Religion

[Harbornite]

I believe that Jesus existeds
But I don't believe in gods...and all that universe creationism stuff...which makes no sense whatsoever

Yes, there is proof of his existence.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

This is why I feel that religion is irrelevant. In some cases, people are comforted by the thought of heaven and god because they are scared of their mortality, which is a fair enough. Nevertheless, it's outlived its purpose.

Perhaps, if we are fortunate, a member of ISIL will visit the thread and give the opposite version why in this month of Ramadan, religion has not outlived its purpose.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The ten commandments are a bit flawed. Thou shall not kill is fine but the commandment about coveting your neighbour's wife's ass is irrelevant.

I was wondering what version of the Ten Commandments you have been reading, as I am sure you have either combined two of those commandments...or are just being very rude..

 

[Harbornite]

Perhaps, if we are fortunate, a member of ISIL will visit the thread and give the opposite version why in this month of Ramadan, religion has not outlived its purpose.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I was wondering what version of the Ten Commandments you have been reading, as I am sure you have either combined two of those commandments...or are just being very rude..

A visit from an ISIL representative would be interesting, they'd be so deluded that they'd think Pacers are a decent alternative to proper trains if we ever got onto that topic. As for the commandment, that's from the Brummie bible so it's more down at heel!

 

[Springs Branch]

That is a fairly strong argument that suggests that the particular account of God given in parts of the Old Testament is not correct, but it doesn't contradict the possibility of God existing.

Notice how God's characteristics change in line with the expectations and mores of the authors' society at the time when different parts of the Bible were written?

In the Old Testament, God behaved just like you'd expect from a tetchy tribal elder or a warlord king (or North Korean dictator).

By the Roman era and New Testament, He had become a bit more civilised - more of a father-figure, "turn the other cheek", accepting of women etc, but still prone to streaks of cruelty here and there.

So, if someone were sitting down today with a clean sheet of paper intending to write a Bible, what would the 21st Century God be like?

- Would it be a Left Wing God?
She's mixed race (British/Indian), has a sociology degree from the University of Essex, LGBT sympathies, and is balancing a busy lifestyle running the World while bringing up her daughter as a single parent (the daughter wants to go travelling around Earth for her gap year. God's not too keen on this - didn't turn out well last time around).

- Or more of a Right Wing God?
He's the corporate CEO type - background in operations and finance, Executive MBA from the LSE, track record of successfully cutting costs and downsizing on other planets (by means of floods, pestilence, fire & brimstone), bit arrogant ("don't you dare doubt me, I'm the CEO!"). The problem with this God is, after spending five years stuffing up this world, he would move on somewhere else, taking a lot of our loot with him, and some other God would be brought in who would churn everything around before he (and it's always a he) moves on too.

- Or, in 2016, would we just need a Celebrity God?

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

This thread being one of discussion on religion, I thought that I would bring up the matter of the British monarchy and ask if it is likely that the monarch holding the title of Supreme Governor of the Church of England will ever change?

Anyone with views on this matter?

ISTR that Prince Charles has suggested that when he becomes King that he wishes to be known as Defender Of Faith and not Defender Of The Faith. So he may still be Supreme Governor of the Church Of England but he would no longer support the idea of its supremacy.

I'm slightly amused that after I explicitly made the remark, That is a fairly strong argument that suggests that the particular account of God given in parts of the Old Testament is not correct, which you'd have thought would give a pretty strong clue that I perhaps don't give too much credence to certain parts of the Old Testament, no less than three people have replied to me, apparently asking me to justify what the Old Testament says!

TBF Fundamentalist/Born Again Christians have very little truck with the Old Testament seeing it as basically a history of Judaism and its followers which happens to contain a few worthwhile guidance notes for living a "good" life.

And while I cannot claim any expertise in the Koran it does strike me that much of its guidance may be useful for living in the desert but extremely unhelpful in many other places. For example in Arabia the length of day and night is roughly equal all year round so that the fasting period required during Ramadan, regardless of when it falls, is generally 11-13 hours. But Moslems in this country are currently having to fast for more like 17 hours. Some handbook!

 

[Condor7]

This is essentially the "watchmaker argument". And it doesn't hold true. Simply, just because you cannot imagine that the universe does not have a creator, this does not mean that the universe does have a creator. The universe may have a creator, but there is no objective evidence that does.

Besides, you make the assumption that the universe is so complex that it must have a creator. But surely, if the creator created the universe then they must be more complex. So who or what created the creator? And, as the creator of the creator must be again even more complex, who or what created that? This argument goes on forever, and there's never a creator that does not in turn require creating.

I have never heard of a creator creating a creator etc. before, The Bible only speaks of one creator who has always existed.
Now while that sounds impossible to us if there is such an powerful creator maybe it is not so unbelievable to him.

The problem we have is what is the alternative? Evolution?
This suffers from the same problem.
How did matter or gasses ever come about?
To use your analogy they could not appear out of nothing. You cannot have a void of nothing and a gas suddenly appear as if by magic.

So as our only choices at the moment are creation or evolution what sounds more ridicules that an intelligent being has always existed or that inanimate objects have always existed.

Both seem impossible but I will choose a creator to edge my bets just in case

 

[TheNewNo2]

I have never heard of a creator creating a creator etc. before, The Bible only speaks of one creator who has always existed.
Now while that sounds impossible to us if there is such an powerful creator maybe it is not so unbelievable to him.

The problem we have is what is the alternative? Evolution?
This suffers from the same problem.
How did matter or gasses ever come about?
To use your analogy they could not appear out of nothing. You cannot have a void of nothing and a gas suddenly appear as if by magic.

So as our only choices at the moment are creation or evolution what sounds more ridicules that an intelligent being has always existed or that inanimate objects have always existed.

Both seem impossible but I will choose a creator to edge my bets just in case

If I were a god, I would automatically condemn to hell anyone who believed in me purely on the grounds of Pascal's Wager.

Evolution explains the development of life from tiny microbes into the plethora of flora and fauna we see around us today. It does not explain the beginning of life - that's chemistry - or the beginning of the universe - physics - but we have a fairly good handle on both of those.



I do not believe in a god personally, nor in any form of afterlife. I've lit a candle in a church and asked the priest to say a prayer for a dead friend; but that's not because I believe, it's because the friend believed, and I think he'd have appreciated that.

I generally consider religion a net detriment to society. Religion encourages people to not question, to not act, because in religion's eyes the most effective means to achieve something is to ask god to do it, and god is always right. Those are very dangerous things - the most precious gift of life is the ability to think for yourself, religion is just letting someone else do the thinking for you.

All that being said, I do not discount there being some outside entity which created the universe. But that doesn't mean I believe they are a god. Chances are in fact that we do live in a universe which is artificial - if we assume that any universe capable of generating sufficiently complex life will eventually seek to simulate a universe, then the number of "real" universes will be vanishingly small, with most being simulations within simulations within simulations.

 

[NSEFAN]

How did matter or gasses ever come about?
To use your analogy they could not appear out of nothing. You cannot have a void of nothing and a gas suddenly appear as if by magic.

This assumes that the universe had to have a beginning, and that something had to cause it to be. We assume this to be the case because it's how we experience reality, but it is not necessarily true. We can be fairly confident that the big bang happened, but the question as to why it happened is probably beyond us for the time being.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

ISTR that Prince Charles has suggested that when he becomes King that he wishes to be known as Defender Of Faith and not Defender Of The Faith. So he may still be Supreme Governor of the Church Of England but he would no longer support the idea of its supremacy.

Oh dear, I cannot see either the Sunni-based or the Shia-based followers of Islam in Britain having any truck with not just a Christian, but of a stated leader of a Christian sect having any monitorance over Islamic matters...:roll:

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I think the point being made is that it's odd to live by some religious teachings while disregarding others from the same source. That's just cherry-picking.

It's not odd at all. You live by the things that appear to make sense and appear to indicate some purpose/usefulness.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think the first paragraph here says it all: Would a just God allow Voyagers or Pacers to exist?

But of course. It is the existence of Voyagers and Pacers that allows us to properly appreciate the benefits of higher forms of train[*], and prevents us from taken those more advanced trains for granted.


[*] Such as packed out class 455's in the rush hour, perhaps

 

[DarloRich]

Oh dear, I cannot see either the Sunni-based or the Shia-based followers of Islam in Britain having any truck with not just a Christian, but of a stated leader of a Christian sect having any monitorance over Islamic matters...:roll:

I don't believe there is a suggestion that Charles III would seek to have the same level of control over all religions as his title suggests he holds over the Church of England.

It is more a device to show that all faiths are important to the crown, not just the own they traditionally "own"

 

[me123]

I have never heard of a creator creating a creator etc. before, The Bible only speaks of one creator who has always existed.
Now while that sounds impossible to us if there is such an powerful creator maybe it is not so unbelievable to him.

Why does the Universe require creation, but the creator can just exist? The supposed creator is most likely even more complex than our massive universe, so I struggle to see why its existence can be just assumed whereas the universe somehow needs creation. If the creator simply has "always existed", using the logic above why would the universe not be the same? What qualities does the universe have that it needs a creator? It can't be simply complexity, because the infinitely complex creator itself just seems to be able to exist.

The problem we have is what is the alternative? Evolution?
This suffers from the same problem.
How did matter or gasses ever come about?
To use your analogy they could not appear out of nothing. You cannot have a void of nothing and a gas suddenly appear as if by magic.

So as our only choices at the moment are creation or evolution what sounds more ridicules that an intelligent being has always existed or that inanimate objects have always existed.

Evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with matter and gasses "appearing as if by magic" (to use your words - I'll come back to this). Evolution is the gradual development and divergence of organisms from a common ancestor, such that each progeny becomes gradually more adapted to the environment it lives in through a process of non-random natural selection. (In a nutshell).

"Matter and gases came about" from the event known as the Big Bang. We know that the Big Bang happened, because we've seen the background radiation from the event. This was the beginning of space and time in our universe. The singularity was infinitely massive, and the laws of physics as we know it break down before the first 10^-43 seconds - we simply don't know what happened in that short period of time. We do know what happened subsequently. Primordial matter was created. In the early universe, there was enough temperature and energy to fuse this into subatomic particles and the first hydrogen and helium atoms. As the universe expanded, the pressure and temperature in the universe decreased. Matter subsequently coalesced over hundreds to thousands of millions of years. The earliest stars fused more complex matter (beyond simple hydrogen and helium). The death of stars released these heavier elements into the universe at their death. These heavier elements were released in dust clouds, coalescing through gravity to form solid objects (such as asteroids, comets, and indeed the earth). This process still happens today, some 13.7 billion years or so later.

(It's a very brief overview, and it's not my field of expertise)

We know the above through what we have observed in the universe today. By using the data we have about the universe (what we know and what we don't know - the "known unknowns" such as dark matter), we can create a computer simulation of the universe which reliably creates a universe similar to what we see today. There's lots we don't know and we are working to understand. As we understand more the theory will be refined, but it remains the best explanation for what we have observed to this day.

Matter and gases did not come from nothing - they came from the singularity of the Big Bang. We don't know what happened in that 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang, but much more intelligent people than us are working on that at this very moment. We therefore do not know quite a lot about matter.

Both seem impossible but I will choose a creator to edge my bets just in case

Cosmology is a very complex subject - I do not understand more than a small fraction of it. If it was common sense, we wouldn't need thousands of highly intelligent physicists working on these problems. But we have very good evidence that the Big Bang happened, and we understand how matter developed from there. It's a model that works, is reliable and is (at least in a simulation) reproducible. New bodies of evidence support and refine the Big Bang theory further.

There is simply no evidence to suggest that the universe was created or requires a creator. Science is open to that and any possibility, but for it to be accepted it needs to be demonstrated.

Accepting a creator "just in case" is not without its flaws - we've already pointed to Pascal's wager. Which god have you accepted? There's been many thousands of them. I can say with certainty that the only reason you believe in the god you do (I'll even go out on a limb and say it's the Judeo-Christian god - the so-called "God of Abraham") is because where and when you were born.

 

[Harbornite]

Accepting a creator "just in case" is not without its flaws - we've already pointed to Pascal's wager. Which god have you accepted? There's been many thousands of them. I can say with certainty that the only reason you believe in the god you do (I'll even go out on a limb and say it's the Judeo-Christian god - the so-called "God of Abraham") is because where and when you were born.

I think it was Ricky Gervais (obviously a well-known atheist) who raised that point once, he was saying that if you'd be born in India, you'd most likely be worshiping Hindu gods or Allah.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I don't believe there is a suggestion that Charles III would seek to have the same level of control over all religions as his title suggests he holds over the Church of England.

It is more a device to show that all faiths are important to the crown, not just the own they traditionally "own"

He is free to speak on behalf of his own religion but not in the way that he suggests that he has any right to act over other faiths in some sort of paternalistic overseer.

 

[Strat-tastic]

I believe in the triune God as revealed in the Bible.

I found that it was after I had come to him in faith that he revealed himself to me, and not before. And, I believe, still reveals himself to me in many amazing ways.

I come in faith and find that the Bible does exactly as it says on the tin, to coin a phrase.

If anyone is genuinely seeking sincere discussion with no pressure and no questions being off limits, I suggest joining the Alpha Course.

 

[Bald Rick]

Oscar Wilde had something to say on the matter:

"Religion is like a blind man looking in a black room for a black that isn't there, and finding him"

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Oscar Wilde had something to say on the matter:

"Religion is like a blind man looking in a black room for a black that isn't there, and finding him"

Because Oscar Wilde says something, do we all assume what he says is true?

 

[DarloRich]

He is free to speak on behalf of his own religion but not in the way that he suggests that he has any right to act over other faiths in some sort of paternalistic overseer.

I don't believe that is what is suggested, rather a stylistic change to indicate all faiths are equally important.

it hardly matters in any event

 

[Tetchytyke]

I believe that Jesus existed

There's enough proof that Jesus and Mohammed both existed and were vocal preachers in their time.

That doesn't, of course, make what they were preaching true.

Oh dear, I cannot see either the Sunni-based or the Shia-based followers of Islam in Britain having any truck with not just a Christian, but of a stated leader of a Christian sect having any monitorance over Islamic matters...

Why? The Abrahamic religions all have the same roots. The Qu'ran actually confirms the teachings of both Moses and Jesus as prophets.

 

[Harbornite]

"The truth is that Christian theology, like every other theology, is not only opposed to the scientific spirit; it is also opposed to all other attempts at rational thinking. Not by accident does Genesis 3 make the father of knowledge a serpent — slimy, sneaking and abominable. Since the earliest days the church, as an organization, has thrown itself violently against every effort to liberate the body and mind of man. It has been, at all times and everywhere, the habitual and incorrigible defender of bad governments, bad laws, bad social theories, bad institutions. It was, for centuries, an apologist for slavery, as it was the apologist for the divine right of kings."
— H L Mencken

 

[yorksrob]

I miss the 1980's, when the only time one would hear about religion was in school assembly and the 2 - 6 seconds before one was able to turn "Songs of Praise" over.

Now it seems impossible to avoid it with one lot at the others throats all the time, the endless rise of religious fanaticism disfiguring vast swathes of human society and every faction demanding special respect for it's particular set of beliefs, no matter how ludicrous.

It's time humanity moved on as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

"The truth is that Christian theology, like every other theology, is not only opposed to the scientific spirit; it is also opposed to all other attempts at rational thinking. Not by accident does Genesis 3 make the father of knowledge a serpent — slimy, sneaking and abominable. Since the earliest days the church, as an organization, has thrown itself violently against every effort to liberate the body and mind of man. It has been, at all times and everywhere, the habitual and incorrigible defender of bad governments, bad laws, bad social theories, bad institutions. It was, for centuries, an apologist for slavery, as it was the apologist for the divine right of kings."
— H L Mencken

Which may be fair comment on the established churches but not so much the independent/evangelical "sects" who generally dismiss the Old Testament as being mostly a history book. To be incredibly simplistic the Old Testament is full of "fire and brimstone" while the New Testament is more about "peace and love". And of course anyone who claims a fundamentalist position will likely seek to spin their own interpretation of whatever most closely aligns with their own ideas and prejudices (EU debate anyone?!)

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Why? The Abrahamic religions all have the same roots. The Qu'ran actually confirms the teachings of both Moses and Jesus as prophets.

I thought that I was the zen master of obtuse postings of obscuration of intended meaning, but your posting above supposedly answering my query as to the acceptance by either the Sunni or Shia followers of Islam of a British monarch and the stated head of a Christian sect in a stated capacity "defender of all faiths" most certainly ignores the fact that no such acceptance will ever be forthcoming.

 

[prod_pep]

A clear and unequivocal 'no' from me in this poll as an atheist. I don't believe in things for which there is no evidence and no logical reason to suppose they exist.

As others have said, should some convincing evidence for a god arise (and it would have to be very convincing), I would reconsider my viewpoint.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

A clear and unequivocal 'no' from me in this poll as an atheist. I don't believe in things for which there is no evidence and no logical reason to suppose they exist.

I suppose that was the point of view of scientists in 1938 just up to the time when a living coelacanth was caught off the coast of South Africa.

 

[Bevan Price]

I am not voting, but my answer is that there is possibly some kind of God-like being - but not in the form described by many religions. If there was but a tiny difference in the laws of physics, matter as we know it could not exist. Is that coincidence, or some deliberate creation ? - I don't know the answer.

Our universe (probably one of many) was "produced" as a consequence of a big bang. How & why did that happen, and why do so many people assume that there was only one big bang ? Again, I don't know the answer.

But - a lot of people do believe in God, and accept the words of His Prophets. A big problem, throughout history, is that many people have distorted / corrupted those words in order to justify their own evil agendas. More primitive people often described such people as followers of Satan. Just reflect on the "abuse" of religion by some popes, bishops, kings, etc., who "misused" belief as an excuse to murder people they saw as enemies, often describing the "victims" as "non-believers". And sadly, it is still happening in more than one religion.

In principle, religion ought to be a bringer of "good" to all people. However, abuse of religion has been the cause of much trouble & strife.

 

[Busaholic]

I've always taken the Bernard Levin line on this, which is basically that I've never seen any evidence of the existence of God, but neither do I have any evidence of his/her/its non-existence so I remain a devout agnostic. Levin was as critical of atheists certain of their point of view as the religious zealots.

 

[cb a1]

I would say I am an a-theist in what I see as the original meaning of the word 'without a belief in the existence of a god or gods' rather than what it now seems to have become which is 'a belief in the non-existence of a god or gods'.

A subtle but important difference and different again to an agnostic "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God."

To take Paul Sidorczuk's observation about the coelacanth, if I had been alive in 1937, I would have been without a belief that there was such a thing as a living coelacanth, but by 1939 I would no longer be without that belief. To me that is the essence of the scientific method. Note that I wouldn't have to have actually seen a living coelacanth myself to now believe that such a thing exists (something which I find can confuse some people about the scientific method).

 

[prod_pep]

I've always taken the Bernard Levin line on this, which is basically that I've never seen any evidence of the existence of God, but neither do I have any evidence of his/her/its non-existence so I remain a devout agnostic. Levin was as critical of atheists certain of their point of view as the religious zealots.

I think I speak for a lot of atheists when I say that we don't claim to know for certain that God does not exist. I certainly wouldn't infer that I 'know' God doesn't exist in the way that many religious people say they 'know' their particular God does. Good luck trying to scientifically disprove all manner of things from gods to fairies to unicorns to Father Christmas, but just because you can't disprove these things, it is far from a reason to believe in them.

Strictly speaking, in this sense I would be a mere 'de facto' atheist, as I would suggest the majority of atheists are. In other words, I don't see any reason whatever to believe in any God, and I live my life as though none exists. God is about as likely to exist as the tooth fairy as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I think that a study of the New Testament does indeed make for interesting reading and many young people are attracted to the Book of Revelation by its contextual matter, as have a number of modern film makers.

That particular book spans the three literary genres of:-
The Epistlary
The Apocalyptic
The Prophetic

In this context, the word "Apocalyptic" should be understood as the revealing of the Divine Mysteries in those periodic events:-
Seven Seals
Seven Trumpets
Seven Spiritual Figures
Seven Bowls

In the times when I have been approached by the usual pairing of Elders of the Latter-Day Saints to engage in discussion, I always ensure that this subject is brought into the discussion in order that I can see their depth of knowledge on this particular book. Incidentally, why is the oldest Elder that I have ever met only in his mid 20's?