jonc

Okay, I'll take back the comment regarding free will, even so at a push you believe that God was once a single omnipotent sentient entity that obliterated itself thereby creating and becoming the universe so that everything, every sub-atomic partical in this universe is intrinsically a piece of God. By doing this God the omnipotent and conscious entity ceases to exist and therefore can no longer respond or interact with this universe. This belief must then fly in the face of all religious scripture.

Leslie

Read the last commandment again then.

Les

JTaylor

These words have lots of baggage, don't they? I could probably dice this up syllable by syllable!

First "I believe" - no, I consider, speculate about, philosophise around, meditate upon that concept. If I were to seriously entertain the notion that a literal (as opposed to a metaphoric or poetic) "single omnipotent sentient entity" (again, each of these words are insufficiently crystaline) was both the creator and creation it would be via reason of the kind illustrated by Asimov in The Last Question.

"every sub-atomic partical in this universe is intrinsically a piece of God." Well, this I do 'believe' as I accept what has become known as the big-bang.

Of course none of this accounts for infinite regress. One can think of the Asimov notion of cyclical, Darwinian, creation and destruction, but this still lacks primum movens. Here, God is a placemarker for that unknown. The Israelites in Solomon's Temple described God (YHWH the Tetragrammaton) as ineffable to illustrate that God is beyond description and articulation within the constraints of language.

Have this: http://nowscape.com/godsdebris.pdf

Yes. To combat this read-up on panentheism where God isn't just the whole but where the whole is within God. Works nicely when contemplating multiverses, m-theory's 11 dimensions and so forth. The other consideration is that God was made manifest by the Christ Jesus. Or, if you're a Jew, he wasn't.

No. Take the Gospel of Thomas (as one example of dozens I could dig out for you) which was left out of the final version of the exoteric Bible.

77 Jesus said, “I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me all came forth, and to me all attained.

Split a piece of wood; I am there.

Lift up the stone, and you will find me there.”

Within exoteric Christianity, the idea of literal supernatural divinity was a control mechanism knocked-up and subsequently imposed at the first Council of Nicaea (325AD). You're focussing upon the popular Western theism of the herd, again.

If your thread title read: "Is it possible to believe in the literal, personal God of exoteric theism and (the teachings of) Darwin?" - I would have said, quite simply, no.

tony de wonderful

Maybe religion to to blame for all you say, yet the biggest mass murderers in History (Hitler, Stalin) were not motivated by religion. In fact the ***** were highly adept in technology and scientific methods yet still went off the crazy end big time.

Geezer

They weren't motivated by science either. Also, they just happened to have more efficient methods of killing. I don't think that they were any more 'evil' than plenty if people who had gone before, it was just easier for them to kill and there were more people to kill.

Geezer

GlesgaKiss

We don't know everything, but relativism isn't the way forward. TdW, I get your points, but it's just not reasonable considering the age we live in to expect people to give religion or anything for which there is no evidence as much value as scientific theories. Some of those theories probably have as much chance of being correct as not, but they don't really ask much, do they? They don't ask us to modify our behaviour - at least not unless you go very deep - and, in fact, they give us a hell of a lot.

What's the point of life? Is there one? All we can try to do is be happy, and happiness in a lot of cases is just peace and tranquility to enjoy the things that come for free. Science has helped us out in that respect, not by asking us to follow any belief/mass control system, but just by giving us understanding of what can be measured/quantified/reasoned.

JTaylor, nice theories, but we're still talking about belief here. You clearly have your own, for which there is no actual evidence. Is it possible that you're giving ancient civilisations more credence than they actually deserve, or that you're going deeper than they ever did with their feelings about God?

JTaylor

I think you're confusing "beliefs" with theosophy, metaphor, speculation, poetry and thought experimentation. You're also confusing theory with hypotheses. In terms of depth, I've barely scratched the surface when one considers Plato, Aristotle, Imhotep, Euclid, Confucius, Pythagoras etc. etc. Modern science stands on the shoulders of giants and whilst I'm a secularist, I think and feel overt and agressive secularism and anti-theism and scientism risks a shift towards soulessness and the material. Of course, as a recovering anti-theist, I may well change my mind further down the line.

hodgy0_2

oh fvck!!!

jonc

Well I have to say that this discussion has given me a lot of food for thought. I've yet to gain definitive knowledge that god does not exists, however, this does not mean I believe in god, therefore I remain in the camp for for agnostic atheists. It is down to the pious to provide evidence for its existence.

Nothing has thus far shown me that knowledge of god comes down from god to man through religion and/or experiences and whether these experiences of god are genuine or a manifestation of our mind. Everything I've heard and read of god and religion flows from man and his thought processes and I therefore postulate that god is “man made”, man made god in his image.

Henrik

iTrader: (5)

Hitler was a catholic, and I wonder where the hate against the jews came from in the first place? Might it have been that they were "christ killers", and that they killed christian babies to use in their rituals (and other false beliefs)? There is a reason why jews have been persecuted throughout Europe since the rise of Christianity. Jews lived in ghettos long before the ***** came along.


I haven't studied Stalin enough to comment.

Henrik

iTrader: (5)

Don't fear science!

I'm obviously in the science camp, but that doesn't mean I don't enjoy life, that I don't have moral values, that I don't feel compassion towards my fellow humans, animals etc etc.

Nature is truly spectacularly beautiful. I don't think it detracts from the beauty to know how it works (or try to find out) - in fact it's even more beautiful in its complication when you find out the amazing processes that make it work.

To quote the late Douglas Adams "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"

JTaylor

You sound like a man who's read Dawkins but skipped Aquinas and Steiner and Spinoza and Franklin and Blake et. al. "Don't fear science", "I'm in the science camp" - I don't and so am I. I also like to spend time in camp philosophy and camp theology to see what's happening there. Don't fear your imagination. And if you're going to quote the late, great Douglas Adams, do try to honour his legacy by picking out something relevant.

Henrik

iTrader: (5)

Yes, I have read quite a few of Dawkin's books.

I don't see any point in reading Aquinas' work, as his beliefs are founded on non-facts. Spinoza however sounds like a decent read - I'll see if I can get some on amazon.

What I don't understand is why you'd want to spend time in the non science camp, when it's all based around falsehoods (unless you take god to mean something that is totally removed from a personal god, but that's not the kind of god most of man kind believe in, nor is there much point for one)

Henrik

iTrader: (5)

Just to add, it took me into my thirties before I finally figured out what I thought was right and wrong.

As a child I was baptized, as was almost everyone back then, and I did the whole going to church to study the bible and holy communion thing when I was 14-15. I'm not sure I actually believed in any of it even back then, but nevertheless I went.

I think I always had this nagging belief that it was all a bit loopy, but I was a little bit worried about afterlife etc.

It took me some thinking before I could say to myself that, no I certainly don't believe in a Christian god. After that it took me *much* longer to come to terms with the fact that there probably isn't a creator at all, as such, and no afterlife.

I went through a mourning process when I realised the "no afterlife" bit, but now that I've accepted that there's no afterlife and that life is to be lived fully here and now, I actually feel relieved. If it turns out I'm wrong, then well, I haven't lived a "bad" life anyway - I think I could probably argue that I've been no worse than a religious person, but on the balance of probability I have to come down on the side of atheism.

There are masses of evidence for evolution, but I see none for any gods, and I need evidence. If there was a god and he wanted our adolation, he should prove that he exists once and for all.

That is not to say that philosophy isn't important, but on the subject of gods and supernatural beings, those are my thoughts.

JTaylor

So you've rejected the dogma of Catholicism and the childlike wishthinking of heaven and hell and the personal God - seems sensible to me.

Henrik

iTrader: (5)

Protestantism. I was born in sweden, but obviously it's just the other side of the same coin.

Leslie

It is wrong to say that religion itself is to blame for all those wrongs that you lay at its feet.

Religious teachings do not advocate the sort of shameful acts that you describe but if you think a little more laterally about the problem you may see that the problems are instituted by people with their own personal ambitions of control etc. who are prepared to use a religion for their own purposes.

You could say the same for political organisations.

Les

fast bloke

Awww I'm confused now. Could the webbie add a couple of new colours to distinguish the god botherers from those who aren't that gullible?

madscoob

iTrader: (3)

this thread has had me in stitches , a example for you all as to how many forms of religon is nads ,
the mother in law is a witness . and i can never resist teasing her about the blood transfusion thing , i mean their book was written thousands of years ago .
thou shalt not take blood , i mean hello it ment to stab or cut someone or drink blood not have a blood transfusion silly ****s , distorting something that was written thousands of years ago to suit modern life , if you want enlightening watch the religeous part of zeitgeist , it explains the 3stars and reserection and how it all came about . darwin all the way for me , ps sorry for the drunken rant . its just a pet hate of mind

Geezer

Religious teachings are full of hateful things. However, those teaching are just the words of men, as we have said before, so they just reflect man's hatred.

A God invented by man will mirror the same failings as those men.

Geezer

Leslie

Not true. Basically godly religions religions require followers to live a good life thinking of others and honesty.

It is men who are prepared to use the religions to influence believers to carry out shameful acts in the same way as it is the political leaders who send their country to war at the cost of the people who would not have started a war on their own account.

Bad acts in this world are always down to unprincipled men.

Les

jonc

"Bad acts" is down to a persons point of view. If a parent refused to give consent to let their child to have life saving blood transfusion or removal of a tumour, from a Jehovah's Witness point of view they are following their beliefs. Refusing life saving medical treatment due to their religious beliefs will seem ludicrous and cruel to those outside their religion.

Religious fanatics may encourage or carry out acts that goes against our social norms, but to those fanatics they truly believe they are doing God's will. There will of course be those who will manipulate and use whatever it takes to reach their objectives and religion is just one of the "tools" used to get there.

Geezer

Mmm, the bible advocates slavery, gential mutilation, rape, sexism and murder in the name of the Lord. So the bible is the basis of Christian, Jewish and Islam religion, so......

Religion is not a good thing.

There are millions of people who are decent people who believe in God, but they like that despite religion, not because of it.

Geezer

Leslie

Millions of people who believe in God are of good character because they were brought up with religious beliefs. Do you believe that those religions that you mention advocate the actions that you describe as part of of the particular religion?

It is a fact that when this was a widely Christian country, people in general lived by the principles of the religions and there was less crime including murder than now, and it was a standard thing for people to help others when they were in trouble. Far less greed and much more good neighbourliness. It was considered a duty to act with thought for other people.

I don't think that is a bad way to go through life.

Les

Geezer

Millions of people who believe in God are of good character because for society to function, those values have to be adhered to regardless of belief. Religious teachings have nothing to do with it.

Cherry picking a few nicities from the bible and ignoring the extremely unpleasant stuff does not equal being brought up with religious beliefs.

Mutually beneficial social behaviour can be observed in other species, and they certainly don't have religion.

From the time of the first Christian missions to Britain at the end of the Roman period up until the 20th century, Britain was a quite unpleasant place to live.

The notion you have of it being better was actually brought about by people with a social conscience, not religious beliefs. Crime was rife, all whilst the population were literalists. Better education & technology were the enablers to a better Britain, not religion.

Seeing as crime was as bad (probably much worse) in our devout past, and seemingly going the same way now in our (increasingly) atheist time, perhaps you might like to point out exactly what is the real reason? Religion, it would seem, is unable to make us behave any better than atheism.

Geezer

Henrik

iTrader: (5)

I believe it's my duty to help my fellow man + woman too, despite being an atheist. I know lots of people like myself. Being an atheist doesn't mean that you go out and steal, murder and commit other crimes - quite the opposite, in many cases.

Like Geezer mentions, lots of other animals behave in a mutually beneficial way too - it's got nothing to do with religion.

Leslie

I'll try to answer all the points in one post.

I did not say that atheism automatically mneans that people become bad personalities. Far from it, it is one's initial upbringing which will have the strongest effect on one's social conscience and the way we behave. I also believe that one must make up one's own mind about the question of the existence of a God.

What I did say was that a religious upbringing as used to happen in previous times had a good influence and was more likely to promote those sorts of good feelings towards one's fellow man.

That duty I mentioned before was strongly evident and good neighbourliness was far stronger than we see today and for good reasons too. The other difference is the number of nasty crimes is noticeably greater than it ever used to be. Life seems to be comparatively valueless these days, the number of vicious murders seems to be much greater and for much less reason as well. I remember when any murder was front page news, these days they usually get a passing reference because of the greater number which occur.

There is of course Natural Law which is basically can be said to be the right way to live for the mutual benefit of all in a in a society. The success of that depends on a set of rules and the acceptance of the need for discipline. Religious teachings promote this, but as I said, one's upbringing is very important where that is concerned. Religious beliefs underline those requirements and strengthen people's acceptance of them.

Children who have feckless parents who make no significant attempt to guide them as they grow up will tend to take the wrong path and be guided by their peers in their behaviour. If that behaviour is poor then the children wiil tend the same way and also will be affected by bad influences from external sources. They will not understand the need to accept any discipline or how to moderate their behaviour for the good of others. No lack of examples there...but it is getting worse!

I think this is a situation which could have been prevented with good moral guidance as provided by good parents and religious guidance as in earlier times helped that situation to exist. That is no bad thing but I will make it clear that lack of that guidance is not an automatic path to poor behaviour because a strong society will also help people to think along the right lines. It does help though.

We all have to decide in our own beliefs and to follow our conscience in that respect to be honest to ourselves. The major point I think is that religious teachings do more good than harm, and we can all come to our own conclusions later in life as we attain more maturity.

Les

fast bloke

Les - Your post seems to be saying that religion exists to inform the non thinking about the differences between morally right and morally wrong? As an atheist, I would agree completely.

Leslie

I am relieved that came across in the end. Think of the typing I could have saved if I had just said that in the first place

Quite true of course and it is not my place to criticise anyone for the beliefs they hold nor to try to change them to think along my own lines.

Running down anyone's faith with respect to their ideas is non productive as well as unnecessarily unpleasant, I think the right way is to accept that we are all entitled to think as we feel is correct and that is the best way to go as well.

Les

fast bloke

fair point(s)

I like you (well your Scoobynet persona at least, which is as much as I really know of you,) so it pains me to think that I have been unnecessarily unpleasant because of our differing viewpoints on religion and faith. However, from what I see, religion is all about being unnecessarily unpleasant to everyone who disagrees with what you believe. What was the last war that couldn't be contributed to belief in a particular god, or a different version of the same god?

In my experience, there are good people and bad people. I try to be a good person. I will do someone a favour or good turn without expecting a payback. My parents describe that as being a decent christian. The inference I see there is that only christians can be decent. Once you make that assumption, then you fail to be a good person, because, as you have stated, you are denigrating someone else's faith