God

[tonea2003]

absolutely you take you mums word, that don't make it right though, however honest and truthful she is, and i'm sure she is.

are you and your family going to some other "reputable" sources to corroborate what you have already been told or is the one good enough?

again i struggle to understand why without proof people have blind faith.
you wouldn't do in anything else you encounter. why this?

That's not true. Most beliefs you have are based on yur own observances (which are not necessarily true) or information gleaned from other sources. very little is absolutely proveable. eg City are a better club than Utd - proveable?

so if i said to you water is not liquid, have faith in me it really isn't
would you believe me? course you wouldn't.
on city being better than united, well that depends on what? winning trophys?
clearly not as we have facts to prove it.

 

[Bigga]

Im technically a Catholic. Do I believe God created the world in 7 days? Pigs fly. Do I believe that Jesus made 5 loaves of bread and 3 glasses of wine (or whatever it was) feed hundreds of folk? Thats just silly. Do I believe Christ rose from the dead? No.

Sorry, mate, but I'm going to dissect some of this.

"7 days" depends on whether you take it 'literally'! Do you mean the definition of a 'day' in modern meaning or the Biblical meaning? Do you mean 7 days as in 24 hrs a day? Or do you mean 7 million years?

A loaf of bread can feed hundreds, of course it can. 3 glasses of wine can be given to drink between the same amount? Of course it can! You need to understand the concept of 'sharing' the loaf and wine. Nobody would be taking a 'slice' of bread or a mouthful of wine. I'm not particularly religious, but I've been to church. As a non drinker, I chose to let the wine edge past my lips that I got the merest taste of it (bleurgh!). That it fell onto my tongue and I absorbed it counts as a 'drink'. A pinch of bread would be similar in concept to 'feeding'.

As for 'rising from the dead', there are descriptions of different types of coma, all the time. From 24 hours onwards.

All of it what you doubt is feasible. And that's the scientific view!

Oh, and Damo, thanks for posting that piece. It's bloody brilliant and a mindblower! I've understood many of the ideas explored in that piece of writing, but to think that we're one person blew a gasket in my brain!!

Excellent stuff!

 

[Bluecifer]

I'd say that most beliefs are handed to you by your parents/peers and only when you start to think for yourself do you question things. I still think that most peoples beliefs are the same as their parents.

Brought up in a house that dislikes god? I bet you will believe the same thing.

Inculcation is the only reason religion still exists.
Dislikes God?
Refusing to believe an absolute fallacy is not dislike, it is merely disinterest!
My parents refused to inculcate me with their ideas, and said it was up to me to sort out, without evidence to the contrary and someone chipping away at you, the only sensible course is Atheism.

 

[markbmcfc]

Im technically a Catholic. Do I believe God created the world in 7 days? Pigs fly. Do I believe that Jesus made 5 loaves of bread and 3 glasses of wine (or whatever it was) feed hundreds of folk? Thats just silly. Do I believe Christ rose from the dead? No.

Sorry, mate, but I'm going to dissect some of this.

"7 days" depends on whether you take it 'literally'! Do you mean the definition of a 'day' in modern meaning or the Biblical meaning? Do you mean 7 days as in 24 hrs a day? Or do you mean 7 million years?

A loaf of bread can feed hundreds, of course it can. 3 glasses of wine can be given to drink between the same amount? Of course it can! You need to understand the concept of 'sharing' the loaf and wine. Nobody would be taking a 'slice' of bread or a mouthful of wine. I'm not particularly religious, but I've been to church. As a non drinker, I chose to let the wine edge past my lips that I got the merest taste of it (bleurgh!). That it fell onto my tongue and I absorbed it counts as a 'drink'. A pinch of bread would be similar in concept to 'feeding'.

As for 'rising from the dead', there are descriptions of different types of coma, all the time. From 24 hours onwards.

All of it what you doubt is feasible. And that's the scientific view!

Oh, and Damo, thanks for posting that piece. It's bloody brilliant and a mindblower! I've understood many of the ideas explored in that piece of writing, but to think that we're one person blew a gasket in my brain!!

Excellent stuff!

No I know what you are saying Bigga and I agree. It does all depend on how literal you want to be.

Im referring to how it is taught to you in a Roman Catholic school. The way they teach it, or at least how I was taught, was in such a literal way that they were almost saying it was 'magic' without saying the word. You are taught at school that the five loaves of bread fed hundreds and they all felt full, with food to spare. Yes you could feed 5 loaves of bread to 200 people, they'd be on crumbs.

You are taught that these things Jesus supposedly did, were done by miracle. Miracle is a word often used in the Catholic church. They dont say Christ was in a coma, they say he rose from the dead, how? 'It was a miracle'. I take what you are saying, but ive based my comments and beliefs from how I was taught Religious Studies in Catholic school.

 

[Bigga]

I'd say that most beliefs are handed to you by your parents/peers and only when you start to think for yourself do you question things. I still think that most peoples beliefs are the same as their parents.

Brought up in a house that dislikes god? I bet you will believe the same thing.

Inculcation is the only reason religion still exists.
Dislikes God?
Refusing to believe an absolute fallacy is not dislike, it is merely disinterest!
My parents refused to inculcate me with their ideas, and said it was up to me to sort out, without evidence to the contrary and someone chipping away at you, the only sensible course is Atheism.

"Sensible"??

What the fook does that mean?

I find this condescending attitude the main problem with 'atheists'. They think they know something more than others, when that is simply not true. As proven with Einstein, some of the greatest thinkers in the world have a view that a pro-religious, in some way.

This "sensible" attitude is a reason why I cannot find a decent non-believer to have discussions with.

 

[BimboBob]

Inculcation is the only reason religion still exists.
Dislikes God?
Refusing to believe an absolute fallacy is not dislike, it is merely disinterest!
My parents refused to inculcate me with their ideas, and said it was up to me to sort out, without evidence to the contrary and someone chipping away at you, the only sensible course is Atheism.

"Sensible"??

What the fook does that mean?

I find this condescending attitude the main problem with 'atheists'. They think they know something more than others, when that is simply not true. As proven with Einstein, some of the greatest thinkers in the world have a view that a pro-religious, in some way.

This "sensible" attitude is a reason why I cannot find a decent non-believer to have discussions with.

Have to agree with you Bigga. Nothing is ever cut and dried. Nothing can be proved either way so it is all down to one mans, or womans, thoughts and ideas. If someone has a big belief in god then that's their perogative. If someone decides to follow a god then it really is their choice.

My problem with the above statement comes when people are forced into beliefs. I see a lot of people in this world like this and it makes me sad.

 

[Bigga]

Sorry, mate, but I'm going to dissect some of this.

"7 days" depends on whether you take it 'literally'! Do you mean the definition of a 'day' in modern meaning or the Biblical meaning? Do you mean 7 days as in 24 hrs a day? Or do you mean 7 million years?

A loaf of bread can feed hundreds, of course it can. 3 glasses of wine can be given to drink between the same amount? Of course it can! You need to understand the concept of 'sharing' the loaf and wine. Nobody would be taking a 'slice' of bread or a mouthful of wine. I'm not particularly religious, but I've been to church. As a non drinker, I chose to let the wine edge past my lips that I got the merest taste of it (bleurgh!). That it fell onto my tongue and I absorbed it counts as a 'drink'. A pinch of bread would be similar in concept to 'feeding'.

As for 'rising from the dead', there are descriptions of different types of coma, all the time. From 24 hours onwards.

All of it what you doubt is feasible. And that's the scientific view!

Oh, and Damo, thanks for posting that piece. It's bloody brilliant and a mindblower! I've understood many of the ideas explored in that piece of writing, but to think that we're one person blew a gasket in my brain!!

Excellent stuff!

No I know what you are saying Bigga and I agree. It does all depend on how literal you want to be.

Im referring to how it is taught to you in a Roman Catholic school. The way they teach it, or at least how I was taught, was in such a literal way that they were almost saying it was 'magic' without saying the word. You are taught at school that the five loaves of bread fed hundreds and they all felt full, with food to spare. Yes you could feed 5 loaves of bread to 200 people, they'd be on crumbs.

You are taught that these things Jesus supposedly did, were done by miracle. Miracle is a word often used in the Catholic church. They dont say Christ was in a coma, they say he rose from the dead, how? 'It was a miracle'. I take what you are saying, but ive based my comments and beliefs from how I was taught Religious Studies in Catholic school.

That's fair enough, bud. As I have never been taught in a Catholic school, I guess my license for thought has reign of interpretation. I supposed I'd like to add the 'loaf' situation is also symbolic.

I know you know this(so this is for others), but the bread represents the body(and the wine, the blood) and to take it into yourself is accepting God that is all you need. Hence the 'feeling full'.

Well, that's my take on it!!

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Blasphema, stone him to death.

He didn't say Jehovah though.

As someone who has been "religious" but who isn't now, I can see both sides of the coin.

As someone said, the ancient civilizations couldn't explain the world around them in terms of science so created and worshipped deities who (in their minds) controlled their destinies. It's interesting to me how so many, geographically separated, diverse cultures came to more or less the same conclusion many thousands of years ago so you assume that there is something in the human psyche. how this came to be is anyone's guess; was it an external influence (e.g. aliens) or was it natural?

The first supposed adherent of mono-theism (belief in a single god) was Abraham, who is both a Jewish & Muslim prophet and who originated from what is modern day Iraq. It's difficult to date the actual writing of the Old Testament but it seems to date from about 1200BC (some parts may be a lot earlier) and represents a codification of oral traditions and stories.

The Jewish sages, while accepting the OT as a genuine and correct history of the world and the development of their religious tradition, built up a substantial body of work that was based on interpretation of that basic text. So, for example, the simple biblical commandment that prohibited stewing a kid in its mothers milk was built into a massive and complex set of requirements around not mixing meat and milk products.

The growth of Christianity was driven by disciples who, while accepting the general facts of the OT, argued that it eas not necessary to follow all the rules in their interpretation of the Jewish religion. Islam followed about 600 years later, although it's thought the Arabian tribes already worshipped a god called Allah. Hinduism probably dates from around the time the OT was written and Buddhism came about 1000 years later.

As well as being an explanation for the natural wonders of the world, God is also a useful moral social tool, enforcing the code of "good" behaviour over "bad" with the promise/threat of heaven and hell.

Observant Jews (and I assume Muslims and fundamentalist Christians) believe the stories of the OT implicitly, rather than seeing them as allegorical. Many reject scientific findings about the age of the world or other natural phenomena in favour of a total and unwavering belief in creationism and the hand of god in all matters (although they also believe in free will). The problem with this is the absolute belief that one is somehow "right" and everyone else is wrong and that your actions (often based on an interpretation of religious texts) are supported by God.

 

[Damocles]

I have pretty strong views on theism and am highly scientific, as some may have already read.

However, empirical science is the way in which we choose to define our reality with the differences between facts and myth. Those presenting an argument that a belief in a God-like figrue is akin to a belief in fairies are just plain wrong.

Theoretical physics, especially that pertaining to space, is full of theories based on very little evidence. Black holes, for example, were never really observed until recently yet they were predicted by various models of the laws of the universe. A lot of phenomena that we take for granted as 'true' is stuff that is predicted but cannot be observed. Dark matter is a particularly annoying thing that is pretty recent and in my opinion, seems to be based more around necessity to fit a system rather than observational evidence.

Anyway, my point of this, is that none of us can really comprehend the Universe as it is. The signs point to a single point in space that started the Big Bang effect, but the recent discovery that the Universe's expansion is actually speeding up has thrown a few doubts into the model.

Even if you personally believe the Big Bang/dark matter model, this still doesn't answer the fundamental question of how the moment of creation came to be. Saying that there is no God is as much a leap of faith as saying that there is. The only real answer is that we have no evidence either way to suggest a true theory.

 

[tonea2003]

Inculcation is the only reason religion still exists.
Dislikes God?
Refusing to believe an absolute fallacy is not dislike, it is merely disinterest!
My parents refused to inculcate me with their ideas, and said it was up to me to sort out, without evidence to the contrary and someone chipping away at you, the only sensible course is Atheism.

"Sensible"??

What the fook does that mean?

I find this condescending attitude the main problem with 'atheists'. They think they know something more than others, when that is simply not true. As proven with Einstein, some of the greatest thinkers in the world have a view that a pro-religious, in some way.

This "sensible" attitude is a reason why I cannot find a decent non-believer to have discussions with.

you can try me and see if i'm decent enough to discuss why i should believe