A question for the theists

[Fop 1]

The blasphemy challenge wasn't Dawkin's "thing" - the link may be there but it was created by someone else.

 

The thing you have to realise is that being even able to say what he does is relatively new (and still would have him killed in some places). As he has argued there has been a "taboo" about all out criticism of religion for years. I think the harsh reaction he gets from people like you shows that you're not used to it and I've seen articles saying atheists should back off out of this misguided respect. As I say I don't care what people believe at a personal level but that shouldn't give them any more rights than other people.

 

A good example was the catholic adoption thing. 1.7% of the citizens of the UK are church-going catholics and according to "official" figures 6% are gay. On a simplistic democratic basis the catholic church has absolutely no right to demand exemptions from laws which affect more people than it "represents". I know this was specific to agencies run by them but the same applies to the CofE who wanted to be exempt from the same laws with regards to sex education in their faith scools. They want to continue teaching that homsexuality is "evil". The fact that a large number of the assaults and even murders carried out on gays have this kind of "excuse" and the people actually quote religion means I'd have the bishops on an accesory charge.

 

 

I'm not sure you can tie someone belief that something is "wrong" with an act of murder or violence (which is "wrong" no matter what the justification, and isn't "more wrong" because of one justification or another – that’s surely discrimination in itself ).

 

At the end of the day paedophilia is likely a genetic predisposition (perhaps as much as any other sexuality – and given how many people are caught with it these days fairly wide spread condition, it’d be interesting to get a % population tbh), and in a strange way I kinda look forward to the paedophilic rights marches, because whilst the ACT must always be wrong, if you take PCism to its extreme it is “wrong” to discriminate against them so long as they do nothing to hurt others.

 

Now that above paragraph should in any sane society be tongue in cheek, but of course now that we’re effectively making it illegal to criticse religions, I imagine it will actually occur one day.

[Park Life 70]

The blasphemy challenge wasn't Dawkin's "thing" - the link may be there but it was created by someone else.

 

The thing you have to realise is that being even able to say what he does is relatively new (and still would have him killed in some places). As he has argued there has been a "taboo" about all out criticism of religion for years. I think the harsh reaction he gets from people like you shows that you're not used to it and I've seen articles saying atheists should back off out of this misguided respect. As I say I don't care what people believe at a personal level but that shouldn't give them any more rights than other people.

 

A good example was the catholic adoption thing. 1.7% of the citizens of the UK are church-going catholics and according to "official" figures 6% are gay. On a simplistic democratic basis the catholic church has absolutely no right to demand exemptions from laws which affect more people than it "represents". I know this was specific to agencies run by them but the same applies to the CofE who wanted to be exempt from the same laws with regards to sex education in their faith scools. They want to continue teaching that homsexuality is "evil". The fact that a large number of the assaults and even murders carried out on gays have this kind of "excuse" and the people actually quote religion means I'd have the bishops on an accesory charge.

 

 

I'm not sure you can tie someone belief that something is "wrong" with an act of murder or violence (which is "wrong" no matter what the justification, and isn't "more wrong" because of one justification or another – that’s surely discrimination in itself ).

 

At the end of the day paedophilia is likely a genetic predisposition (perhaps as much as any other sexuality – and given how many people are caught with it these days fairly wide spread condition, it’d be interesting to get a % population tbh), and in a strange way I kinda look forward to the paedophilic rights marches, because whilst the ACT must always be wrong, if you take PCism to its extreme it is “wrong” to discriminate against them so long as they do nothing to hurt others.

 

Now that above paragraph should in any sane society be tongue in cheek, but of course now that we’re effectively making it illegal to criticse religions, I imagine it will actually occur one day.

 

What are you two chuntering on about?

[NJS 3978]

I'm not sure you can tie someone belief that something is "wrong" with an act of murder or violence (which is "wrong" no matter what the justification, and isn't "more wrong" because of one justification or another – that’s surely discrimination in itself ).

 

At the end of the day paedophilia is likely a genetic predisposition (perhaps as much as any other sexuality – and given how many people are caught with it these days fairly wide spread condition, it’d be interesting to get a % population tbh), and in a strange way I kinda look forward to the paedophilic rights marches, because whilst the ACT must always be wrong, if you take PCism to its extreme it is “wrong” to discriminate against them so long as they do nothing to hurt others.

 

Now that above paragraph should in any sane society be tongue in cheek, but of course now that we’re effectively making it illegal to criticse religions, I imagine it will actually occur one day.

 

 

I think its about degrees - a woman politician was shot dead in Pakistan last week by a Muslim nutjob because she refused to wear the veil and had encouraged others not to - now you can argue that he has to be "a bit mad" to kill someone anyway but the fervour with which some people are indoctrinated with Islam (and others) could be said to be a form of conditioning - if its hammered into you that immodest women are "evil" then combined with a disposition to violence something can give too often.

 

Fair enough thugs who beat up gays may not go as far as "God told me to do it" but the fact that someone, somwhere who may have had a say in their early life is willing to say "thats just" isn't exactly helping matters.

 

I've said before on here that I think paedophilia may be "hard-wired" for want of a better phrase and perhaps should be treated rather more than punished (not popular I know). If it is like that I don't think it "excuses" their actions but at the same time thats a bit different than an outside influence "coercing" them into thinking its right which is what I was reffering to.

[Park Life 70]

This was a lovely thread about he universe, mysticism, Einstein....Turned into some drabbery about what words mean and other semantic and extreme example ping pong...Silence!!

[Renton 17767]

Might I add, it's interesting that it was a theist who thought it was necessary to bring up Dawkins; they seem somewhat obsessed by him. Why? Insecurity?

Nope - must have a low opinion of theists then. I brought him up because he is the most prominent figure in atheism and I was unsure as to why he was so obsessed. That is all.

 

I really wasn't interested in another Dawkins thread TI, they've been done before and whilst always interesting, I was really looking for answers to what I was alluding to in the first post. That being, given the vast age and size of the Universe (on both the micoscopic and cosmic scales), does the belief in a personal God really make sense? Given our obvious physicality (e.g. brain damage effecting personality change), does it make sense for us to have a soul that survives past the death of the physical body? I'm genuinely interested in how you reconcile your faith with the bizarreness of the Universe, which seems to get stranger the more science uncovers it.

 

I realise you have had personal experiences which have helped shape your belief, and I certainly would never want to change your belief, even if I could (I'm not really even aware in what you believe in tbh. Heaven? Hell? Salvation? Damnation?). Anyway, none of the above would necessarily outrightly contradict what you believe. But I'm asking you, in all honesty, does it make sense? Were the past 14 billion years really just preparation for this tiny window in time we exist in now? Is the rest of the Universe purely there for the sake of astronomers? If so, why?

[NJS 3978]

Just mentioning Dawkins briefly again I've read a few critiscisms of TGD which probably sum up my antipathy towards religion which is related to Renton's original point and his reprise.

 

We are told that science can't answer questions in the philosphy realm such as "why are we here". My view is it can and it does - we are evolved animals - plain and simple - anything beyond that is unprovable. However there is also an implication that religion can answer that question which to me is complete rubbish. Answering questions with "God did it" really sums the problem for me.

 

I've always had a thirst for knowledge and I now feel that religion seems to "dislike" that natural trait. If you start questioning peoples faith with quesions like Renton's then either you are told "its impolite to ask" or when it comes to things like the age of the universe you get the classic "we cannot question God's plan". Its that refusal to think and question that really frustrates and I suppose angers me because I feel that the problem is that the "obvious" answers as I see them are painful. However having been brought up catholic and gone through that "pain" and feeling better for it I suppose I now have a sort of "mission" to free others - much like the new breed of outspoken atheists.

 

I'm always told that "reasonable" theists can feel comfortable with the age and size of the universe and evolution and still believe in God. However I've yet to read an answer that makes any kind of sense.

[spongebob toonpants 3603]

Might I add, it's interesting that it was a theist who thought it was necessary to bring up Dawkins; they seem somewhat obsessed by him. Why? Insecurity?

Nope - must have a low opinion of theists then. I brought him up because he is the most prominent figure in atheism and I was unsure as to why he was so obsessed. That is all.

 

I really wasn't interested in another Dawkins thread TI, they've been done before and whilst always interesting, I was really looking for answers to what I was alluding to in the first post. That being, given the vast age and size of the Universe (on both the micoscopic and cosmic scales), does the belief in a personal God really make sense? Given our obvious physicality (e.g. brain damage effecting personality change), does it make sense for us to have a soul that survives past the death of the physical body? I'm genuinely interested in how you reconcile your faith with the bizarreness of the Universe, which seems to get stranger the more science uncovers it.

 

I realise you have had personal experiences which have helped shape your belief, and I certainly would never want to change your belief, even if I could (I'm not really even aware in what you believe in tbh. Heaven? Hell? Salvation? Damnation?). Anyway, none of the above would necessarily outrightly contradict what you believe. But I'm asking you, in all honesty, does it make sense? Were the past 14 billion years really just preparation for this tiny window in time we exist in now? Is the rest of the Universe purely there for the sake of astronomers? If so, why?

 

 

The point I was getting at earlier was that, albeit in a fashion designed to be awkward, was that you believe science is right, theists beleive believe in a spiritual hand guiding/ruling/judging to a greater or lesser extent

all of creation. In the same way you will never be convinced in any way of "gods" existance even though if we are completely honest you can never actually disprove it.

 

In the end people believe what they believe from the creationist nutters to athiests who cant conceive how people dont understand. I think you are asking the wrong question to a certain extent. Fundamentalists are what they are for whatever reason, ignorance, indoctrination, fear, and you will never get anything interesting out of them. Many people though struggle to reconcile their beliefs with the observed world, and yes scientific advance. Many more people while not beleivers in the bible or koran do have a need for some sort of spiritual meaning, and whether their is something more? Could some sort of force for good exist in a way we cant imagine throughout the universe, what actually is love,scientists havent worked that one out yet

 

Stop trying to convince people who cant be bothered to think for themselves, let them believe in God if they want, but dont deny the possibilty of there being more going on than we can see.

 

Mind you personally I think all organised religion should obviously be banned immediatley, and not being a member of any church should be a prerequisite for politicians and teachers

[spongebob toonpants 3603]

Sorry about that ramble I have been playing poker all night, and my head is gone

 

good night all

[Renton 17767]

Just mentioning Dawkins briefly again I've read a few critiscisms of TGD which probably sum up my antipathy towards religion which is related to Renton's original point and his reprise.

 

We are told that science can't answer questions in the philosphy realm such as "why are we here". My view is it can and it does - we are evolved animals - plain and simple - anything beyond that is unprovable. However there is also an implication that religion can answer that question which to me is complete rubbish. Answering questions with "God did it" really sums the problem for me.

 

I've always had a thirst for knowledge and I now feel that religion seems to "dislike" that natural trait. If you start questioning peoples faith with quesions like Renton's then either you are told "its impolite to ask" or when it comes to things like the age of the universe you get the classic "we cannot question God's plan". Its that refusal to think and question that really frustrates and I suppose angers me because I feel that the problem is that the "obvious" answers as I see them are painful. However having been brought up catholic and gone through that "pain" and feeling better for it I suppose I now have a sort of "mission" to free others - much like the new breed of outspoken atheists.

 

I'm always told that "reasonable" theists can feel comfortable with the age and size of the universe and evolution and still believe in God. However I've yet to read an answer that makes any kind of sense.

 

I clearly share a lot of opinions with NJS, and the last paragraph sums up the question I was asking and hoping for a response on.

 

Trouble is even by asking these questions in our relatively liberal and secular society you run the risk of being labelled an "evangelical atheist", things are much worse in the US. Well I'm not an evangelist, I just find the nature of our existence and place in the Universe is of considerable interest to me, and I'm interested in other people's view points, and when I disagree, I will argue this point. On a message board or in the pub, not outside Grey's monument.

 

In his earlier post TheInspiration wondered if there was anything wrong with creationism being taught in school. To me, there could be nothing more wrong in eductation than teaching naive, receptive children false luddite views on the nature of our being. The fact TI (and many others, like Tony Blair) can't see the harm in this is disturbing to me, and is why we need rational people like Dawkins to fight back. Considering the colossal might of religious representation in society, it's still a pretty one sided battle, and yet the theists still give a good impression of running scared from him! Amazing how many of them won't even dare read his books.

[Guest alex]

The whole Bible story, it's not vaguely believable is it? That's my main problem with it tbh

 

It's a metaphor though

Which bits? All of it, or can you just pick and choose? Backatcha

Btw: I wouldn't have so much of a problem with Christianity if the followers were more 'Christ like'. The vast majority as well as the Churches themselves are massively hypocritical. During the crusades Christians were sometimes referred to by Muslims as the alleged followers of Christ iirc. The name still applies to many today imo.

[Renton 17767]

I think I'd struggle to find any meaningful metaphors in the vast majority of the Bible tbh. And considering he was the son of God, I reckon Jesus's allegories are highly over rated. I prefer Oscar Wilde tbh.

Edited March 2, 2007 by Renton

[Isegrim 8870]

I think I'd struggle to find any meaningful metaphors in the vast majority of the Bible tbh. And considering he was the son of God, I reckon Jesus's allegories are highly over rated. I prefer Oscar Wilde tbh.

 

The thing is that people totally committed to science and rationalism struggle to understand the metaphysical aspect which is the foundation of religion. There might be a time in future where everything will get explained by natural laws, but until the religion and religious beliefs will always find their space. This space might get narrower all the time and churches etc. have to move their goal posts, but in the end they are always just a reflection of how to explane human existence and form a code of ethics.

 

I also think it is pretty unfair to label religions and churches per se as scientific ignorant. Most of them aren't they might be able to be a bit slow to accept scientific progress. Creationism is a perfect example. The vast majority of christian churches (especially the Catholic churches and the main protestant ones) don't dispute the creation by the big bang. It is also that for a couple of hundred of years historical text interpretation of the bible has displaced literal understanding. So in the end scientists not understanding theism being in that context a modern humanities are as ignorant as religious nutters ignoring the scientific evidence that the earth wasn't created on October 23rd 4004 BC.

[Fop 1]

I'm not sure you can tie someone belief that something is "wrong" with an act of murder or violence (which is "wrong" no matter what the justification, and isn't "more wrong" because of one justification or another – that’s surely discrimination in itself ).

 

At the end of the day paedophilia is likely a genetic predisposition (perhaps as much as any other sexuality – and given how many people are caught with it these days fairly wide spread condition, it’d be interesting to get a % population tbh), and in a strange way I kinda look forward to the paedophilic rights marches, because whilst the ACT must always be wrong, if you take PCism to its extreme it is “wrong” to discriminate against them so long as they do nothing to hurt others.

 

Now that above paragraph should in any sane society be tongue in cheek, but of course now that we’re effectively making it illegal to criticse religions, I imagine it will actually occur one day.

 

 

I think its about degrees - a woman politician was shot dead in Pakistan last week by a Muslim nutjob because she refused to wear the veil and had encouraged others not to - now you can argue that he has to be "a bit mad" to kill someone anyway but the fervour with which some people are indoctrinated with Islam (and others) could be said to be a form of conditioning - if its hammered into you that immodest women are "evil" then combined with a disposition to violence something can give too often.

 

Fair enough thugs who beat up gays may not go as far as "God told me to do it" but the fact that someone, somwhere who may have had a say in their early life is willing to say "thats just" isn't exactly helping matters.

 

There's a huge difference between a genuinely religious nutter/fanatic and homophobic violence in the UK though, it's NOT deeply religious people doing it in the UK, it's quite, quite "godless" scum doing it for reasons that have nothing to do with religion.

 

In fact I wouldn't be surprise if 99% of the people that commit such acts hadn't been near a church in their entire life, and I wouldn't think "God" would come into their top 100 of "reasons" for doing it.

 

Although even that Pakistan example isn't necessarily purely about religion (even one as medieval as Islam in most of the world) as that could just as much be about "women's place" and misplaced “honour” as a religious thing as such.

 

 

 

So whilst the world probably would be better off without organised religion to thing that the evil inside humanity would just disappear too is insane.

Especially in the context of homosexuality and Christian communions within the UK, the CoE will likely have gay Bishops within the next 10 years (if it can sort the African issue) and the Catholic church has been full of homosexual priests probably for as long as it has existed (they just don’t go public about it).

 

There’s probably a lot in thoughts that suggest you cannot remove a religious moral code and just leave it, I mean what are “chav” morals?

Do whatever you can get away with and fuck anyone else…. no society is going to last long like that (as frankly we may be seeing in the UK presently).

 

 

 

 

I've said before on here that I think paedophilia may be "hard-wired" for want of a better phrase and perhaps should be treated rather more than punished (not popular I know). If it is like that I don't think it "excuses" their actions but at the same time thats a bit different than an outside influence "coercing" them into thinking its right which is what I was reffering to.

 

But if you look at such things in a purist "PC" way they can no more help it than any other sexuality, so whilst the act is always wrong (because you simply cannot have consent in such a context) the desire should not be judged nor vilified.

 

As I said I look forward to the paedophilic rights marches (I’m also kinda looking forward to when “gay rights” and “islamic rights” collide, the horror….).

[Renton 17767]

Have you answered my question though Isegrim? What's your honest appraisal of the likelihood of a personal God creating the vast Universe 14 billion years ago purely for the benefit of human living on an insignificant planet on the outer arm of a very ordinary Galaxy? How do you reconcile the text of a book written thousands of years ago with the reality of the Universe we observe today?

[Gemmill 34444]

Enough of this jibber jabber! It's Friday!

[Fop 1]

I think I'd struggle to find any meaningful metaphors in the vast majority of the Bible tbh. And considering he was the son of God, I reckon Jesus's allegories are highly over rated. I prefer Oscar Wilde tbh.

 

The thing is that people totally committed to science and rationalism struggle to understand the metaphysical aspect which is the foundation of religion. There might be a time in future where everything will get explained by natural laws, but until the religion and religious beliefs will always find their space. This space might get narrower all the time and churches etc. have to move their goal posts, but in the end they are always just a reflection of how to explane human existence and form a code of ethics.

 

I also think it is pretty unfair to label religions and churches per se as scientific ignorant. Most of them aren't they might be able to be a bit slow to accept scientific progress. Creationism is a perfect example. The vast majority of christian churches (especially the Catholic churches and the main protestant ones) don't dispute the creation by the big bang. It is also that for a couple of hundred of years historical text interpretation of the bible has displaced literal understanding. So in the end scientists not understanding theism being in that context a modern humanities are as ignorant as religious nutters ignoring the scientific evidence that the earth wasn't created on October 23rd 4004 BC.

 

 

Actually if you move away from the USA type ID fanatics, and ignore the more evangelical of other Christian or Islamic groups, to be frank there's nothing in evolution or the creation of the universe that really absolutely contradicts such beliefs (of course there’s BOG ALL that supports it either).

 

For example any all powerful and all knowing being can quite happily set of a chain of event knowing FULL WELL it's outcome (again all knowing all powerful) in several billion years time, no matter how complex.

 

 

The dangerous stuff is religious group purposefully trying to undermine and/or twist/misrepresent science (the cleverness of some of their techniques often suggests they probably understand it more than well enough to realise they are committing complete fraud ).

The happens an awful lot with evolution, where as really whilst it's impossible to deny evolution in a broad sense (although as mentioned they vigorously and viciously try), equally there's nothing in science that can say evolution isn't process of "God".

 

So there probably is a happy medium (and quite a lot of religious scientist or scientifically aware priests fill this space), but the fanatics will never be happy with that.

[Renton 17767]

Enough of this jibber jabber! It's Friday!

Have you finished the God Delusion yet btw?

[Isegrim 8870]

Have you answered my question though Isegrim? What's your honest appraisal of the likelihood of a personal God creating the vast Universe 14 billion years ago purely for the benefit of human living on an insignificant planet on the outer arm of a very ordinary Galaxy? How do you reconcile the text of a book written thousands of years ago with the reality of the Universe we observe today?

See there is one of the problems. I don't really care if there is a personal god or not. And who says it was for the benefit? It is just that all we know so far, we are the only species of our kind (well except of those who got abducted by aliens or believing in 12 ft lizards). And as long as we don't know otherwise I don't see a problem in having a humancentric approach to certain things as I think tackling the issues of a peaceful living together and human ethics is more important than on concentrating on the existence of other species somewhere in the universe. We can still easily shift the goal post when the Vulcans come to visit us.

 

Live long and prosper.

[Guest alex]

You've got to respect other people's beliefs - until they impinge on those of others. That's why it's ok imo to believe in creationism, but not ok to apply those beliefs to the extent that you teach it in schools etc. as a valid alternative to scientific understanding. Imo Religious Education is alright, so long as it's giving kids an insight into other people's beliefs and how these beliefs originated etc. It's when they actually start saying that 'this is the truth' about things like the age of the Earth etc. (when it's clearly bollocks) that I start to have grave concerns.

[Gemmill 34444]

Enough of this jibber jabber! It's Friday!

Have you finished the God Delusion yet btw?

 

Nope, too busy reading poker books. I'll get back onto it right away though, sir!

[Isegrim 8870]

You've got to respect other people's beliefs - until they impinge on those of others. That's why it's ok imo to believe in creationism, but not ok to apply those beliefs to the extent that you teach it in schools etc. as a valid alternative to scientific understanding. Imo Religious Education is alright, so long as it's giving kids an insight into other people's beliefs and how these beliefs originated etc. It's when they actually start saying that 'this is the truth' about things like the age of the Earth etc. (when it's clearly bollocks) that I start to have grave concerns.

And as Fop rightly pointed out, those are in the majority only splitters and religious nutters, but when you come to the to main christian churches is a view neither shared by the Catholic Church nor the main Protestant ones. I have no problem in teaching the biblical creation in a way to make people to respect nature and existence and be careful with our resources etc. This isn't necessarily bound to contradict the big bang.

[Park Life 70]

I see people talking about the universe as if it was a given...We know virtually nothing about the universe.

[Renton 17767]

Have you answered my question though Isegrim? What's your honest appraisal of the likelihood of a personal God creating the vast Universe 14 billion years ago purely for the benefit of human living on an insignificant planet on the outer arm of a very ordinary Galaxy? How do you reconcile the text of a book written thousands of years ago with the reality of the Universe we observe today?

See there is one of the problems. I don't really care if there is a personal god or not. And who says it was for the benefit? It is just that all we know so far, we are the only species of our kind (well except of those who got abducted by aliens or believing in 12 ft lizards). And as long as we don't know otherwise I don't see a problem in having a humancentric approach to certain things as I think tackling the issues of a peaceful living together and human ethics is more important than on concentrating on the existence of other species somewhere in the universe. We can still easily shift the goal post when the Vulcans come to visit us.

 

Live long and prosper.

 

Well that's an answer of sorts, you're not really interested or bothered, fair enough. However I am interested and bothered by this type of stuff, to me the truth is probably the most important aspect of my existence, and I will do my best to uncover it as much as possible.

 

The question of rather being aware and miserable or happy but ignorant often bothers me for instance, personally I am "wired" to prefer the former. In the same manner, if religion is a pack of lies manufactured by humanity (which I strongly suspect it is), I would want shot of it regardless of the consequences for society. Mind, personally I don't think that the gradual extinction of religion need have any negative impact on soceity, quite the reverse in fact. Note I say "extinction", not abolition. I don't want to force my views on anyone, although I am happy to talk about them and want the unimpeded freedom to do just that.

[Isegrim 8870]

I see people talking about the universe as if it was a given...We know virtually nothing about the universe.

It is a big spoof by the FBI anyway - just like the fake moon landing.

[Park Life 70]

I see people talking about the universe as if it was a given...We know virtually nothing about the universe.

It is a big spoof by the FBI anyway - just like the fake moon landing.