Heaven is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark
18 May 2011 | 11:52 AM
#61
Scooby Regular
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,832
Likes: 0
From: Epsom
And here's another one. Why can I not believe in the notion of universal, inclusive, brotherly love and reject, for example, turn the other cheek? Why can I not apply conditions to somebody elses teachings? I am questioning some of Christ's teachings? And? And WTF has the Son of God to do with it? Son of man, was he? Maybe.
18 May 2011 | 11:52 AM
#62
Scooby Senior
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 20,878
Likes: 51
From: Overdosed on LCD
18 May 2011 | 12:15 PM
#63
Thread Starter
Scooby Regular
Joined: Aug 1999
Posts: 722
Likes: 0
“History does not record anywhere at any time a religion that has any rational basis. Religion is a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up to the unknown without help. But like dandruff, most people do have a religion and spend time and money on it and seem to derive considerable pleasure from fiddling with it.”
- Robert Heinlein
- Robert Heinlein
18 May 2011 | 12:19 PM
#64
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 15,633
Likes: 21
From: K
Why not be a humanist then? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism)
yep, just another god botherer, they always let the mask slip eventually
the world must seem a much more comfortable place when you can "outsource" everything that confuses you and you don't understand to someone else
I thought the exchange below summed it up brilliantly-- it was on a thread about Haiti a year or too ago
I found it strange this morning on the news when they interviewed a large group of Christian missionaries LEAVING Haiti! 
I thought they would be needed now more than ever to help out.
Not sure what they actually do to be honest, but I thought they would be the kind of people to help rebuild communities etc. I guess it's that bad out there that there isn't anything they can do yet.
I thought they would be needed now more than ever to help out.
Not sure what they actually do to be honest, but I thought they would be the kind of people to help rebuild communities etc. I guess it's that bad out there that there isn't anything they can do yet.
18 May 2011 | 12:33 PM
#66
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
From: Home
OK, of course you can agree with some aspects of and reject others, but that is not what you said, you said you "believe in the teachings of Christ".
That puts quite a different slant on it. Your post inferred (deliberately or accidentally, only you can know that) that you accept that teachings, which leads to a conclusion that you also believe he is the son of God. That is simply not the same, as you now claim, that you think some of the things he said are ok.
Anyone can claim that, being good to others is not a bad thing to say, but then again, he wasn't the first.
As for science, this is not applicable to you per se, but it still stands, how can someone believe in Jesus/God and science? As we say in the IT world, they are mutually exclusive keywords
You may have known what you are talking about, but your post didn't infer that, and no matter what you think you meant, two people have inferred essentially the same thing from it, so far from jumping to wild conclusions, perhaps you should consider how you word your posts (unless your intention is deliberately to mislead, in which case you are TDW.......)
Geezer
That puts quite a different slant on it. Your post inferred (deliberately or accidentally, only you can know that) that you accept that teachings, which leads to a conclusion that you also believe he is the son of God. That is simply not the same, as you now claim, that you think some of the things he said are ok.
Anyone can claim that, being good to others is not a bad thing to say, but then again, he wasn't the first.
As for science, this is not applicable to you per se, but it still stands, how can someone believe in Jesus/God and science? As we say in the IT world, they are mutually exclusive keywords
You may have known what you are talking about, but your post didn't infer that, and no matter what you think you meant, two people have inferred essentially the same thing from it, so far from jumping to wild conclusions, perhaps you should consider how you word your posts
(unless your intention is deliberately to mislead, in which case you are TDW.......)Geezer
18 May 2011 | 12:42 PM
#67
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
From: Home
Why not be a humanist then? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism)
18 May 2011 | 12:59 PM
#68
Scooby Senior
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
From: North Wales
I would go so far as to say that Christians have changed Christ's message to take in nicities from elsewhere to hide the deeply unpleasant undertones it contains.
It's still basically "do as I say or else!"
Geezer
It's still basically "do as I say or else!"
Geezer
18 May 2011 | 01:21 PM
#70
Scooby Regular
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
I don't understand the contempt that these more active atheists (such as Dawkins etc) seem to have for religion (Christianity anyway). In their zeal they seem to make it their business what other people think. An evangelical atheist!
18 May 2011 | 01:22 PM
#71
The trouble with religion is that you can pick it to bits if you are of a mind to do so. Almost from the first page it falls on its ****.
The book of Genesis.
Chapter 1 verse 26
26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness"
How many Gods are there? Or is this a convenient equivalent of the Royal 'We'.
Chapter 1 verses 27 and 31
27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.
Chapter 2 verse 2
2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work
So God has made man and had a rest.
Chapter 2 verse 7
7 Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
Hang on a minute, He'd already done that 2 days earlier. So which one of these two guys is Adam?
Which bits do you choose to believe?
The book of Genesis.
Chapter 1 verse 26
26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness"
How many Gods are there? Or is this a convenient equivalent of the Royal 'We'.
Chapter 1 verses 27 and 31
27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.
Chapter 2 verse 2
2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work
So God has made man and had a rest.
Chapter 2 verse 7
7 Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
Hang on a minute, He'd already done that 2 days earlier. So which one of these two guys is Adam?
Which bits do you choose to believe?
18 May 2011 | 01:27 PM
#72
Scooby Regular
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
18 May 2011 | 01:41 PM
#73
Scooby Senior
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 20,878
Likes: 51
From: Overdosed on LCD
I'm offering this service in the UK if anyone's interested. We had a believer a few years ago, maybe he's still around.
http://www.eternal-earthbound-pets.com/
http://www.eternal-earthbound-pets.com/
18 May 2011 | 01:57 PM
#74
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 15,633
Likes: 21
From: K
and each "version" is all or nothing
i.e. no Catholic "lite", no Methodist "lite" -- clear
I am obviously excuding the CofE in this, a religion who's only membership criteria is the availability to man the village fete cake stall
i.e. no Catholic "lite", no Methodist "lite" -- clear
I am obviously excuding the CofE in this, a religion who's only membership criteria is the availability to man the village fete cake stall
18 May 2011 | 02:01 PM
#75
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 15,633
Likes: 21
From: K
I'm offering this service in the UK if anyone's interested. We had a believer a few years ago, maybe he's still around.
http://www.eternal-earthbound-pets.com/
http://www.eternal-earthbound-pets.com/
http://creationmuseum.org/whats-here.../#dinosaur-den
one of the most visited museums in America -- where you can marvel at how ancient man mingled with dinosaurs
18 May 2011 | 02:10 PM
#76
And the SN holier than thou brigade haven't flamed you
Yeah, when you get buried the rats will get at you in a matter of weeks.
Here's another one
http://techleash.com/wp-content/uplo...-Michael11.jpg
18 May 2011 | 02:32 PM
#77
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
From: Home
Methodism falls within Anglicanism and Anglicanism's mother Church is the Church of England. If you exclude C of E, you exclude Methodism.
18 May 2011 | 03:08 PM
#78
Scooby Regular
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
All the statements culled from here and there in a vain effort to prove something mean nothing as well as all the big words and examples from different beliefs from all the writings and religions etc.
What is really important is that we are free to follow our own ideas. If you are really concerned then you have to honestly follow your own conscience and no one can blame you for that.
Very often all the posturings one way or the other are purely to bolster up ones own beliefs because the person concerned is not fully certain about it himself. Running other peoples' creeds down proves nothing.
Religious arguments never come to a successful conclusion because everyone is preaching to the converted and many are just looking for an excuse anyway.
It will always be a contentious subject with no convincing answer and therefore is best left alone.
Les
What is really important is that we are free to follow our own ideas. If you are really concerned then you have to honestly follow your own conscience and no one can blame you for that.
Very often all the posturings one way or the other are purely to bolster up ones own beliefs because the person concerned is not fully certain about it himself. Running other peoples' creeds down proves nothing.
Religious arguments never come to a successful conclusion because everyone is preaching to the converted and many are just looking for an excuse anyway.
It will always be a contentious subject with no convincing answer and therefore is best left alone.
Les
18 May 2011 | 03:15 PM
#79
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
From: Home
I think the biggest challenge for most people is to make the distinction between literalist (fundamental) belief and speculative, meditative spirituality where one or more of the traditions is the focal point. I was a hard-line atheist but, I'm starting to mellow a bit now. I see the benefits of prayer, allegory, community (not the collective) and spiritual nourishment.
Last edited by JTaylor; 18 May 2011 at 05:21 PM. Reason: Spelling.
18 May 2011 | 04:59 PM
#81
Scooby Regular
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,832
Likes: 0
From: Epsom
Why do people frown on any destructive belief system Les? What has the Enlightenment taught us? That it IS better to discard outdated and harmful beliefs, to allow the flowering of human thought and spirit, not to manacle it to outdated antiquated harmful controlling ideas, and to allow our future generations to think for themselves not have ridiculous ideas "preached" to them
Practices thousand of years ago are now considered barbaric for good reason. Lets apply those same judgements to these ridiculous delusions
Hope that helps
Practices thousand of years ago are now considered barbaric for good reason. Lets apply those same judgements to these ridiculous delusions
Hope that helps
Last edited by warrenm2; 18 May 2011 at 05:00 PM.
18 May 2011 | 05:22 PM
#82
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 15,633
Likes: 21
From: K
18 May 2011 | 05:55 PM
#83
Scooby Regular
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
It's about promoting atheism and to do that Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennet et al have to take a hard-line, otherwise their voices would be reduced to a footnote. Hitchens goes so far as to call himself an anti-theist, rather than an atheist. The problem they have is not being able to reference 'God' in the poetic or notional sense as the theists tend to misappropriate their use of the word either through ignorance or mischief. Hawking's "mind of God" and Einstein's "God does not play dice" have been hijacked and offered-up as examples of these scientists' belief in 'God' when in fact they were talking about the God of Spinoza - a pantheistic, metaphorical (rather than personal) God.
I wonder sometimes if their own egos are so bloated they think they can be God himself.
I think the biggest challenge for most people is to make the distinction between literalist (fundamental) belief and speculative, meditative spirituality where one or more of the traditions is the focal point. I was a hard-line atheist but, I'm starting to mellow a bit now. I see the benefits of prayer, allegory, community (not the collective) and spiritual nourishment.
If you take the Bible as symbolic...as signs...pointers...then it does not clash with science and arguments are pointless.
Dawkins etc, Hawkings for all their intellect really are the most absolute philistines in some ways...really no clue.
Last edited by tony de wonderful; 18 May 2011 at 05:59 PM.
18 May 2011 | 06:48 PM
#84
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
From: Home
They are Scientists. I don't see what business my (or yours) religious beliefs or practices are to them.
I wonder sometimes if their own egos are so bloated they think they can be God himself.
No it's not a choice between literalism and mysticism but literalism and symbolism for the most part. Most Christians would agree that the Bible is not to be taken literally...that is the mistake of fundamentalist whether they be Christian or Muslim...a stupid mistake, but strangely the 'militant atheists' of our age don't seem to understand the difference and attack literalism as if that IS religion....a big straw man.
If you take the Bible as symbolic...as signs...pointers...then it does not clash with science and arguments are pointless.
Dawkins etc, Hawkings for all their intellect really are the most absolute philistines in some ways...really no clue.
I wonder sometimes if their own egos are so bloated they think they can be God himself.
No it's not a choice between literalism and mysticism but literalism and symbolism for the most part. Most Christians would agree that the Bible is not to be taken literally...that is the mistake of fundamentalist whether they be Christian or Muslim...a stupid mistake, but strangely the 'militant atheists' of our age don't seem to understand the difference and attack literalism as if that IS religion....a big straw man.
If you take the Bible as symbolic...as signs...pointers...then it does not clash with science and arguments are pointless.
Dawkins etc, Hawkings for all their intellect really are the most absolute philistines in some ways...really no clue.
18 May 2011 | 06:51 PM
#85
Scooby Regular
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Science become sciencism.
18 May 2011 | 07:10 PM
#86
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
From: Home
* as in the four authors/scientists/public intellectuals I mentioned in post 79.
Last edited by JTaylor; 18 May 2011 at 07:24 PM. Reason: Misquoted Einstein. It's deeply religious, not very.
18 May 2011 | 07:17 PM
#87
Scooby Regular
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
It's within the remit of scientists to challenge delusion and promote free inquiry and I'd say, on the whole, they've done a good job of that. I do think though, that people need to be careful of their atheism leading to spiritual bankruptcy, nihilism, materialism and so on. I think Spinoza had it about right and one of his fans, Einstein, who talked of being "a very religious non-believer".
Anyway like I said religious 'beliefs' as metaphor and symbolism are not the domain of science anyway.
18 May 2011 | 07:37 PM
#88
Scooby Senior
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
From: North Wales
Most Christians would agree that the Bible is not to be taken literally...that is the mistake of fundamentalist whether they be Christian or Muslim...a stupid mistake, but strangely the 'militant atheists' of our age don't seem to understand the difference and attack literalism as if that IS religion....a big straw man.
It's easy to say it's allegory and metaphor now, but 2000+ years ago it wasn't. Hell, these people believed in giants, dragons, all sorts. The Bible would have seemed very real to them.
At best, the Bible describes real events in an allegorical manner, but those events were believed to have been caused by God.
Geezer
18 May 2011 | 07:46 PM
#89
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
From: Home
I don't really see criticism of metaphor and symbolism happening - all four of the authors I mentioned attack (and it is quite agressive (and funny)) literalism and also praise the aesthetic, the poetry, the allegory - Hitchens (who thinks all religion is complete shît) comments on the humility of attributing success to God by traditionally religious people. The really savage attacks are reserved for creationists. Quite right.
18 May 2011 | 08:05 PM
#90
Scooby Regular
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
It's probably not on but, it gets tongues wagging. Promotes discussion around the subject and that, I think, is a good thing.
I don't really see criticism of metaphor and symbolism happening - all four of the authors I mentioned attack (and it is quite agressive (and funny)) literalism and also praise the aesthetic, the poetry, the allegory - Hitchens (who thinks all religion is complete shît) comments on the humility of attributing success to God by traditionally religious people. The really savage attacks are reserved for creationists. Quite right.
I don't really see criticism of metaphor and symbolism happening - all four of the authors I mentioned attack (and it is quite agressive (and funny)) literalism and also praise the aesthetic, the poetry, the allegory - Hitchens (who thinks all religion is complete shît) comments on the humility of attributing success to God by traditionally religious people. The really savage attacks are reserved for creationists. Quite right.
Stuff I have read by Hawkins and Dawkins is dreadful...it's the narrow materialism of someone whose spent all their life studying science, and have no knowledge or appreciation of other aspects of knowledge or wisdom.