Is it time to return to religion?

[Stu Monty]

Tom, you've come out with this denial of the basic concepts of evolution before and it's quite mental. The half an eye or half a wing argument you come out with is really, really easy to grasp hold of. There's plenty of examples of stages along the way of the development of an eye in sea creatures and how you can't see that 5% of a wing will help you survive a fall smaller than 10% of one and so on and so forth.

 

There really is evidence there if you want to look for it.

[denmad]

Not true mate.

 

A melon, or a banana, or an apple has more than half the exact same chemical functions that exist in human beings. But that does NOT mean we evolved from bananas!

We have ust 46 chromosomes. Some of earth's most basic plants, such as ferns, have many more times that. Are we evolved from fern too?

 

I think you are missing the point: you cannot look at evolution in such isolation and argue that it is false. It is like a tree with different branches and the branches themselves have branches and so on. Humans, bananas, ferns and so on are the leaves on the tree at a particular point in time, but all of these grew from the root and share this commonality.

 

In the same sense, the fact that some species that existed a long time ago still existing today does not disprove evolution at all. This just means that they got it right in the first place and are able to survive through the changes in the environment.

 

On the other hand, this does not mean that some members of these species did not themselves evolve into something else in the mean time. Evolution is not an all or nothing process; you can have some members of the original species carrying on unaltered while some others evolving into other forms.

[Strontium]

Many of the most prominent scientists and thinkers throughout history have been people of deep faith.

 

 

That's partially because until evolution was discovered, people didn't really have a model for the existence of life on Earth other than "God did it".

 

And partially because a scientist or thinker without faith has tended throughout history to become a very dead scientist or thinker without faith.

 

 

Religion is always strongest in countries where there is a low standard of living, poor education and public services and an institutional negation of freewill.

 

 

Indeed. Look at how religion champions ignorance and subservience. I mean, the first sodding book of the Bible - Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden of Eden for questioning authority and attempting to acquire greater knowledge! That really says it all.

[JRD7]

Just wanted to make a point here that Jesus did exist. He was a real man and there is documental evidence from census etc that proves he was a real person who hailed from Nazareth.

Whether he existed isn't even up for debate. It's just a fact that he did.

The debate is whether or not you believe he was the son of God or not.

 

All other major religions recognise and ackowledge Jesus as a real man and many regard him as a great prophet (eg. he is highly regarded by muslims) but, unlike Christianity, they don't believe he was the son of God.

 

You see, I'm really interested in the validity of these claims so I've researched them thoroughly and I have been completely unable to find any historical mention of Jesus from the time that he was supposed to have existed.

 

The only evidence I can find seems to be the Gospels, of which the first was written about 40 years after his supposed death, and a couple of historians, Josephus being the most famous. The problem with the historian angle is that they too were written even longer after his death, but on top of that it has widely been acknowledged by scholars of Josephus and Tacitus that they weren't written by the original authors. In other words the text had been added by other people decades after the original document

 

So there's a couple of sticking points to begin with. I'd appreciate any links or information you could provide me with for the census that you mention, and any other evidence you feel helps to build a case for his existence.

 

Take a look at this and offer comment if you could

 

Jesus as a reincarnation of Mithra

 

I know you like it pasted in but it's too long for that but it highlights where the story of Jesus came from. Mithras is not the only mythical god with those properties either.

 

[YOUTUBE]Du5wJWlHAVI&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]

 

I'd be interested in your comments on this too.

 

I think it's very much debatable whether or not he did actually exist. The main point for me though, is the fact that the Jesus myth was a complete copy of many previous saviours, whom also were believed to have existed.

[dennis tooth]

Fucking hell, David Koresh existed. Must mean something....

[JRD7]

As for whether Jesus the man existed, Tom R is on a good footing here. From the enlightenment onwards it has been en vogue to try to do away with the existence of Jesus the man, but the historical record cannot reasonably be disputed.

 

If you cling to belief that Jesus the man never existed, then many well known historical figures need to be eradicated from the record too, since the evidence for them is rather more scant.

 

The question is who was Jesus, not whether he existed.

 

So if it is "en vogue" to try and eliminate Jeebus from history, why is there hardly a scholar around who'd even deny he existed?

 

Which is it? You can't have your biblical virgins and rape them.

 

Which high profile figures do we need to take out of history then?

 

There were many Busts made of Cesar from his own time, they even evolve as he ages. Initially when he was younger, they show him with hair. As he got older and his hair receded, the busts switched to showing him with his crown of leaves thingy.

 

Who was making making these myths up?

 

Both Yours and Toms historical figures analogies are flawed for numerous reasons. There are people in history that it doesn't really matter whether or not they existed. Jesus, unfortunately for you both, is not one of them.

 

Whether someone like Socrates really existed or not, is an irrelevance as the works are the important thing. But you are comparing the religiously proclaimed "son of man" with ancient dictators. Although to me seems like a very apt comparison, I feel in order to try and score points you're downplaying the potential importance of CHrist.

 

If Cesar didn't exist (he did, by the way), then someone else did in his place. We know this because we have multiple source accounts of what the Romans were up to. So whether it was Julius Cesar, as we know of him today, or Bigus Dickus, someone lead that life.

 

Please show me the evidence that Jeebus existed. And remember not to bear false witness.

[JRD7]

I just like to think of Evolution as a mutation, but that sounds like a horrible word. We're arguably weaker than our ancestors, but we slowly became smarter as we needed to use tools to "beat" the other species and mother nature and our body slowly adapts to this every generation. I always wonder if in a few thousand years we'll be naturally immune to stuff like cancer.

 

I just think its the only logical explanation.

 

A bit too simplistic unfortunately, that presupposes that cancer does not evolve. The life cycle of germs, harmful bacteria, viruses etc has a much faster turn around so cancer will exist unless it can be eradicated at the source.

 

To do this geneticists, and other interested scientific parties will 100% be using the theory of evolution to underpin their work. Without the "theory" then they would be fighting in the dark.

 

Tom, it is a myth that Darwin recanted in later life. There were no death bed confessions either. He insisted his daughter, Emma stayed with him to the last to prevent these myths from spreading. She wrote about this later in her life.

 

To deny evolution is to put yourself in the same bracket as young earth creationists. You have to suspend reality in order to protect god from the truth. It's truly bizarre, all the new drugs we use come about because of evolution. vaccination for Mumps - Yep, that's because of evolution too.

 

The "problems with evolution...." you have provided are so simple to refute, with real evidence but you choose to ignore or "not believe" it, that just shows ignorance and lack of understanding.

 

That said, I hope you'll post that paper when you're done with as I'd be very keen on doing a full review.

[Catch22]

Evolution has passed every single scientific test in front of it with flying colours.

 

The principles that life evolves thru natural selection & sexual selection (often overlooked but the Peacock's tail effect is probably what caused human intelligence- see Miller's "The Mating mind") remain the same as when Darwin outlined them.

 

Moreover new areas of understanding have backed up his work as they have emerged.

 

Mendel's work with peas & the inheritance of certain traits made him the father of modern genetics.

Crick & Watson then discovered the double-helix structure of DNA in 1953

This then led to the understanding that evolution occurs at a genetic level which Dawkins popularised in "The Selfish gene"

That led to the idea of a genetic clock thru which we can estimate when species split from eachother: Those results are bang in line with the carbon testing of fossils.

None of these processes were imaginable when Darwin did his work but all confirm & add to it.

 

Continental drift & plate tectonics only became accepted in the 1960's but again supported the original theory: Madagscar's wildlife or the startling differences on either side of the Wallace line dividing Bali & Lombok correctly follow Darwin's principles.

 

Finally it has been tested experimently & passed every single time.

Also it has been observed at work in the real world:

The changing colours of Britain's moths thru the process of industrialisation & then back again after various clean air acts..

My personal favourite is "The Beak of the Finch", Weiner's book on the Grants' work studying the size of the finch's beaks in the Galapagos which wax & wane according to the weather cycle & hence availability of the food they eat.

 

Darwin is a great mind & "The Origin of Species" is 1 of, if not the, most important books ever written.

[Anubis]

[YOUTUBE]WQak6ng0RXQ&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]

 

[YOUTUBE]m3xKS4EPzCA&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]

 

[YOUTUBE]HlPZihRKCzA&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]

[Anubis]

O_o

 

The Brick Testament

[Jose Jones]

So if it is "en vogue" to try and eliminate Jeebus from history, why is there hardly a scholar around who'd even deny he existed?

 

Which is it? You can't have your biblical virgins and rape them.

 

Which high profile figures do we need to take out of history then?

 

There were many Busts made of Cesar from his own time, they even evolve as he ages. Initially when he was younger, they show him with hair. As he got older and his hair receded, the busts switched to showing him with his crown of leaves thingy.

 

Who was making making these myths up?

 

Both Yours and Toms historical figures analogies are flawed for numerous reasons. There are people in history that it doesn't really matter whether or not they existed. Jesus, unfortunately for you both, is not one of them.

 

Whether someone like Socrates really existed or not, is an irrelevance as the works are the important thing. But you are comparing the religiously proclaimed "son of man" with ancient dictators. Although to me seems like a very apt comparison, I feel in order to try and score points you're downplaying the potential importance of CHrist.

 

If Cesar didn't exist (he did, by the way), then someone else did in his place. We know this because we have multiple source accounts of what the Romans were up to. So whether it was Julius Cesar, as we know of him today, or Bigus Dickus, someone lead that life.

 

Please show me the evidence that Jeebus existed. And remember not to bear false witness.

 

Surely Socrates is the best example? We only know of him through the writings of Plato, whereas we know about Jesus through the writings of the Gospels and other early Christian writers.

Plus then of course a lot of the historical detail in the Gospels matches up so they are generally regarded by biblical and historical scholars as a fairly accurate portrayal of the time.

[JRD7]

Surely Socrates is the best example? We only know of him through the writings of Plato, whereas we know about Jesus through the writings of the Gospels and other early Christian writers.

Plus then of course a lot of the historical detail in the Gospels matches up so they are generally regarded by biblical and historical scholars as a fairly accurate portrayal of the time.

 

It is unimportant whether Socrates existed though, it has no bearing in history. What matters are the works left behind. It is widely accepted that Homer probably didn't exist. Again, it just doesn't matter.

 

Saying we know about Jesus because of the Gospels is poor reasoning to say the least. The interesting thing is that Paul produces the first of them, and all he knew was that the Christ was born, died and resurrected. Nothing about virgin births, mangers etc.

 

I don't know off any non-theologically-biased historians that would claim that the gospels portray an accurate account of history. What about Lazarus for starters?

[Paul]

I agree with the general thrust of Tom's first post, which is a point I've made on here dozens of times. I don't understand why some atheists mock, bait and even abuse people who believe in God. In my view it undermines and even demeans their own argument. I also find it sad that so few atheists offer anything approaching an alternate philosophy with aims as laudable as those of Christianity.

 

Adam Spibey's ideas about faith as expressed on here are very interesting in the context of this debate. If I'm paraphrasing him correctly, he has argued that it is a contradiction in terms to be critical of people for believing in an unprovable concept when the same applies to their own perspective (there is no God).

 

My own view is that I don't believe in a God of any sort and don't think my views will ever change. However, SpyBee's point makes me hesitate from describing myself as atheist these days. What I believe is that we should treat each other as we'd like to be treated; that what goes around comes around. That doesn't require faith or belief - just honest self-awareness and hard fucking work because, as such contradictory creatures who are simultaneously selfish and co-dependent, we inevitably treat each other like shit to one degree or another.

[JRD7]

I agree with the general thrust of Tom's first post, which is a point I've made on here dozens of times. I don't understand why some atheists mock, bait and even abuse people who believe in God. In my view it undermines and even demeans their own argument. I also find it sad that so few atheists offer anything approaching an alternate philosophy with aims as laudable as those of Christianity.

 

It is a question of truth, atheism is in no way a belief system and as such it doesn't have philosophical aims. In my view, Christianity undermines Buddhism. Jesus is a carbon copy of the buddha, but with shit loads more hatred thrown in.

 

Adam Spibey's ideas about faith as expressed on here are very interesting in the context of this debate. If I'm paraphrasing him correctly, he has argued that it is a contradiction in terms to be critical of people for believing in an unprovable concept when the same applies to their own perspective (there is no God).

It's impossible to prove a negative (there is no god), so the burden of proof is very much in the laps of the believers, and regardless of the harm theists believe atheists do to our own course, we've done absolutely nothing as horrific as torturing believers in the manner that the inquisitors did with so called heretics. When was the last time a non-believer flew planes into buildings. I wish theists would stop acting so precious and once and for all start explaining how they know that god loves them.

 

My own view is that I don't believe in a God of any sort and don't think my views will ever change. However, SpyBee's point makes me hesitate from describing myself as atheist these days. What I believe is that we should treat each other as we'd like to be treated; that what goes around comes around. That doesn't require faith or belief - just honest self-awareness and hard fucking work because, as such contradictory creatures who are simultaneously selfish and co-dependent, we inevitably treat each other like shit to one degree or another.

 

Every week we see Prime Ministers question time, with both sides going at it using various methods to make their points. I don't remember anyone begging for the other side to be a bit "nicer" because they aren't helping their own argument.

 

I'm strongly of the persuasion that if we keep pointing out how nuts, the 3 main monotheistic beliefs are, then sooner or late it has to start sinking in.

[Karl_b]

I've only read The Age of Reason once so I may be getting my wires crossed but doesn't Thomas Paine believe that God is manifested in nature? He rejects institutional religion in favour of his own thoughts.

 

This is his creed from the beginning of the book:

 

I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life.

 

I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavouring to make our fellow-creatures happy.

 

But, lest it should be supposed that I believe many other things in addition to these, I shall, in the progress of this work, declare the things I do not believe, and my reasons for not believing them.

 

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.

 

All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.

 

I do not mean by this declaration to condemn those who believe otherwise; they have the same right to their belief as I have to mine. But it is necessary to the happiness of man that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe.

 

Regardless of faith (or the lack of) Paine's words ring true.

[Paul]

Every week we see Prime Ministers question time, with both sides going at it using various methods to make their points. I don't remember anyone begging for the other side to be a bit "nicer" because they aren't helping their own argument.

It's interesting that you draw that parallel. My sincere belief is that our whole political system would be much more engaging (and therefore valid) if the politicians showed some of the more positive human traits like honesty, openness, humility and good manners.

 

You hold strident views and argue them with passion and intelligence, which I admire. However, I don't see why you have to refer to Jesus in a way that you know will offend some people. It seems a fundamental contradiction in terms that you post about the damage done to the world by religion and the hatred and violence it often engenders in some people and yet express that view in a manner that I would regard as being on the same spectrum (albeit a pretty fucking long way down the scale). What's so wrong with being nice to people? I would find your arguments far more thought-provoking without what I perceive to be an underlying tone of derision.

[stringvest]

It's interesting that you draw that parallel. My sincere belief is that our whole political system would be much more engaging (and therefore valid) if the politicians showed some of the more positive human traits like honesty, openness, humility and good manners.

 

You hold strident views and argue them with passion and intelligence, which I admire. However, I don't see why you have to refer to Jesus in a way that you know will offend some people. It seems a fundamental contradiction in terms that you post about the damage done to the world by religion and the hatred and violence it often engenders in some people and yet express that view in a manner that I would regard as being on the same spectrum (albeit a pretty fucking long way down the scale). What's so wrong with being nice to people? I would find your arguments far more thought-provoking without what I perceive to be an underlying tone of derision.

 

amen to that.

[Strontium]

I agree with the general thrust of Tom's first post, which is a point I've made on here dozens of times. I don't understand why some atheists mock, bait and even abuse people who believe in God.

 

 

I don't agree with that Paul. I'm generally careful to attack the belief rather than the believer, and it's usually good humoured and sarcastic rather than mean and mean-spirited.

 

I don't see anything wrong with being robustly critical of an idea or creed, whether it's a political one, a sporting one, a religious one, or whatever.

 

Ultimately I don't think anything you can possibly say about Christianity, Judaism or Islam is as offensive as anything they can come up with: is an atheist calling a religious person deluded really as offensive as a religious person telling an atheist that they'll burn in Hell for eternity? Really?

 

Most people in this country identify as Christians, therefore most people in this country think I am going to suffer forever for not following the same faith as them. I can safely say nothing I have ever written about religion or religious people is as horrible as that.

 

 

I also find it sad that so few atheists offer anything approaching an alternate philosophy with aims as laudable as those of Christianity.

 

 

Atheists don't generally advocate "atheism" as a direct opposition to "Christianity". They're not supposed to do the same things. Christianity presents itself as a philosophy and way of life; atheism isn't a religion, so it doesn't do that. If you're looking for "atheism" to give you a moral path, a laudable aim (and I'd dispute that all of Christianity's aims are laudable) you're looking in the wrong place.

 

 

Adam Spibey's ideas about faith as expressed on here are very interesting in the context of this debate. If I'm paraphrasing him correctly, he has argued that it is a contradiction in terms to be critical of people for believing in an unprovable concept when the same applies to their own perspective (there is no God).

 

 

We've been through this before haven't we? Presenting a positive belief in something that has no proof surely requires a greater leap of faith than not believing in it. It's not hypocritical to be critical of belief in the Loch Ness Monster if you hold a belief that it doesn't exist. Just because two beliefs set against each other are unprovable does not mean that those beliefs are of equal merit.

[Paul]

is an atheist calling a religious person deluded really as offensive as a religious person telling an atheist that they'll burn in Hell for eternity? Really?

 

When are they saying that though? I've never had that said to me. Most people of faith I've ever encountered are quite private about what they believe. That argument is a bit like the one some of the kids with racist parents come out with at school: "They call us honkies so we can call them niggers." Erm, no "they" don't call us honkies except in about three Blaxploitation flicks from the 1970s. And besides, you're basically saying with that argument, "Well he said it first, so I'm just retaliating".

 

In my view, the point of an argument is to defend your own point of view by provoking the opposing perspective to be questioned by the person holding it. In that context, surely one's conduct in an argument is relevant? If you add an extra personal/emotional dimension by the way you express your ideas then the other person is far less likely to listen and so your conduct becomes self-defeating.

 

Most people in this country identify as Christians, therefore most people in this country think I am going to suffer forever for not following the same faith as them. I can safely say nothing I have ever written about religion or religious people is as horrible as that.

 

I'm not sure I'd agree with your use of the word "most". I think the nature of faith has altered immeasurably over the last fifty years. Certainly the number of people regularly involved in organised acts of worship is shrinking all the time. Also I have rarely encountered people who believe in an absolutely literal interpretation of the Bible. However, despite that, I don't think people dwell on the nature of disbelievers after death; faith is a personal thing that's more about life than about death in my experience of it from talking to other people. Faith is not a means to judge others, but a path for individuals to follow.

 

Atheists don't generally advocate "atheism" as a direct opposition to "Christianity". They're not supposed to do the same things. Christianity presents itself as a philosophy and way of life; atheism isn't a religion, so it doesn't do that. If you're looking for "atheism" to give you a moral path, a laudable aim (and I'd dispute that all of Christianity's aims are laudable) you're looking in the wrong place.

If atheism isn't a belief, it's astounding how much time and energy many atheists expend in espousing their views - and I guess that's at the heart of my point: why do you care so much about what other people think and feel if they're not directly impacting upon you?

 

The usual argument is the one about atrocities commited in God's name. However, I don't accept that even a large minority of religious people perpetrate anti-social acts (and worse) in the name of religion. I think the overwhelming majority of people who have a faith are just ordinary people. It's the nutters who give it a bad name. To me it's like that old chestnut that violent films prompt violent actions simply because one nutter did something abhorent after watching a movie. It's a huge leap to dismiss the views of billions because of the actions of thousands.

 

We've been through this before haven't we? Presenting a positive belief in something that has no proof surely requires a greater leap of faith than not believing in it. It's not hypocritical to be critical of belief in the Loch Ness Monster if you hold a belief that it doesn't exist. Just because two beliefs set against each other are unprovable does not mean that those beliefs are of equal merit.

 

I would never use the word hypocrisy in this context as it's too strong and it's also insulting. However, your last point is an entirely subjective one in the absence of any concrete facts. And that's the point. Strictly speaking, atheism is an impossibility unless it is a belief system for answering the big questions in life. And if that's what it is, then surely, in the context of your criticisms of the negatives associated with religion that you have (rightly) criticised, does it not correlate that you are advocating something more positive? Surely that is implicit in your criticisms? If you are against something, you must be for something else - unless you believe in complete chaos, which I know you don't.

[Section_31]

Paul ruling. I can't be arsed with these threads anymore for those exact reasons. Just because I can't prove the existence of a prime mover (and if I could I'd have nobel prizes coming out of my arse) doesn't make me a tool, thanks very much.

[Catch22]

Atheism is not a belief system.

 

There is no evidence for any God.

There is a great deal of evidence that there is no God, mostly in the fact that all the sacred texts are a clear function of human thought at that time.

We have moved on massively in all areas of human thought from those times be it geography (where are the mentions of the Americas in the bible?) to physics,medicine,chemistry,evolution, etc,etc

 

An Almighty being would know all this advanced thought but somehow chose not to reveal it in any of the sacred texts.

 

They are a work of limited human minds at the time they are written which is why there are so many differing religions & all of them have vast swathes of thought that we now know to be nonsense.

 

A religous person who got on a aeroplane or had an operation based upon the advice of his spiritual charlatan rather than an aeronautical engineer or a surgeon would be considered mad & in fact, very few of them do so.

 

It is quite correct to link a belief in a monotheistic God to fairies at the bottom of the garden.

If they find that offensive they then should rexamine what they are doing

(If a Dr. tells me i am fat & need to lose weight for my health he is not being insulting & if i find the idea of being fat insulting, i should lose some weight)

 

& it is further intellectual strength of athetism in that it acknowledges that we are but insignificant animals who are on this planet for an incredibly short space of time.

That is an adult belief rather than the childlike misapprenhsion that an individual is the centre of the universe & has a direct line to an all powerful being.

 

From that lots of differing moral standpoints are possible (as is shown by the completely different socio-economic views of Lupin,Monty,SD & myself) but they can be argued over in an intelligent adult manner (those on both the right & left who claim that God supports their view of economics are not arguing in that fashion)

[Paul]

Atheism is not a belief system.

 

There is no evidence for any God.

There is a great deal of evidence that there is no God, mostly in the fact that all the sacred texts are a clear function of human thought at that time.

We have moved on massively in all areas of human thought from those times be it geography (where are the mentions of the Americas in the bible?) to physics,medicine,chemistry,evolution, etc,etc

 

An Almighty being would know all this advanced thought but somehow chose not to reveal it in any of the sacred texts.

 

They are a work of limited human minds at the time they are written which is why there are so many differing religions & all of them have vast swathes of thought that we now know to be nonsense.

 

A religous person who got on a aeroplane or had an operation based upon the advice of his spiritual charlatan rather than an aeronautical engineer or a surgeon would be considered mad & in fact, very few of the do.

 

It is quite correct to link a belief in a monotheistic God to fairies at the bottom of the garden.

If they find that offensive they then should rexamine what they are doing

(If a Dr. tells me i am fat & need to lose weight for my health he is not being insulting & if i find the idea of being fat insulting, i should lose some weight)

 

& it is further intellectual strength of athetism in that it acknowledges that we are but insignificant animals who are on this planet for an incredibly short space of time.

 

That is an adult belief rather than the childlike mispapprenhsion that an individual is the centre of the universe & has a direct line to an all powerful being.

 

From that lots of differing moral standpoints are possible (as is shown by the completely different socio-economic views of Lupin,Monty,SD & myself) but they can be argued over in an intelligent adult manner (those on both the right & left who claim that God supports their view of economics are not arguing in that fashion)

That it is a belief is simple fact: one cannot prove there is no God. However, I'd certainly agree that it's a broad church (pun intended).

[Section_31]

Atheism is not a belief system.

 

There is no evidence for any God.

There is a great deal of evidence that there is no God, mostly in the fact that all the sacred texts are a clear function of human thought at that time.

We have moved on massively in all areas of human thought from those times be it geography (where are the mentions of the Americas in the bible?) to physics,medicine,chemistry,evolution, etc,etc

 

An Almighty being would know all this advanced thought but somehow chose not to reveal it in any of the sacred texts.

 

 

 

There is no evidence againts the existance of a prime mover though Catch, you're talking about man-made religions and interpretations, I'm talking about an origin.

 

My views stem purely from the fact I cannot accept that order can emerge from chaos, whether that be gravitational and atomic force order or order in the natural 'real' world. No matter how many millions of years have passed an no matter how many random events may of occured, I can not accept that nature merely established itself and stood up on its feet with all its working parts (when the first asexual being became sexual, how come both male and female evolved at the same time? How did creatures survive before (a) blood coagulation and (b) an immune system, had evolved through natural selection?)

 

The two fundamental questions which led to religion still remain unanswered, i.e where did the universe come from (what was there before the big bang and set it in motion) and (b) what is the nature of consciousness (a soul as the religions would call it)

 

I'm not saying these questions won't be answered by science, but until they are, I don't see how anyone could hold a view other than that of an agnostic at the very least, and I don't see how anyonw could be certain no such creative force exists.

[Catch22]

That it is a belief is simple fact: one cannot prove there is no God. However, I'd certainly agree that it's a broad church (pun intended).

 

 

 

One doesnt have to prove there is no God for athethism not to be a belief.

 

There is no evidence for it.

There is a great deal of evidence that all the sacred texts were the work of human minds from their time which shows that are human fictions.

The fact that every pre-scientific culture comes up with its own but different creation & religous myth.

(It is the last 2 that are key- if there was any advanced non-human like knowledge repeated in differing cultures' texts then agnosticism would be legitimate but there isn't)

 

There is no evidence that JKRowling's whole Harry Potter world doesn't exist.

There is clear evidence that it is a fiction from a human mind.

I would not say that saying it doesnt exist is a belief system.

[JRD7]

It's interesting that you draw that parallel. My sincere belief is that our whole political system would be much more engaging (and therefore valid) if the politicians showed some of the more positive human traits like honesty, openness, humility and good manners.

 

You hold strident views and argue them with passion and intelligence, which I admire. However, I don't see why you have to refer to Jesus in a way that you know will offend some people. It seems a fundamental contradiction in terms that you post about the damage done to the world by religion and the hatred and violence it often engenders in some people and yet express that view in a manner that I would regard as being on the same spectrum (albeit a pretty fucking long way down the scale). What's so wrong with being nice to people? I would find your arguments far more thought-provoking without what I perceive to be an underlying tone of derision.

 

The point I was trying to make was that in the arena of political discourse and/or a general forum for ideas nobody either asks for is offered any additional respect because either, A) they honestly believe what they say and genuinely think it will help the country, or, B) They may be offended if you point out the gaping holes in their arguments.

 

If for example the PM said he wanted to tackle the financial crisis be exporting halal meat to Israel and Tikka-masala to Bangladesh, because, not only did he believe it to be true, but he'd had a personal visit from angel Gabriel/lady of Lourdes/lady of Fatima (Delete as applicable), then what would you think? What would the religious people think?

 

I was just trying to highlight the different standards people hold their own beliefs in when they compare them to the belief of others. I think it was Dawkins who said we are atheists to most gods, and we're atheists because the same refutations that religious people hold to any other religion holds just as true to the others.

 

Until people are forced to think objectively about what and why they believe in magic stories, then we'll all be dictated to by dogma forever. We've been far too soft for far too long. We need to remove religion from the public arena if we're to have any chance of saving ourselves and the planet.

 

Keep an eye on the woman over his shoulder.

[YOUTUBE]_7h08RDYA5E[/YOUTUBE]

 

 

I'm sorry, but if people can prove me wrong I am happy to follow the evidence and change my opinion.

 

I've asked both Tom and G. Richards for further evidence of the existence in Jesus, which they both claimed was in abundance (if I remember rightly). Whether you, me, the Pope or Arch Bishop of Cunterbury like it or not, the myth (that's my belief and I'll be offended if you disagree) of Jesus is a copy of numerous other god myths from hundreds of years and millennia prior to the arrival of Jesus. That is an indisputable fact.

 

I've done a mountain of research into religion for outside study I'm involved in, and it's a fucking pain in the arse to watch "The West" verus "The Miidle East" involved in some supernatural, cosmic battle between good and evil to decide who has the best skydaddy. It's tedious and tiresome. We live in society where Tony and george believe they've got the go ahead from the great cloud dweller to go and illegally invade Iraq.

 

Unfortunately for relgion is the fact we can't get to the fundamentalists whilst there are so many moderates saying wishy-washy things about the same god.

 

Finally, a couple of vids for the "eye deniers" amongst us.

 

[YOUTUBE]rUOpaFVgKPw[/YOUTUBE]

 

[YOUTUBE]sb2fjftZrkE&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]