answer to the meaningless/absurd life.

Anyway, it's circular reasoning - innit. These certain moral standards he's appealing to are intrinsically linked to the 'Judeo-Christian' tradition, he sees a decline of these moral standards (questionable in itself and just asserted without evidence) coupled with a decline of religious belief, hence these moral standards can only ever be upheld within his unproven 'Judeo-Christian' paradigm. Everything still morally 'good' in society is attributable to the continuing influence of this religio-cultural legacy and everything morally 'bad' is attributable to the loss of this legacy. It's awful logic.

Furthermore, he makes no account whatsoever for the existence of what he regards as 'Judeo-Christian' morality in non-'Judeo-Christian' societies throughout history. Just as no-one on here was able to answer my question on how to account for the existence of the Golden Rule, in one form or another, in pretty much every human society in history of which any study has been done; including pre-Christian societies. So there is absolutely no way he can get away with saying that it is, 'the original meaning of the moral ideas we are left with.' That's just counter-factual nonsense. Also, when writing that he must surely have recognised the extent to which he was describing Aristotlean and/or Nicomachean ethics as much as any Christian ethical tradition. Again, for someone of his standing to claim there's no secular (or presumably non-Christian) articulation of the rationale for promotion of happiness is just bizarre.

It also has a deeply unpleasant imperialist bent to it if you follow it through to its conclusion - the supposed innate superiority of moral, enlightened Chritian nations has consistently been the main ideological referent for every murderous and avaricious imperial escapade from the Belgian Congo to the British Raj to the U.S. in the Middle East. He's a step away from exhorting us to take up the white man's burden.

I really don't have any idea what he actually means by the 'Judeo-Christian' tradition given that they're probably the two most mutually exclusionary religions in existence today. And especially given various Christian denominations' historical complicity in rampant European and North American anti-Semitism; what is his Judeo-Christian tradition?

N.B. He could have a semblance of an interesting point if he was to go into the problem of competing, non-universal 'moralities' in a largely post-Christian nation, but ho-hum. Edit: which is pretty excellently done by Alasdair MacIntyre in After Virtue, incidentally.

[ancienthibby]

Honest answer, I thought it was one of the wishy-washiest pieces of tortured justification for religion I've read in a while.

The author makes crass comparisons all the way through, for example:

"In losing touch with the source of moral meaning our moral thinking has become confused. We invoke the principle of the inviolability of innocent life when condemning the bombing of civilians, but set it aside when it comes to abortion. We assert the principle of non-exploitation in opposing slavery yet countenance the creation of “sibling saviours” for harvesting tissue. We deploy the language of innocence in relation to under-age sex, yet talk of a right to gratification with the passing of a birthday."

These things are not opposing ends of the same spectrum. It's like saying "We support the wearing of clothes but disapprove of people being fat". It's nonsense.

The one thing I will agree with is that the historical impact of the human interpretation of christianity in particular has helped shape moral values. The author is claiming, I think, that we've found nothing better than religion to act as a moral compass (which I disagree with anyway), and that therefore we should go back to religion. Is this not an utterly pathetic reason for devoting your life to faith? We don't have anything better? At least posters on this thread on both sides defend their stance with passion and positive points, not a kind of cravenly meek and defensive "it's the best we've got".

---------- Post added at 09:29 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:27 AM ----------





isn't there something if a massive contradiction here AH?


:faf::faf::faf:

That's me laughing at myself for that boo-boo!!

The word I should have used to describe human beings is 'imperfect' not 'failed'. My thinking was that Scripture is very clear that believers are all on a journey with God and that a pilgrim's progress (if I may borrow that phrase) is akin to steady movement along a continuum, with perfection only being achieved in the world to come.

[Twa Cairpets]

Here is the counter argument

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2070 (http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2070)

The stupid, it burns....

I don't have time to refute all the points of logical fallacy, incorrect understanding and misleading suggestons within that article, but it transcends almost anything I can think of in the world of bad science.

[Removed]

The stupid, it burns....

I don't have time to refute all the points of logical fallacy, incorrect understanding and misleading suggestons within that article, but it transcends almost anything I can think of in the world of bad science.

So how many are there? How about explaining just a few then as I'm not a scientist.

[Removed]

I uderstand all this and have read similar articles, my point being we are a primate, of the ape species, different to chimps, gorilla's etc but non the less of a similar genetic makeup to that of primates.

This can be seen all over the world in various species of animal where they are of the same genetic mould but are different species.

Girraffe/Okapi
All birds
Horses/donkeys/Zebra
Hyena/Civets/mongoose

You see where I'm going with this.

I see where you are going and your logic, but in my mind man is man and apes are apes. We might be 'close' in DNA but still not the same.

Then there is the soul question :greengrin

[Twa Cairpets]

I see where you are going and your logic, but in my mind man is man and apes are apes. We might be 'close' in DNA but still not the same.

Then there is the soul question :greengrin

You're spot on, we're not the same, and it the differences in DNA that make us different species. We do, however, have common ancestry which is why the DNA is similar. Small changes in elements of the genetic structure, called alleles, cause the DNA "message" to be changed from one generation to the next. In different environments, the changes to /mutation of these alleles causes the organism to evolve. Take this process over big timescales, and you have evolution.

As for "the soul question" - there's a biggie!

[Twa Cairpets]

So how many are there? How about explaining just a few then as I'm not a scientist.

Here's a quick few:

While many evolutionists proclaim that human DNA is 98% identical to chimpanzee DNA, few would lie by idly and allow themselves to receive a transplant using chimpanzee organs. and this means what, precisely? No-one, not one single person "evolutionist" or not, would suggest this. Straw Man logical fallacy.

It appears that only about 1.5% of the human genome consists of genes, which code for proteins. These genes are clustered in small regions that contain sizable amounts of “non-coding” DNA (frequently referred to as “junk DNA”) between the clusters. The function of these non-coding regions is only now being determined. These findings indicate that even if all of the human genes were different from those of a chimpanzee, the DNA still could be 98.5 percent similar if the “junk” DNA of humans and chimpanzees were identical.

Fundamental misunderstandng of genetics, flailing to fit in with a creationist view.

Therefore a human and any earthly DNA-based life form must be at least 25% identical. Would it be correct, then, to state that daffodils are “one-quarter human”? The idea that a flower is one-quarter human is neither profound nor enlightening; it is outlandishly ridiculous! There is hardly any biological comparison that could be conducted that would make daffodils human—except perhaps DNA.

Again, wilful misunderstanding of genetics and evolution, and in fact brilliant evidence of divergent evolution, not to mention being completely contradictory to the point they are attempting to make in the second quote above.

However, chromosome numbers in living organisms vary from 308 in the black mulberry (Morus nigra) to six in animals such as the mosquito (Culex pipiens) or nematode worm (Caenorhabditis elegans) [see Sinnot, et al., 1958]. Additionally, complexity does not appear to affect the chromosomal number. The radiolaria (a simple protozoon) has over 800, while humans possess 46. Chimpanzees, on the other hand, have 48 chromosomes. A strict comparison of chromosome numbers would indicate that we are more closely related to the Chinese muntjac (a small deer found in Taiwan’s mountainous regions), which also has 46 chromosomes.

Rubbish. The difference in chimp and human chromosomes is clearly understood, including the mechanism by which the change occurred, the difference is caused by human chromosome (no.2, if i recall correctly) fusing to reduce the number in chimps. It is clearly evidenced and fingerprinted, and is not, to the best of my knowledge, a subject of any debate or dispute within biology.

Hope this helps. If you dont have a scientific background, articles like this throwing scientific phrases around with authority and sneering contempt for fact is bound to confuse and sound convincing.

[HibsMax]

Then there is the soul question :greengrin


As for "the soul question" - there's a biggie!

Is there any scientific evidence that proves humans are the only animals with what we know and love as a soul? This is a little off topic but I think it would be very enlightening to be able to communicate effectively with animals. I mean to know exactly what they are thinking, not training a horse to count by stamping a hoof. ;)

[J-C]

Ah! soul, what exactly is a soul ?

As of yet there is absolutely no scientific evidence to prove that such a thing exists, is it what's deep in your heart that makes you a good person.....maybe, who knows, certainly not I or anyone else on this board knows that answer.:wink:

[An Leargaidh]

Is there any scientific evidence that proves humans are the only animals with what we know and love as a soul? This is a little off topic but I think it would be very enlightening to be able to communicate effectively with animals. I mean to know exactly what they are thinking, not training a horse to count by stamping a hoof. ;)

I reckon some of the animals with larger brains may have feelings, although not sure if that counts toward having a soul. I think that a soul is just a simple one word description of the whole collection of human feelings.

A security guard at a place I work sometimes recently tried to help a donkey that had got its bridle clipped to the fence wire. The other occupant of the field, a horse, thought that the guard was hurting or trying to hurt the donkey and came over to the fence and started head butting the security guard. Does this mean the horse was angry? If the horse was angry then does that mean it felt concern or worry for the donkey? Does this therefore mean the horse has a soul? :cool2:

This is a very interesting discussion but someone will no doubt spoil it by asking if Yams have souls or share DNA with humans :monkey:

[HibsMax]

Ah! soul, what exactly is a soul ?

As of yet there is absolutely no scientific evidence to prove that such a thing exists, is it what's deep in your heart that makes you a good person.....maybe, who knows, certainly not I or anyone else on this board knows that answer.:wink:
These are just my opinions.

A soul is what exists inside of all of us but cannot be attributed to anything specific / physical. Can all of our feelings, thoughts, memories, etc. be mapped to specific brain cells in a reliable and accurate way? I don't know. A soul is what makes us different from one another...and if this thread shows us just one thing, it's that we're all different (but yet he same). ;)