and that’s the point; the interpretation of the falling apple is the luxury of the religious -- an apple falling needs no interpretation

to me religion is essentially an incredibly selfish “thing” – and abdicates ones responsibility to ones fellow man

it’s the “it’s all about me” culture that really winds me up

 

I don't follow.

 

Well it did and still does need interprating otherwise we wouldn't have religion and philosophy and science and all that those fields of inquiry have revealed. We wouldn't be having this coversation. You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that because your brain has evolved in a certain way, other brains have, too. They haven't, hence some people are designed, made, randomly compiled in a way that allows them to access their 'truth' through religion or philosphy or science or, if you're really lucky, all three. Religion doesn't have to be taken out of the equation in secular society. In fact I would go so far as to say that overly agressive secularism may damage society.

This was the part I was unsure of.

 

because people spend too much time talking to christ/god etc (about themselves usually) when they should be talking to the person sitting next to them

because christ/god does not exist, but the person sitting next to them most certainly does

 

Ok, although I don't know who these people are - they certainly aren't in my life. People that "talk to God?" "Too much?" When other people are "sitting next them?!!" Crackpots and fundamentalists? Who are these people you talk of, Hodgy?!

 

if you can't see my point, fine, you just keep talking to the fairies and you'll be OK

 

Ok.

 

I think that depends upon the religion.

Christianity stresses the conscience and duty to fellow men, but otoh Islam (or at least one interpretation of it) seems to finds suicide bombing innocents very easy to deal with...everything becomes Gods will...and personal responsibility just melts away.

 

Now you've done it!!

 

Tony Bliar, sent a fair few innocents to there death, and he is on record as saying he will be judged by God, abdicating his responsibility to his fellow man

 

That is not murder though.

Just by driving a car you play a part in the 100's of road deaths each year. Does that make you guilty of something?

Besides atheism and science is amoral per se.

 

I am not going to argue that point, but maybe his decisons were made easier by his bedside "one to ones" with him upstairs

he must have known his actions were going to cause the deaths of innocent human beings, but he doesn't answer to them does he

 

You can only be ignostic now. If religion was a modern invention, your statement has validity. However, religion is not a modern invention, it is thousands of years old. Religion comes with so much baggage that no matter how hard you try, even the most modernistic notions of what God may be are mired in the mysticism of the past, the belief that there is a God, if you will.

There is no need for God, you are trying to fit modern ideas on to an outdated concept, and I;m not really sure why, by your own admission you are an atheist, or agnostic, possibly ignostic, maybe you just like to argue



So basically, you're just saying prayer is about positive thinking and making people feel better. I have no problem with that, but prayer is a religious action, all I am saying is that it is pointless, and it certainly does not require belief in God to have positive thought or engender well being.

As for prayer the bible? Well.......

In Matthew 21:21:

I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done. If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.

or

Mark 11:24:
Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.

That's fairly unequivocal in my book. Those things are demonstrably untrue, so yes, prayer, as defined in the Bible does not work. Any other definition of prayer is another name for positive thought either on the personal or group level.

As for attacking, nothing of the sort, I just like a good debate

Geezer

 

What utter tosh! People are moral or amoral, science is not amoral.

As for atheism, why is it amoral? By not believing in something automatically makes you amoral? I'd love to hear your explanation...

What sort of moral is it to neglect your children in favour of worship of Jesus? That's a nice moral from Christianity.......

Geezer

 

Not in my world. Religion is a source of great wisdom so long one has a master-servant relationship with it, where one is the master. It's folly to reject the mysteries as it is foolish to misinterpret them.

There is no God according to your narrow, literalist definition and the reason I fit a God-concept to modern ideas is because I can and I enjoy the aesthetics, poetry, metaphor, history, speculation, timelessness and mystery of some of the traditions. The KJV bible is arguably one of greatest works of literature the world has ever seen. For all its contradictions, Genesis is beautifully formed and the gematria hidden within is astonishing. If you want to ignore it on the grounds that you know about physics, you crack on.

Yes.

That's good of you.

Oh my goodness, prayer is both religious and an action!

Is it pointless? You said that if "prayer is about positive thinking and making people feel better" that you had "no problem with that".

Moving mountains....sound like a good metaphor, that. Was it Matthew who wrote it or Anthony Robbins?

Rhonda Byrne?

Really?

If you're strange enough to take them literally.

As defined in the Bible by your brain.

So? Do you think the Church should change the phrase 'call to prayer' to 'call
to positive thought either on the personal or group level'?

 

Science doesn't come with any morality attached it is amoral in itself.

***** used science to kills jews more efficiently in fake shower blocks.

 

Narnia?

 

You've used that second line before. Awful. It's like somebody using a trumpet as a murder weapon and the witness blaming music.

 

It demonstrates that science is value free (in itself) and can be used for good or evil.

 

Stop being childish. But, if you like C.S.Lewis, 'Mere Christianity's' a superb book. That's if you can get past the title. Are you familiar with the allegory in The Chronicles? Geezer will be a long in a minute to accuse me of believing in talking Lions. Everyone knows only snakes talk.

 

Isn't C.S.Lewis banned in schools now? It's racists isn't it?

 

well stop talking mumbo jumbo b0llocks,

"Religion is a source of great wisdom so long one has a master-servant relationship with it, where one is the master"

utter claptrap

 

No it doesn't, Tony. It's a shět line.

 

Why is it clap-trap?

Which of these points do you disagree with?

A) Religion is a source of great wisdom
B) You should control it not the other way round

 

Such while moral system comes attached to science then?

How did the ***** manage to use science to murder more efficiently?

 

See lines one and three of post 142.

 

And some interpretations of Christianity have never resulted in evil acts????

And some Christians don't use the line 'it's Gods will' in various situations?

You seem simply to have a major issue with Islam full stop (even if you do add in 'one interpretation'). Perhaps this is down to your own religious views?

I know full well evil acts are committed in the world apparently in the name of Islam, but the same has been done in the name of Christianity over the years, and those more knowledgeable than me would suggest the same is done in the name of Judaism.

The fact is (in my mind) that there are people in this world who are evil/bad, whatever label you wish to assign. Some commit acts in the name of religion (or their view of it) but usually it appears there is more to it. Most conflicts when broken down seem to be over land, resources or power over people. Is this purely down to the religion itself or merely the people involved and the way they interpret the 'word'? Would said acts still take place if religion was removed? I'd guess that it's a possibility.

 

You think I am making a reductio ad hitlerum, but I'm not.

Like I said - which moral system does come with science then? Answer is none.

 

That's worthy of Pseuds Corner, do they take contributions from internet forums?

 

Cheeky fűcker.