Religion survives by indoctrination of children shocker...

There is. But perhaps not the sort you want, or are perhaps willing to discern.

Just come across a book "The Shack" by WM Paul Young. Thought initially it was a novel - turned out to be religious tract. If you want an illustration of the infantilism of the religious mind read it.

Astonishingly it has sold over 7 million copies.

Mike

So now a really crummy novel (sadly, I've also read it) which happens to have a religious theme is somehow indicative of "the religious mind"?

It would be interesting to know how many of the 7 million readers of this religious drivel also though it was crummy.

The explanations of religious faith expounded in this book are an uncomfortable reminder to those of us brought up with religion at school and at home. They may be set in a crummy novel context but they are not unfamiliar.

An example of the religious mind - yes. (but perhaps a committed one)

Mike

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Brian:
It would be interesting to know how many of the 7 million readers of this religious drivel also though it was crummy.
Mike

I suspect, like you and I, the vast majority bought it because the cover was extremely misleading and didn't give a clue that it was a crummy, quasi-religious pile of poo.

That is a comforting thought.

Mike

quote:

Originally posted by Rockingdoc:
If you are trying to tell me that Tinkerbell isn't real, I shall have to leave the forum.

It's meaningful to talk about the existence of Tinkerbell, because we all know the properties that an entity must have to qualify as Tinkerbell. But existence of "God" is another matter. Unless we agree a priori on the properties an entity must have to qualify as "God", it's meaningless to talk about its existence, or on the nature of the evidence to determine same.

-- Daniel

One thing that really gets up my nose about people with religious convictions is their reasoning that just because they believe {in} something everyone else should feel the same way.

If someone is gay that's up to them. What right has some bigot got to tell that person otherwise? It's none of their business.

If a woman wants to have an abortion then that's her right. It's her body and her choice. It's no-one else's business but hers.

Then there's the sheer arrogance of the churches in earlier centuries that they had to "spread the word" via missionaries. Poking their noses into other cultures that were quite happy without them.

Have a belief system if you want one but don't inflict it on anyone else without being asked first.

steve

quote:

Although it is not possible to disprove the existence of God, or fairies or any supernatural phenomena, the probability of their existence is very low (otherwise at some point there would be some evidence somewhere).

First, but rather less significant, why do people persist in linking god, with fairies? or god with supernatural phenomena? I have never perceived any obvious connection. But see "secondly"

Seondly, and more significant to my mind.....

If (big IF) but if god is an integral part of this universe, you "might" expect to be able to find physical evidence of god's existence, but then you might not, for at least two reasons.

1. he doesn't want you to find his existence.

2. we are just not (yet) clever enough......lets face it, we don't have any idea whatsoever as to how clever we are in absolute terms!

OTOH If (another big IF) but if god is external to this universe, then we will never be able to find physical evidence of god's existence. (my understanding is that even our top scientists tell us we can NEVER discover what lies outwith our universe, nor the laws that govern beyond)

I don't think there is any scientific justification to dismiss the possibility of god, (or claim the balance of probability is so low as to be insignificant), just because our (limited) scientific endeavours to date, have been unable to find any physical evidence.

Cheers

Don

I must say - despite my frequent flippant comments I have been enjoying this debate and appreciate the time posters have taken.

I remain totally unconvinced about the existance of a god (I could accept Tinkerbell) and have serious doubts that the word "spirituality" actually means anything.

I wonder, would we be going off track if we tried a different approach, if god does exist, does it matter? Does a belief in god mean you have to believe in life after death (I don't believe that either). If you do believe in life after death - what do you plan doing for eternity (will there be Naim in heaven).

Keep it going lads and be nice.

Hallowed by thy Naim?

Think I may be begining to understand.....

quote:

Originally posted by FlyMe:
will there be Naim in heaven.

For sure, System 8, but it will be playing only one recording, all day, every day, into eternity: "Hosannah, hosannah, hosannah, Lord God of Sabaoth, 'rah! 'rah! 'rah! siss! -- boom! ... a-a-ah!"

-- Daniel

quote:

Originally posted by Paper Plane:
One thing that really gets up my nose about people with religious convictions is their reasoning that just because they believe {in} something everyone else should feel the same way.

If someone is gay that's up to them. What right has some bigot got to tell that person otherwise? It's none of their business.

Steve, I think this has been answered earlier. My understanding of, for example Christianity is that they "hate the sin, love the Sinner."

Its beyond some people to realise that the act is not the person: I used the analogy of tapdancing; I might *hate* tapdancing, but this does not mean that I hate tapdancers. I've changed just one word your post ( and I agree with it, btw):

"If someone is religious that's up to them. What right has some bigot got to tell that person otherwise? It's none of their business"

quote:

Then there's the sheer arrogance of the churches in earlier centuries that they had to "spread the word" via missionaries. Poking their noses into other cultures that were quite happy without them.

Have a belief system if you want one but don't inflict it on anyone else without being asked first.

steve

A bit OT but AIUI, there are Missionaries from Africa being sent to the UK. Its the duty of the followers of some religions to spread the Word, if they see their view as the route to avoid damnataion, then its natural to expect them to want to spread the Word. Failure to convert leading to damnation, etc.

M

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Lacey:
Steve, I think this has been answered earlier. My understanding of, for example Christianity is that they "hate the sin, love the Sinner."

Its beyond some people to realise that the act is not the person: I used the analogy of tapdancing; I might *hate* tapdancing, but this does not mean that I hate tapdancers.

The point was made, but also rebutted. "hate the sin, love the Sinner" does not mean the ecclesiastical authorities don't approve of punishing sinners for their sins, they do, rather, it means they love them despite having them fired, imprisoned, hanged, or what not. It's a distinction that's probably lost on the sinner, but makes the Christian feel better.

-- Daniel

quote:

they love them despite having them fired, imprisoned, hanged, or what not. It's a distinction that's probably lost on the sinner, but makes the Christian feel better.

I live in England in 2010, so i'll confine my consideration of your comment to what I currently can recall in that sort of context.

I don't recall "christians" (as opposed to the (secular) legal system) in the UK imprisoning or hanging anybody this past 10 years. Perhaps you could point out some of these gastly horrors.

Of course, if you put the clock back far enough, we can probably find untold horrors from pre-christian times. and if we spread the net wide enough, eg to China, we might also find a few non-christian horrors today. But here and now, in the UK/.... nah! I just don't "believe" that Christians in the UK (as a specific group) are imprisonning people or hanging people per-se, never mind, just to make themselves feel better!!

Cheers

Don

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
I live in England in 2010, so i'll confine my consideration of your comment to what I currently can recall in that sort of context.

I don't recall "christians" (as opposed to the (secular) legal system) in the UK imprisoning or hanging anybody this past 10 years. Perhaps you could point out some of these gastly horrors.

Of course, if you put the clock back far enough, we can probably find untold horrors from pre-christian times. and if we spread the net wide enough, eg to China, we might also find a few non-christian horrors today. But here and now, in the UK/.... nah! I just don't "believe" that Christians in the UK (as a specific group) are imprisonning people or hanging people per-se, never mind, just to make themselves feel better!!
Don

You're still missing the point.

Consider people who commit murder (a sin) in the US. Christians in the US will generally approve of imprisoning or executing them, regardless of their love for the sinners. If a sinner repents of the sin, some Christians out of love will favour reducing the punishment, note the case of the born again Karla Faye Tucker, where Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell (normally proponents of execution) urged Bush to commute Tucker's death sentence (he didn't.)

Same with homosexuals. Christians in North America generally approve of firing, if caught, practicing homosexual teachers from religious affiliated schools. If the homosexuals repented and abstained, I'm sure some of the schools would welcome them back, out of love for them.

The point: "hate the sin" has consequences for sinners. The only relevence of "love the sinner" for sinners is that they might have a last minute escape hatch if they are willing to repent, like the guy in the eighteenth century who couldn't understand the Trinity, thought it was nonsence, so the ecclesiastical authorities tied him up at the stake and lit the fire, at which point he suddenly understood the Trinity and they stamped out the fire, but shortly afterwards it escaped him again, and they took him back to be burned, for good this time.

-- Daniel

Surely the point is that "sin" is a religious concept. The law is about what is not legal. There are not many sins that are illegal.

quote:

Originally posted by Derry:
Surely the point is that "sin" is a religious concept. The law is about what is not legal. There are not many sins that are illegal.

The biggest sins tend also to be illegal.

quote:

Originally posted by Derry:
Surely the point is that "sin" is a religious concept. The law is about what is not legal. There are not many sins that are illegal.

I don't think that's "the point"

Pierre Manent in "The City of Man" suggests that at one point they were probably the same, that in its original form in ancient times and primitive societies, religion was all pervasive and inseparable from notions of law. He argues that each subsequent step in religious development, the link became weaker, until we arrived at Christianity, from which point it became possible to imagine a world without a religion. And you can see the weakening in recent times, for example, homosexuality stopped being illegal in my country, Canada, in the seventies. So, in the western world, we see a weakening of the religious influence on the law, a movement away from the religious view. The gods are not as powerful as they once were.

But "hate the sin" still has consequences, when you read in the newspaper that some US soldiers don't have any choice but to beat a homosexual comrade to a pulp because they come from very strong Christian backgrounds, when you see that and the reports of teachers being fired in religious affiliated schools because they are practicing homosexual, for sure "hate the sin" has consequences.

-- Daniel

It was suggested in an earlier post that a "day" as written in the book of Genesis, did not mean a "day" as we understand it, because apparently some theologians had determined that when the human(s) who wrote the book wrote the word "day", they actually meant something much longer, that matches our current understanding of development from evolution, ie: billions of years of gradual change over time.

Two things (bear with me) - A fine example of the pointless wiffle that is "theology".

The writers of that book wrote the word "day". They didn't write "day (not actually a day but sort of much longer than that, billions of years in fact. Sort of like our descendants in the future will describe as evolution)".

There is a constant attempt (a sort of rearguard action) to trim/alter/distort what has gone before as the accepted religious view, to fit in with modern secular and scientific thinking as religion tries to 1: drag itself painfully and tardily along behind current developments and 2: at the same time, try to demonstrate that science SUPPORTS it's view (which of course, it does nothing like), or trying a counter argument also by distorting and misrepresenting actual scientific theory. Eg: "Darwin said humans evolved from monkeys", which of course he did nothing like.

It was also suggested that the situation in Haiti is the result of this peculiar interpretation of the word "day" - that is, that evolutionary geology is an example of god's work.

It was also suggested that this "god" created us and the world and loves us dearly...

Well. If this god has created a situation where the work is in progress and is SO violent and SO dangerous that it regularly results in the slaughter and maiming of us creatures that he loves so much, the best he can be accused of is grooss incompetence, wouldn't you say?

If the case is that it is all part of a much bigger plan that we cannot imagine but must take on trust, then I would like to put it to you that god is a complete idiot and of no use to us whatsoever. If he IS keeping himself hidden, then it's probably best for him. I wuoldn't like to be in his shoes if all the victims of his stupidity and lack of proactive planning get him in a corner and decide to take their revenge for all the pain and bullshit...

However, noe of this will happen because, as we all know (yes you do, really...), there is no such thing as god and earthquakes are just natural phenomena from which many people die unavoidably by simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

No plan. No heavenly reason. No divine judgement. Just life and death.


Simples.

Copied from another thread in response to Winky

quote:
. "I know there is no evidence of a god."

I think you are wrong. If you had said "I know there is no "scientific" evidence of a god", I, personally would agree. Howvever lots of people are satisfied that there is plenty of evidence for a god. You might not see it, you might be satisfied with their evidence. You might be right. You might be wrong. And you can't put an absolute probability on being right (or wrong).

I put the word "belief" in quotes in my previous post to try to avoid confusion with "religious belief". I was also using the word "hope" in a similar sense to that espoused by Droozilla.


Cheers

Don

Nope. There is no evidence, scientific or otherwise.

Hallucinations, voices in the head or "amazing coincidences" are not evidence. They are hallucinations, voices in the head and coincidences.

Temporal Epilepsy and schizophrenia are illnesses. god remains unevidenced.

quote:

You're still missing the point.

Consider people who commit murder (a sin) in the US

Nope! i'm not. I was very clear about the boundaries of my argument - here in the UK, and now. Not 500 years ago. Not the USA.

Cheers

Don

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Dudley:
Nope. There is no evidence, scientific or otherwise.

Hallucinations, voices in the head or "amazing coincidences" are not evidence. They are hallucinations, voices in the head and coincidences.

Temporal Epilepsy and schizophrenia are illnesses. god remains unevidenced.

When it becomes a matter of evidence, then there will be no question of faith.

Is "unevidenced" a verb, or even a real word?

ATB from George

quote:

Pierre Manent in "The City of Man" suggests that at one point they were probably the same,

I'm not totally familiar with the 10 Commandments. Appart from the "love thy god" one, which of the other 9 would be out of place today in a responsible, civilised scociety, if they were invented by a non-believer? Please, make sensible allowances for things like asses (substitue car etc).

Cheers

Don