I am not relgious at all. I don't pray. I never use the expression "you're in my thoughts and prayers" etc.
Was just wondering after a few recent enough threads where i saw this expression used a alot.
Do people actually pray? What do you pray for? do you use the expression above or similar but don't actually pray. What prayers do you say?
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on March 04, 2011, 03:49:52 AM
I am not relgious at all. I don't pray. I never use the expression "you're in my thoughts and prayers" etc.
Was just wondering after a few recent enough threads where i saw this expression used a alot.
Do people actually pray? What do you pray for? do you use the expression above or similar but don't actually pray. What prayers do you say?
AI Club final 2005, 70mins...."christ above and all the angels and saints in heaven,let Liam stick this free over"
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on March 04, 2011, 03:49:52 AM
I am not relgious at all. I don't pray. I never use the expression "you're in my thoughts and prayers" etc.
Was just wondering after a few recent enough threads where i saw this expression used a alot.
Do people actually pray? What do you pray for? do you use the expression above or similar but don't actually pray. What prayers do you say?
I'm like you. I try never to use that phrase even though I believe it to be more of a phrase than an actual commitment to pray for people - although I am sure some people mean it literally.
When I say I'll pray, I do. I say a Hail Mary and an Our Father, whilst keeping the subject of the prayer in my mind.
Quote from: ziggysego on March 04, 2011, 10:03:25 AM
When I say I'll pray, I do. I say a Hail Mary and an Our Father, whilst keeping the subject of the prayer in my mind.
I do the same, keep the person in mind when praying.
Quote from: ziggysego on March 04, 2011, 10:03:25 AM
When I say I'll pray, I do. I say a Hail Mary and an Our Father, whilst keeping the subject of the prayer in my mind.
Do you need to say prayers to pray?
Quote from: Cold tea on March 04, 2011, 10:48:03 AM
Quote from: ziggysego on March 04, 2011, 10:03:25 AM
When I say I'll pray, I do. I say a Hail Mary and an Our Father, whilst keeping the subject of the prayer in my mind.
Do you need to say prayers to pray?
Whatever you feel is appropriate.
I wouldn't consider myself to be overly religious by any means, but I do believe in the power of prayer 100%.
Sometimes I used to pray for endangered species especially for those who were preyed on by vultures or foxes.
One time I had a load of chickens and one night in December I prayed with them that they would not be killed by the fox who had been standing at the bottom of my garden for 3 hours. The next morning the chickens had been preyed upon by the fox and murdered. It was at that point I gave up praying for the preyed upon. God must have a sick sense of humour to fcuk me about like that.
Quote from: Agnes Dipesto on March 04, 2011, 10:05:30 AM
Quote from: ziggysego on March 04, 2011, 10:03:25 AM
When I say I'll pray, I do. I say a Hail Mary and an Our Father, whilst keeping the subject of the prayer in my mind.
I do the same, keep the person in mind when praying.
Quote from: Agnes Dipesto on March 04, 2011, 10:05:30 AM
Quote from: ziggysego on March 04, 2011, 10:03:25 AM
When I say I'll pray, I do. I say a Hail Mary and an Our Father, whilst keeping the subject of the prayer in my mind.
I do the same, keep the person in mind when praying.
Me also.
Agree - keep subject in mind.
Also:
I like to give a few of my favourite saints a rattle now and then:
St Anthony - If I lose something
St Joseph of Cupertino - When I had exams
St Jude - After a full weekend rip!!!
Quote from: ziggysego on March 04, 2011, 11:14:04 AM
Quote from: Cold tea on March 04, 2011, 10:48:03 AM
Quote from: ziggysego on March 04, 2011, 10:03:25 AM
When I say I'll pray, I do. I say a Hail Mary and an Our Father, whilst keeping the subject of the prayer in my mind.
Do you need to say prayers to pray?
Whatever you feel is appropriate.
I am sure the divine one's ears perk up for those two prayers and puts your intentions to the top of his 200 trillion requests!
Does the belief that there is an all powerful 'creator' and the belief that there is an afterlife, seem any more absurd than the fact that we do exist at all?! I'm keeping an open mind on all possibilities.
freaky...my deepest post ever was actually my 666th post.... :o
Quote from: balladmaker on March 04, 2011, 01:04:38 PM
freaky...my deepest post ever was actually my 666th post.... :o
The number of the beast is 616.
Please God if you just let me die quickly or get over this hangover I promise never to drink again. I've used that a few times ...
I once sat up 1/2 the night praying that Grease Paint would win the national when I was a wee lad, I lost faith a bit when it came second and I had not put my 50p on each way.
Quote from: ziggysego on March 04, 2011, 02:14:08 PM
Quote from: balladmaker on March 04, 2011, 01:04:38 PM
freaky...my deepest post ever was actually my 666th post.... :o
The number of the beast is 616.
Nobody escapes the cutbacks.
V. The Angel of the Lord brought news to Mary,
R. And she conceived by the Holy Spirit.
V. Hail, Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you. Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus.
R. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen.
V. Behold the servant of the Lord;
R. Let it be to me according to your word.
V. Hail, Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you. Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus.
R. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen.
V. And the Word was made human,
R. And lived among us.
V. Hail, Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you. Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus.
R. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen.
V. Pray for us, O holy Mother of God.
R. That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.
Let us pray.
We pray You, Lord, pour Your grace into our hearts that as we have known through the message of an angel, that Your Son, Jesus Christ, became human, so by His cross + and suffering we may be brought to the glory of His rising again, through the same Jesus Christ, our Lord. Amen.
May God's help be with us always, and may the souls of those who + died in faith, through the mercy of God rest in peace. Amen.
Hail Mary, full of grace
Manhattan Boy to win the race.
Our Father, who art in Heaven,
Manhattan Boy at 100/7.
This is the voice of the Holy Ghost -
Manhattan Boy was left at the post.
I pray everyday, several times a day. I'd pray in the morning and maybe say a rosary if I was driving a good distance. Id pray before every meal no matter where I am and I say prayers with my Son every night putting him to bed.
We'd usually do a ninety day Novena once or twice a year for different intentions too.
Normally pray 5 times a day....but the sun is barely seen in this country ;)
In the name of Allah,
the beneficent, the merciful.
Praise be to the Lord of the
Universe who has created us and
made us into tribes and nations
That we may know each other, not that
we may despise each other.
If the enemy incline towards peace, do
thou also incline towards peace, and
trust God, for the Lord is the one that
heareth and knoweth all things.
And the servants of God,
Most gracious are those who walk on
the Earth in humility, and when we
address them, we say "PEACE."
Surely no harm in a moment of reflection in our busy lives in whatever shape or form?
Quote from: ziggysego on March 04, 2011, 10:03:25 AM
When I say I'll pray, I do. I say a Hail Mary and an Our Father, whilst keeping the subject of the prayer in my mind.
God must get sick listening to the same thing over and over and over again.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 04, 2011, 07:12:57 PM
Quote from: ziggysego on March 04, 2011, 10:03:25 AM
When I say I'll pray, I do. I say a Hail Mary and an Our Father, whilst keeping the subject of the prayer in my mind.
God must get sick listening to the same thing over and over and over again.
The Our Father is actually Jesus' own instructions on how to pray. He taught the Our Father and prefaced it with "when you pray, pray like this....."
Can't go wrong there....
Quote from: The Iceman on March 04, 2011, 07:17:36 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 04, 2011, 07:12:57 PM
Quote from: ziggysego on March 04, 2011, 10:03:25 AM
When I say I'll pray, I do. I say a Hail Mary and an Our Father, whilst keeping the subject of the prayer in my mind.
God must get sick listening to the same thing over and over and over again.
The Our Father is actually Jesus' own instructions on how to pray. He taught the Our Father and prefaced it with "when you pray, pray like this....."
Can't go wrong there....
How do you know this?
The prayer "Jesus Mary and Joseph, assist me now and in my last agony" always makes me smile.
It is so f**king miserable, like lunch on Good Friday sometime in the 1950s.
Quote from: Maiden1 on March 04, 2011, 02:23:52 PM
Please God if you just let me die quickly or get over this hangover I promise never to drink again. I've used that a few times ...
I once sat up 1/2 the night praying that Grease Paint would win the national when I was a wee lad, I lost faith a bit when it came second and I had not put my 50p on each way.
Jesus!* I remember putting money on the same horse.
On the subject, I'm not religious and I don't believe in the power of prayer other than as some sort of form of meditation. It might have some effect in calming people down and making them feel peaceful, but as a means of influencing outside events, forget it. You could say a prayer for peace in Iraq right now, but if you turned on the news later I can guarantee you'll find a story about another suicide bomb or another soldier killed by an IED. Experiments have been done with third party prayers and they have been found to make no statistical difference in outcomes.
*This is not a prayer.
I also put money on that horse several times.
I used to pray every night until about 6 months ago when I realised I was praying out of fear/superstition.
Quote from: ONeill on March 04, 2011, 10:52:35 PM
I also put money on that horse several times.
I used to pray every night until about 6 months ago when I realised I was praying out of fear/superstition.
Stopped praying or stopped believing?
Stopped praying. As for believing, I'm coming around to the belated conclusion that it makes absolute no sense at all to anyone who can think logically.
Quote from: ONeill on March 04, 2011, 11:28:53 PM
Stopped praying. As for believing, I'm coming around to the belated conclusion that it makes absolute no sense at all to anyone who can think logically.
Well until believers discharge the burden of proof I don't intend to spend much time on the old praying lark.
Haven't prayed since I became old enough and wise enough to cop myself on and break out of the cycle of superstition. Pure delusion. If whatever outcome you were hoping for occurs, your prayers were answered. If not, well it was "just god's will"!! Anytime any well-meaning relative says they'll pray for me for whatever reason, I thank them and ask them to instead spend their valuable time on something that might actually make a difference!
Quote from: ziggysego on March 04, 2011, 02:14:08 PM
Quote from: balladmaker on March 04, 2011, 01:04:38 PM
freaky...my deepest post ever was actually my 666th post.... :o
The number of the beast is 616.
That's the number of my parents house Ziggy, ya fecker.
Pray to St Jude (lost causes I believe, or not depending on whether the big J / G exists) everytime my club plays.
On a deeper note, I live life by a simple rule, "do unto others what you'd like others to do unto you". No sexual connotations please.
Can never understand why those who don't believe always feel the need or feel they have the right to mock those that do believe.
Quote from: Cold tea on March 04, 2011, 10:25:57 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 04, 2011, 07:17:36 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 04, 2011, 07:12:57 PM
Quote from: ziggysego on March 04, 2011, 10:03:25 AM
When I say I'll pray, I do. I say a Hail Mary and an Our Father, whilst keeping the subject of the prayer in my mind.
God must get sick listening to the same thing over and over and over again.
The Our Father is actually Jesus' own instructions on how to pray. He taught the Our Father and prefaced it with "when you pray, pray like this....."
Can't go wrong there....
How do you know this?
Its in the Bible lad. Maybe if you took some time to study it, fully understand it alongside the catechism and the traditions and teachings of the Church passed down over 2000 years you wouldn't need to ask or as your set up question would suggest; criticise.
Quote from: The Iceman on March 05, 2011, 02:44:27 AM
Quote from: Cold tea on March 04, 2011, 10:25:57 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 04, 2011, 07:17:36 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 04, 2011, 07:12:57 PM
Quote from: ziggysego on March 04, 2011, 10:03:25 AM
When I say I'll pray, I do. I say a Hail Mary and an Our Father, whilst keeping the subject of the prayer in my mind.
God must get sick listening to the same thing over and over and over again.
The Our Father is actually Jesus' own instructions on how to pray. He taught the Our Father and prefaced it with "when you pray, pray like this....."
Can't go wrong there....
How do you know this?
Its in the Bible lad. Maybe if you took some time to study it, fully understand it alongside the catechism and the traditions and teachings of the Church passed down over 2000 years you wouldn't need to ask or as your set up question would suggest; criticise.
Study what, something that was written decades after Jesus died by people who never met the man, you will be telling me next Dorothy really did leave Kansas!!!
Quote from: laoislad on March 05, 2011, 12:01:12 AM
Can never understand why those who don't believe always feel the need or feel they have the right to mock those that do believe.
+1. Each to their own.
Quote from: laoislad on March 05, 2011, 12:01:12 AM
Can never understand why those who don't believe always feel the need or feel they have the right to mock those that do believe.
Because the vast majority are no better than domesticated sheep when it comes to your faith. Its a routine of life learned before youse were encouraged to question and youse still havn't examined it. Quite happy to stay safe with your primary school indoctrination and not ask questions.
I think people like Iceman (who questions but has came to a different conclusion than me) is bound to see this in a lot of folk who like to say they believe but dont back it up with an real commitment.
Surely it's a zero sum game, so if you believe your prayer was answered you must know it was at the expense of some poor bugger who got hit by a bus so that your kid could pass the Leaving. It's the cosmic equivalent of getting your FF TD (ah the days!) to fix the planning permission.
Quote from: theskull1 on March 05, 2011, 08:31:10 AM
Quote from: laoislad on March 05, 2011, 12:01:12 AM
Can never understand why those who don't believe always feel the need or feel they have the right to mock those that do believe.
Because the vast majority are no better than domesticated sheep when it comes to your faith. Its a routine of life learned before youse were encouraged to question and youse still havn't examined it. Quite happy to stay safe with your primary school indoctrination and not ask questions.
Be that true or not and I have no idea how who know this considering the billions of people that do have faith,but how exactly does this give anyone the right to mock people that do believe?
Quote from: laoislad on March 05, 2011, 12:01:12 AM
Can never understand why those who don't believe always feel the need or feel they have the right to mock those that do believe.
We've people on this board from both sides - some who believe and who think they are better than those who don't and some who don't believe and think they are better than those who do.
Both are equally annoying.
There are also people who don't believe, but don't think they're better than those who do and people who believe, but don't think they're better than those who don't.
Feel free to give your head a shake.
No one can be sure that it works, or even has any benefit whatsoever, but it definetely wont do any harm!
Quote from: Hardy on March 05, 2011, 11:04:06 AM
There are also people who don't believe, but don't think they're better than those who do and people who believe, but don't think they're better than those who don't.
Feel free to give your head a shake.
I'll nod in agreement.
Quote from: laoislad on March 05, 2011, 10:17:38 AM
Quote from: theskull1 on March 05, 2011, 08:31:10 AM
Quote from: laoislad on March 05, 2011, 12:01:12 AM
Can never understand why those who don't believe always feel the need or feel they have the right to mock those that do believe.
Because the vast majority are no better than domesticated sheep when it comes to your faith. Its a routine of life learned before youse were encouraged to question and youse still havn't examined it. Quite happy to stay safe with your primary school indoctrination and not ask questions.
Be that true or not and I have no idea how who know this considering the billions of people that do have faith,but how exactly does this give anyone the right to mock people that do believe?
Sure people get mocked for other things on the board and in everyday life, there's no reason religious belief should be exempt
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 05, 2011, 11:01:24 AM
Quote from: laoislad on March 05, 2011, 12:01:12 AM
Can never understand why those who don't believe always feel the need or feel they have the right to mock those that do believe.
We've people on this board from both sides - some who believe and who think they are better than those who don't and some who don't believe and think they are better than those who do.
Both are equally annoying.
True,anyone who thinks they are better than the other is equally wrong I agree completely with you ,though you will have to point out to me who those posters are that do have faith who think they are better than those that don't.
Send me a PM if you wish.
I don't really care what anyone believes btw each to their own and all that,but IMO some of those who have no faith are often very smug and arrogant about the fact they think they are far more intelligent and wise than those who do have faith.
I'm sure it's often vice versa as well as you get c***ts in all walks of life,I'm just saying I find it more evident in those that have no faith.
Quote from: laoislad on March 05, 2011, 12:01:12 AM
Can never understand why those who don't believe always feel the need or feel they have the right to mock those that do believe.
My political beliefs are often mocked. Can you understand that?
What about my deeply held opinions on sport and music - should they be off-bounds too?
I follow The Church of LaoisLad's teachings.
Quote from: laoislad on March 05, 2011, 12:01:12 AM
Can never understand why those who don't believe always feel the need or feel they have the right to mock those that do believe.
Typical crap, if you question religious views it is taken as mocking!
Quote from: Cold tea on March 05, 2011, 12:00:06 PM
Quote from: laoislad on March 05, 2011, 12:01:12 AM
Can never understand why those who don't believe always feel the need or feel they have the right to mock those that do believe.
Typical crap, if you question religious views it is taken as mocking!
That's not what I said.
Quote from: ziggysego on March 05, 2011, 11:58:28 AM
I follow The Church of LaoisLad's teachings.
You will go far my son.
dont know why folks bother with these threads... driven by the boards captain counterpoints to massage their intellectual egos, but with enough fresh contributers drawn in each time to provide grist for the mill. Ad nauseum bullshit
Quote from: theskull1 on March 05, 2011, 08:31:10 AM
Quote from: laoislad on March 05, 2011, 12:01:12 AM
Can never understand why those who don't believe always feel the need or feel they have the right to mock those that do believe.
Because the vast majority are no better than domesticated sheep when it comes to your faith. Its a routine of life learned before youse were encouraged to question and youse still havn't examined it. Quite happy to stay safe with your primary school indoctrination and not ask questions.
I think people like Iceman (who questions but has came to a different conclusion than me) is bound to see this in a lot of folk who like to say they believe but dont back it up with an real commitment.
I do agree in many ways with you skull. But I also think that although people do not necessarily back up their "faith" with any real commitment, that something is better than nothing.
If you really took the time to put the work in and read through things and came to the opposite conclusion than me then I'm sorry to hear that. Scott Hahn is a great man to read about if you had a few minutes I'm sure you'll find him on Wiki or somewhere.
I really can subscribe to the attitude of each to their own. It would be hypocritical of me to stand up and profess my faith and its foremost importance in my life while at the same time say I don't care if others don't believe and suffer the consequences.
Quote from: Rav67 on March 05, 2011, 11:26:09 AM
Quote from: laoislad on March 05, 2011, 10:17:38 AM
Quote from: theskull1 on March 05, 2011, 08:31:10 AM
Quote from: laoislad on March 05, 2011, 12:01:12 AM
Can never understand why those who don't believe always feel the need or feel they have the right to mock those that do believe.
Because the vast majority are no better than domesticated sheep when it comes to your faith. Its a routine of life learned before youse were encouraged to question and youse still havn't examined it. Quite happy to stay safe with your primary school indoctrination and not ask questions.
Be that true or not and I have no idea how who know this considering the billions of people that do have faith,but how exactly does this give anyone the right to mock people that do believe?
Sure people get mocked for other things on the board and in everyday life, there's no reason religious belief should be exempt
while that is true, it seems to me that in relation to religious beliefs some non-believers consider themselves more
intelligent than those who choose to believe for the simple reason that they choose to believe - not sure it happens the other way around though certainly there will be believers who think they are
better people tan non-believers because of their faith...
I lean more towards the don't believe camp - not in the church anyway...
Is it not a fair point to make that the vast majority of "believers" never go beyond that belief system and question the validity or history of their faith?
Do you think my motive is meerly to appear more intelligent by asking a simple question? Can someone address why this is the case rather than evading that unpalatable truth
I just can't understand how something is better than nothing when it comes to faith.
I think Christianity has a lot to do with our attitude to the environment. It doesn't matter because were are chosen by god. The environment is in an awful state with appalling implications for humanity and I don't expect God to fix it.
I think people are confusing intelligence with reason. The difference between belief and non-belief is not between intelligence and stupidity. It's between reason and faith. Faith is unsubstantiated belief; reason requires evidence.
A reasoned approach to deciding what you believe cannot result in a religious belief - i.e. the acceptance of a statement from some third party without supporting evidence. A faith-based approach to deciding what you believe does not employ reason as a factor in reaching a decision.
The obvious difficulty with the latter approach, for a rationalist, is the question of how you decide which third party statements to believe. Perhaps those who profess religious beliefs would state their difficulty with the reason-based approach.
Quote from: theskull1 on March 05, 2011, 01:26:04 PM
Is it not a fair point to make that the vast majority of "believers" never go beyond that belief system and question the validity or history of their faith?
Vast majority no but I do agree there is a number of people who are like this,and maybe it was more prevalent back in the day when the Church ruled the roost.
I think you need to give people more credit nowadays,most people are educated enough to be able make up their own minds about things.
Quote from: theskull1 on March 05, 2011, 01:26:04 PM
Do you think my motive is meerly to appear more intelligent by asking a simple question? Can someone address why this is the case rather than evading that unpalatable truth
No I don't believe that is your motive and that goes for anyone that questions someones faith,but to question someones faith is not the same thing as mocking someones intelligence for holding that faith,having some faith or saying prayers doesn't make you delusional or suffer from a lack of common sense.
I myself am a non believer of a lot of things the religion I was born into teaches,but I do have some faith but I have no problem with anyone that questions me or disagrees with me.
I actually don't really care what anyone else believes in or how they came to that conclusion be it a reasoned approach that means you couldn't possibly believe in anything or a life changing experience that makes you believe that there couldn't possibly not be a God.
Quote from: theskull1 on March 05, 2011, 01:26:04 PM
I just can't understand how something is better than nothing when it comes to faith.
My interpretation of that is that when in time of need is it not better to think you have something/someone to get you through it rather than nothing?
For example - a couple lose a child but they find comfort in their beliefs that their child is now with God in heaven surely if it helps them isn't it better for them to have their faith than not have it?
Quote from: CiKe on March 05, 2011, 12:37:06 PM
Quote from: Rav67 on March 05, 2011, 11:26:09 AM
Quote from: laoislad on March 05, 2011, 10:17:38 AM
Quote from: theskull1 on March 05, 2011, 08:31:10 AM
Quote from: laoislad on March 05, 2011, 12:01:12 AM
Can never understand why those who don't believe always feel the need or feel they have the right to mock those that do believe.
Because the vast majority are no better than domesticated sheep when it comes to your faith. Its a routine of life learned before youse were encouraged to question and youse still havn't examined it. Quite happy to stay safe with your primary school indoctrination and not ask questions.
Be that true or not and I have no idea how who know this considering the billions of people that do have faith,but how exactly does this give anyone the right to mock people that do believe?
Sure people get mocked for other things on the board and in everyday life, there's no reason religious belief should be exempt
while that is true, it seems to me that in relation to religious beliefs some non-believers consider themselves more intelligent than those who choose to believe for the simple reason that they choose to believe - not sure it happens the other way around though certainly there will be believers who think they are better people tan non-believers because of their faith...
I lean more towards the don't believe camp - not in the church anyway...
How does one choose to believe in something? You either find the evidence convincing or you don't.
Quote from: laoislad on March 05, 2011, 11:41:48 AM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 05, 2011, 11:01:24 AM
Quote from: laoislad on March 05, 2011, 12:01:12 AM
Can never understand why those who don't believe always feel the need or feel they have the right to mock those that do believe.
We've people on this board from both sides - some who believe and who think they are better than those who don't and some who don't believe and think they are better than those who do.
Both are equally annoying.
True,anyone who thinks they are better than the other is equally wrong I agree completely with you ,though you will have to point out to me who those posters are that do have faith who think they are better than those that don't.
Send me a PM if you wish.
I don't really care what anyone believes btw each to their own and all that,but IMO some of those who have no faith are often very smug and arrogant about the fact they think they are far more intelligent and wise than those who do have faith.
I'm sure it's often vice versa as well as you get c***ts in all walks of life,I'm just saying I find it more evident in those that have no faith.
You may find it more evident because the view those sort of people (like me, I'm assuming) are contrary to your own and so you notice them or take offense more. We're all much more forgiving of perceived arrogance in those who are on our side of an issue.
This thread is an internet discussion of praying and prayer, is it not? If you're offended by the tone of the discussion, then ignore the thread or don't read the offender's posts. Personally, I think religion and faith and prayer gets far, far more respect than it is due at this point in our history, and I'm going to point that out in discussions like this. And yes, I absolutely feel that many, many people are simply indoctrinated into religion, and whether out of fear or superstition or a passive contentment in their worldview, simply never seriously consider that the beliefs in which they've been brought up might not bear scrutiny. If you find those views debateable, well then address them and have a discussion, but spare us the complaining because a tiny minority of non-believers have lately begun to assert themselves and challenge the hegemony of religious belief.
Do those with a relatively strong faith believe that their faith is the one true faith or do they accept that it's just an accident of birth(place)?
Maybe that doesn't really matter.
It has nothing to do with faith, it is all about conditioning, get a life and think for yourselves ffs its 2011, we are born and die end off!
Quote from: ONeill on March 05, 2011, 03:49:37 PM
Do those with a relatively strong faith believe that their faith is the one true faith or do they accept that it's just an accident of birth(place)?
Maybe that doesn't really matter.
I would have thought that true faith is absolute and that all other faiths/religions are wrong.
It's hard to mock people for their religious beliefs as it brings a lot of comfort to people in hard times ref. Mickey Harte. A man in work lost his daughter about 10 years ago when she fell from a tractor he was driving on the farm. He is a deeply religious man and it is this belief that it was God's will that has kept him sane. Many non-believers would have gone for the bottle or the rope.
I'm a big believer in the intercession of the Blessed Virgin, so say the Memorarae. I pray with my son when I put him to bed at night. He knows prayers I was taught by my mam. I think it is a personal thing and I don't condemn anyone for their beliefs or unbeliefs.
I don't think any true Catholic will say that all other religions are fine. If they were fine then why be Catholic.
Theres two things out there really apparent in the pews.
Catholic Minimalism: What can I do bare minimum just to hedge my bets? I'll go to Mass every week, confession once a year a say a few prayers and at least I won't go to Hell.
Practical Atheism: People who pay lip service to God once a week and live the rest of their lives like He doesnt exist....
Interesting debate this morning on The Big Questions on BBC, asking 'Does Prayer Work?'
I'm sure you can watch it on the iplayer if you're interested.
Quote from: laoislad on March 05, 2011, 11:41:48 AM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 05, 2011, 11:01:24 AM
Quote from: laoislad on March 05, 2011, 12:01:12 AM
Can never understand why those who don't believe always feel the need or feel they have the right to mock those that do believe.
We've people on this board from both sides - some who believe and who think they are better than those who don't and some who don't believe and think they are better than those who do.
Both are equally annoying.
True,anyone who thinks they are better than the other is equally wrong I agree completely with you ,though you will have to point out to me who those posters are that do have faith who think they are better than those that don't.
Send me a PM if you wish.
I don't really care what anyone believes btw each to their own and all that,but IMO some of those who have no faith are often very smug and arrogant about the fact they think they are far more intelligent and wise than those who do have faith.
I'm sure it's often vice versa as well as you get c***ts in all walks of life,I'm just saying I find it more evident in those that have no faith.
Iceman.
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 06, 2011, 01:47:16 PM
Interesting debate this morning on The Big Questions on BBC, asking 'Does Prayer Work?'
I'm sure you can watch it on the iplayer if you're interested.
I prayed for a Liverpool win today....
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 06, 2011, 03:03:46 PM
Quote from: laoislad on March 05, 2011, 11:41:48 AM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 05, 2011, 11:01:24 AM
Quote from: laoislad on March 05, 2011, 12:01:12 AM
Can never understand why those who don't believe always feel the need or feel they have the right to mock those that do believe.
We've people on this board from both sides - some who believe and who think they are better than those who don't and some who don't believe and think they are better than those who do.
Both are equally annoying.
True,anyone who thinks they are better than the other is equally wrong I agree completely with you ,though you will have to point out to me who those posters are that do have faith who think they are better than those that don't.
Send me a PM if you wish.
I don't really care what anyone believes btw each to their own and all that,but IMO some of those who have no faith are often very smug and arrogant about the fact they think they are far more intelligent and wise than those who do have faith.
I'm sure it's often vice versa as well as you get c***ts in all walks of life,I'm just saying I find it more evident in those that have no faith.
Iceman.
Read the post back then again and my comments in this thread Pints. I don't think I am better. I am not taking the stance of the opposition as was the argument that those who don't believe are unintelligent or lacking reason.
I don't think I am any better than anyone else nor is anyone better than me. I do think that I will be better off, but there is a difference and I have never argued otherwise.
Iceman :)
Quote from: The Iceman on March 06, 2011, 06:36:38 PMI am not taking the stance of the opposition as was the argument that those who don't believe are unintelligent or lacking reason.
Not lacking reason but not using reason to reach a decision on belief.
Quote from: Hardy on March 06, 2011, 07:05:28 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 06, 2011, 06:36:38 PMI am not taking the stance of the opposition as was the argument that those who don't believe are unintelligent or lacking reason.
Not lacking reason but not using reason to reach a decision on belief.
How can you determine that I did not use reason to determine my choice to believe?
When in fact I actually took the time to fully understand and know the faith before completely committing myself.
I'm afraid I've misunderstood the definition of reason. I used it to mean the reliance on evidence to support choices and decisions and I understood rationalism to be the philosophy of evidence-based reasoning. Your post prompted me to look up the definitions and I find that reason has a number of definitions, none of which require a reliance on evidence in the scientific sense. Not surprisingly, reason seems to be defined as the application of sensible conduct. Furthermore, the dictionary has several theological references in some of the definitions. So I apologise.
The distinction I meant to make was between acceptance of religious dogma without empirical evidence and the philosophy that only recognises as reality anything that has been proven by observation and test. I'll be grateful if anyone can supply the correct term for this to replace "reason" in my faulty vocabulary.
So, to restate my question – my problem with religious belief is that I don't understand the reasoning process by which one proposed explanation of reality is chosen above another – the God vs. the Celestial Teapot problem. In return, can you or others professing religious belief explain their argument against the requirement for some sort of evidence before accepting religious dogma?
Hardy, surely you make judgements every day based on non-evidenced reasoning. For example, you would expect your son to report a murder he witnessed on your street to either you or authorities. Yet, you have no evidence to confirm he would act in that way. You have faith in his judgement based on your general experience of his personality. You have no actual proof. Therefore, is it not reasonable for someone to believe in the existence of God in the same way - they have made a decision to believe in something without evidence. Maybe they've had a feeling of enlightenment at certain times which you have not experienced.
Surely the concept of faith/belief can only exist without evidence. I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow can never be I know that the sun will rise tomorrow. The latter is incorrect. I believe there is no God can never be I know there is no God. You have a belief there is no God (I assume) without any form of evidence too.
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 06, 2011, 01:47:16 PM
Interesting debate this morning on The Big Questions on BBC, asking 'Does Prayer Work?'
I'm sure you can watch it on the iplayer if you're interested.
Sure you don't mean the iprayer? ;)
Quote from: The Iceman on March 06, 2011, 06:36:38 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 06, 2011, 03:03:46 PM
Quote from: laoislad on March 05, 2011, 11:41:48 AM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 05, 2011, 11:01:24 AM
Quote from: laoislad on March 05, 2011, 12:01:12 AM
Can never understand why those who don't believe always feel the need or feel they have the right to mock those that do believe.
We've people on this board from both sides - some who believe and who think they are better than those who don't and some who don't believe and think they are better than those who do.
Both are equally annoying.
True,anyone who thinks they are better than the other is equally wrong I agree completely with you ,though you will have to point out to me who those posters are that do have faith who think they are better than those that don't.
Send me a PM if you wish.
I don't really care what anyone believes btw each to their own and all that,but IMO some of those who have no faith are often very smug and arrogant about the fact they think they are far more intelligent and wise than those who do have faith.
I'm sure it's often vice versa as well as you get c***ts in all walks of life,I'm just saying I find it more evident in those that have no faith.
Iceman.
Read the post back then again and my comments in this thread Pints. I don't think I am better. I am not taking the stance of the opposition as was the argument that those who don't believe are unintelligent or lacking reason.
I don't think I am any better than anyone else nor is anyone better than me. I do think that I will be better off, but there is a difference and I have never argued otherwise.
Iceman :)
Not that I payed much attention in RE at school but a couple of parabells stood out for me.
http://www.dltk-bible.com/cv/good_samaritan.htm
http://www.jesuswalk.com/lessons/18_9-14.htm
I'm not sure Jesus is/was that impressed with blindly following rules and thinking you will get into heaven just by saying a decade of the rosary every night.
Quote from: laoislad on March 06, 2011, 03:30:32 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 06, 2011, 01:47:16 PM
Interesting debate this morning on The Big Questions on BBC, asking 'Does Prayer Work?'
I'm sure you can watch it on the iplayer if you're interested.
I prayed for a Liverpool win today....
Yeah, but you pray for that every week.
Quote from: ONeill on March 06, 2011, 09:07:10 PM
Hardy, surely you make judgements every day based on non-evidenced reasoning. For example, you would expect your son to report a murder he witnessed on your street to either you or authorities. Yet, you have no evidence to confirm he would act in that way. You have faith in his judgement based on your general experience of his personality. You have no actual proof. Therefore, is it not reasonable for someone to believe in the existence of God in the same way - they have made a decision to believe in something without evidence. Maybe they've had a feeling of enlightenment at certain times which you have not experienced.
Surely the concept of faith/belief can only exist without evidence. I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow can never be I know that the sun will rise tomorrow. The latter is incorrect. I believe there is no God can never be I know there is no God. You have a belief there is no God (I assume) without any form of evidence too.
Presumably your belief that your son would (or would not) report a murder he witnessed would be based on your knowledge of his personality, which you've built up through substantial interaction and observation. Similarly, your belief that the sun will rise tomorrow is based on a long record of observations that the sun does indeed rise every day and the reason why it will is perfectly explained by science. However, one's belief in the existence of a god has no basis whatsoever in empirical evidence. There is simply no reason, beyond superstition and a historical, cultural need (arising out of ignorance - not much of an excuse anymore) for an explanation, why the concept of a god or gods even exists.
Quote from: J70 on March 06, 2011, 09:49:10 PM
Quote from: ONeill on March 06, 2011, 09:07:10 PM
Hardy, surely you make judgements every day based on non-evidenced reasoning. For example, you would expect your son to report a murder he witnessed on your street to either you or authorities. Yet, you have no evidence to confirm he would act in that way. You have faith in his judgement based on your general experience of his personality. You have no actual proof. Therefore, is it not reasonable for someone to believe in the existence of God in the same way - they have made a decision to believe in something without evidence. Maybe they've had a feeling of enlightenment at certain times which you have not experienced.
Surely the concept of faith/belief can only exist without evidence. I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow can never be I know that the sun will rise tomorrow. The latter is incorrect. I believe there is no God can never be I know there is no God. You have a belief there is no God (I assume) without any form of evidence too.
Presumably your belief that your son would (or would not) report a murder he witnessed would be based on your knowledge of his personality, which you've built up through substantial interaction and observation. Similarly, your belief that the sun will rise tomorrow is based on a long record of observations that the sun does indeed rise every day and the reason why it will is perfectly explained by science. However, one's belief in the existence of a god has no basis whatsoever in empirical evidence. There is simply no reason, beyond superstition and a historical, cultural need (arising out of ignorance - not much of an excuse anymore) for an explanation, why the concept of a god or gods even exists.
Yea, was thinking that as soon as I entered the final full stop.
Will start again.
Quote from: Hardy on March 06, 2011, 08:50:35 PM
I'll be grateful if anyone can supply the correct term for this to replace "reason" in my faulty vocabulary.
Logic?
What about this -
The universe has not always existed. It had a start...what caused that? Scientists have no explanation for the sudden explosion of light and matter.
Does the belief in a 'creator' hold similar justifiable and viable weight to something which hasn't been answered through evidence?
Quote from: J70 on March 06, 2011, 09:49:10 PM
Quote from: ONeill on March 06, 2011, 09:07:10 PM
Hardy, surely you make judgements every day based on non-evidenced reasoning. For example, you would expect your son to report a murder he witnessed on your street to either you or authorities. Yet, you have no evidence to confirm he would act in that way. You have faith in his judgement based on your general experience of his personality. You have no actual proof. Therefore, is it not reasonable for someone to believe in the existence of God in the same way - they have made a decision to believe in something without evidence. Maybe they've had a feeling of enlightenment at certain times which you have not experienced.
Surely the concept of faith/belief can only exist without evidence. I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow can never be I know that the sun will rise tomorrow. The latter is incorrect. I believe there is no God can never be I know there is no God. You have a belief there is no God (I assume) without any form of evidence too.
Presumably your belief that your son would (or would not) report a murder he witnessed would be based on your knowledge of his personality, which you've built up through substantial interaction and observation. Similarly, your belief that the sun will rise tomorrow is based on a long record of observations that the sun does indeed rise every day and the reason why it will is perfectly explained by science. However, one's belief in the existence of a god has no basis whatsoever in empirical evidence. There is simply no reason, beyond superstition and a historical, cultural need (arising out of ignorance - not much of an excuse anymore) for an explanation, why the concept of a god or gods even exists.
From the time when man was shuffling around a cave scratching his hairy arse, he has believed in a higher power, be it the sun, moon, thunder. What if it was scientifically proven that man performs and survives better by believing in a greater power, even if it turns out that that power doesn't exist?
Quote from: ONeill on March 06, 2011, 10:01:17 PM
What about this -
The universe has not always existed. It had a start...what caused that? Scientists have no explanation for the sudden explosion of light and matter.
Does the belief in a 'creator' hold similar justifiable and viable weight to something which hasn't been answered through evidence?
I understand that to be 'gap theory' - i.e.
science can't (as yet) explain something, so it must be God then. Who's to know what we might have explanations for in 100 years time.
Quote from: ONeill on March 06, 2011, 10:01:17 PM
What about this -
The universe has not always existed. It had a start...what caused that? Scientists have no explanation for the sudden explosion of light and matter.
Does the belief in a 'creator' hold similar justifiable and viable weight to something which hasn't been answered through evidence?
I'm sure there is someone here who can address the cosmology stuff, but I don't see how the unexplained seconds prior to the big bang are any help to those who would argue for the existence of a god. The obvious response is "what caused the god"? The idea that the universe arose naturally seems a lot more logical and defensible to me than the idea that the universe was started by some magical, omnipotent being of unimaginable power and knowledge who also had to have some creator and beginning. What created the creator of the omnipotent creator? And who created his creator??
Quote from: BarryBreensBandage on March 06, 2011, 10:04:50 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 06, 2011, 09:49:10 PM
Quote from: ONeill on March 06, 2011, 09:07:10 PM
Hardy, surely you make judgements every day based on non-evidenced reasoning. For example, you would expect your son to report a murder he witnessed on your street to either you or authorities. Yet, you have no evidence to confirm he would act in that way. You have faith in his judgement based on your general experience of his personality. You have no actual proof. Therefore, is it not reasonable for someone to believe in the existence of God in the same way - they have made a decision to believe in something without evidence. Maybe they've had a feeling of enlightenment at certain times which you have not experienced.
Surely the concept of faith/belief can only exist without evidence. I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow can never be I know that the sun will rise tomorrow. The latter is incorrect. I believe there is no God can never be I know there is no God. You have a belief there is no God (I assume) without any form of evidence too.
Presumably your belief that your son would (or would not) report a murder he witnessed would be based on your knowledge of his personality, which you've built up through substantial interaction and observation. Similarly, your belief that the sun will rise tomorrow is based on a long record of observations that the sun does indeed rise every day and the reason why it will is perfectly explained by science. However, one's belief in the existence of a god has no basis whatsoever in empirical evidence. There is simply no reason, beyond superstition and a historical, cultural need (arising out of ignorance - not much of an excuse anymore) for an explanation, why the concept of a god or gods even exists.
From the time when man was shuffling around a cave scratching his hairy arse, he has believed in a higher power, be it the sun, moon, thunder. What if it was scientifically proven that man performs and survives better by believing in a greater power, even if it turns out that that power doesn't exist?
Ok, what if? Assuming you're correct and such a delusional state is advantageous, what does that mean? That we should go on fooling ourselves? We should protect the population from the danger and suppress the spread of certain aspects of scientific knowledge?
Quote from: J70 on March 06, 2011, 10:16:55 PM
Quote from: BarryBreensBandage on March 06, 2011, 10:04:50 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 06, 2011, 09:49:10 PM
Quote from: ONeill on March 06, 2011, 09:07:10 PM
Hardy, surely you make judgements every day based on non-evidenced reasoning. For example, you would expect your son to report a murder he witnessed on your street to either you or authorities. Yet, you have no evidence to confirm he would act in that way. You have faith in his judgement based on your general experience of his personality. You have no actual proof. Therefore, is it not reasonable for someone to believe in the existence of God in the same way - they have made a decision to believe in something without evidence. Maybe they've had a feeling of enlightenment at certain times which you have not experienced.
Surely the concept of faith/belief can only exist without evidence. I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow can never be I know that the sun will rise tomorrow. The latter is incorrect. I believe there is no God can never be I know there is no God. You have a belief there is no God (I assume) without any form of evidence too.
Presumably your belief that your son would (or would not) report a murder he witnessed would be based on your knowledge of his personality, which you've built up through substantial interaction and observation. Similarly, your belief that the sun will rise tomorrow is based on a long record of observations that the sun does indeed rise every day and the reason why it will is perfectly explained by science. However, one's belief in the existence of a god has no basis whatsoever in empirical evidence. There is simply no reason, beyond superstition and a historical, cultural need (arising out of ignorance - not much of an excuse anymore) for an explanation, why the concept of a god or gods even exists.
From the time when man was shuffling around a cave scratching his hairy arse, he has believed in a higher power, be it the sun, moon, thunder. What if it was scientifically proven that man performs and survives better by believing in a greater power, even if it turns out that that power doesn't exist?
Ok, what if? Assuming you're correct and such a delusional state is advantageous, what does that mean? That we should go on fooling ourselves? We should protect the population from the danger and suppress the spread of certain aspects of scientific knowledge?
Its called Survival of the Fittest and that is not religion or philosophy.
Quote from: BarryBreensBandage on March 06, 2011, 10:27:32 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 06, 2011, 10:16:55 PM
Quote from: BarryBreensBandage on March 06, 2011, 10:04:50 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 06, 2011, 09:49:10 PM
Quote from: ONeill on March 06, 2011, 09:07:10 PM
Hardy, surely you make judgements every day based on non-evidenced reasoning. For example, you would expect your son to report a murder he witnessed on your street to either you or authorities. Yet, you have no evidence to confirm he would act in that way. You have faith in his judgement based on your general experience of his personality. You have no actual proof. Therefore, is it not reasonable for someone to believe in the existence of God in the same way - they have made a decision to believe in something without evidence. Maybe they've had a feeling of enlightenment at certain times which you have not experienced.
Surely the concept of faith/belief can only exist without evidence. I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow can never be I know that the sun will rise tomorrow. The latter is incorrect. I believe there is no God can never be I know there is no God. You have a belief there is no God (I assume) without any form of evidence too.
Presumably your belief that your son would (or would not) report a murder he witnessed would be based on your knowledge of his personality, which you've built up through substantial interaction and observation. Similarly, your belief that the sun will rise tomorrow is based on a long record of observations that the sun does indeed rise every day and the reason why it will is perfectly explained by science. However, one's belief in the existence of a god has no basis whatsoever in empirical evidence. There is simply no reason, beyond superstition and a historical, cultural need (arising out of ignorance - not much of an excuse anymore) for an explanation, why the concept of a god or gods even exists.
From the time when man was shuffling around a cave scratching his hairy arse, he has believed in a higher power, be it the sun, moon, thunder. What if it was scientifically proven that man performs and survives better by believing in a greater power, even if it turns out that that power doesn't exist?
Ok, what if? Assuming you're correct and such a delusional state is advantageous, what does that mean? That we should go on fooling ourselves? We should protect the population from the danger and suppress the spread of certain aspects of scientific knowledge?
Its called Survival of the Fittest and that is not religion or philosophy.
Yes, I think we're all aware of what you were talking about. My question was based on your premise being true, that such a belief offered a survival advantage. Assuming that, what do YOU think we should do about it. (You asked "what if..."?)
Quote from: J70 on March 06, 2011, 10:39:27 PM
Quote from: BarryBreensBandage on March 06, 2011, 10:27:32 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 06, 2011, 10:16:55 PM
Quote from: BarryBreensBandage on March 06, 2011, 10:04:50 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 06, 2011, 09:49:10 PM
Quote from: ONeill on March 06, 2011, 09:07:10 PM
Hardy, surely you make judgements every day based on non-evidenced reasoning. For example, you would expect your son to report a murder he witnessed on your street to either you or authorities. Yet, you have no evidence to confirm he would act in that way. You have faith in his judgement based on your general experience of his personality. You have no actual proof. Therefore, is it not reasonable for someone to believe in the existence of God in the same way - they have made a decision to believe in something without evidence. Maybe they've had a feeling of enlightenment at certain times which you have not experienced.
Surely the concept of faith/belief can only exist without evidence. I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow can never be I know that the sun will rise tomorrow. The latter is incorrect. I believe there is no God can never be I know there is no God. You have a belief there is no God (I assume) without any form of evidence too.
Presumably your belief that your son would (or would not) report a murder he witnessed would be based on your knowledge of his personality, which you've built up through substantial interaction and observation. Similarly, your belief that the sun will rise tomorrow is based on a long record of observations that the sun does indeed rise every day and the reason why it will is perfectly explained by science. However, one's belief in the existence of a god has no basis whatsoever in empirical evidence. There is simply no reason, beyond superstition and a historical, cultural need (arising out of ignorance - not much of an excuse anymore) for an explanation, why the concept of a god or gods even exists.
From the time when man was shuffling around a cave scratching his hairy arse, he has believed in a higher power, be it the sun, moon, thunder. What if it was scientifically proven that man performs and survives better by believing in a greater power, even if it turns out that that power doesn't exist?
Ok, what if? Assuming you're correct and such a delusional state is advantageous, what does that mean? That we should go on fooling ourselves? We should protect the population from the danger and suppress the spread of certain aspects of scientific knowledge?
Its called Survival of the Fittest and that is not religion or philosophy.
Yes, I think we're all aware of what you were talking about. My question was based on your premise being true, that such a belief offered a survival advantage. Assuming that, what do YOU think we should do about it. (You asked "what if..."?)
I asked "What if", and I wouldn't really have posted the question if I was only interested in my answer.
And fair dues, you gave your answer, albeit in the form of questions.
Quote from: J70 on March 06, 2011, 09:49:10 PM
Presumably your belief that your son would (or would not) report a murder he witnessed would be based on your knowledge of his personality, which you've built up through substantial interaction and observation. Similarly, your belief that the sun will rise tomorrow is based on a long record of observations that the sun does indeed rise every day and the reason why it will is perfectly explained by science. However, one's belief in the existence of a god has no basis whatsoever in empirical evidence. There is simply no reason, beyond superstition and a historical, cultural need (arising out of ignorance - not much of an excuse anymore) for an explanation, why the concept of a god or gods even exists.
J70 the fact you use knowledge of personality, evidence from substantial interaction and observation is perfect - for me as a believer.
I have a deep understanding of Jesus' personality and evidence from an ongoing relationship with Him. This is found in the teachings and traditions of the Church and in scripture. Found in personal prayer and experience and found in relationship.
You may not understand these, but in the same way you would not understand who anyone else is that I have a close relationship with, unless you knew them yourself. Its all about experience here. You can't write something off just because you don't know it or seek to find it.
Quote from: BarryBreensBandage on March 06, 2011, 10:50:44 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 06, 2011, 10:39:27 PM
Quote from: BarryBreensBandage on March 06, 2011, 10:27:32 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 06, 2011, 10:16:55 PM
Quote from: BarryBreensBandage on March 06, 2011, 10:04:50 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 06, 2011, 09:49:10 PM
Quote from: ONeill on March 06, 2011, 09:07:10 PM
Hardy, surely you make judgements every day based on non-evidenced reasoning. For example, you would expect your son to report a murder he witnessed on your street to either you or authorities. Yet, you have no evidence to confirm he would act in that way. You have faith in his judgement based on your general experience of his personality. You have no actual proof. Therefore, is it not reasonable for someone to believe in the existence of God in the same way - they have made a decision to believe in something without evidence. Maybe they've had a feeling of enlightenment at certain times which you have not experienced.
Surely the concept of faith/belief can only exist without evidence. I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow can never be I know that the sun will rise tomorrow. The latter is incorrect. I believe there is no God can never be I know there is no God. You have a belief there is no God (I assume) without any form of evidence too.
Presumably your belief that your son would (or would not) report a murder he witnessed would be based on your knowledge of his personality, which you've built up through substantial interaction and observation. Similarly, your belief that the sun will rise tomorrow is based on a long record of observations that the sun does indeed rise every day and the reason why it will is perfectly explained by science. However, one's belief in the existence of a god has no basis whatsoever in empirical evidence. There is simply no reason, beyond superstition and a historical, cultural need (arising out of ignorance - not much of an excuse anymore) for an explanation, why the concept of a god or gods even exists.
From the time when man was shuffling around a cave scratching his hairy arse, he has believed in a higher power, be it the sun, moon, thunder. What if it was scientifically proven that man performs and survives better by believing in a greater power, even if it turns out that that power doesn't exist?
Ok, what if? Assuming you're correct and such a delusional state is advantageous, what does that mean? That we should go on fooling ourselves? We should protect the population from the danger and suppress the spread of certain aspects of scientific knowledge?
Its called Survival of the Fittest and that is not religion or philosophy.
Yes, I think we're all aware of what you were talking about. My question was based on your premise being true, that such a belief offered a survival advantage. Assuming that, what do YOU think we should do about it. (You asked "what if..."?)
I asked "What if", and I wouldn't really have posted the question if I was only interested in my answer.
And fair dues, you gave your answer, albeit in the form of questions.
Yes, my answer was pretty clearly implicit in my questions. There is no way I would advocate encouraging people into falsely believing in gods because it apparently offered some selective advantage in an evolutionary sense.
Quote from: The Iceman on March 06, 2011, 11:10:36 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 06, 2011, 09:49:10 PM
Presumably your belief that your son would (or would not) report a murder he witnessed would be based on your knowledge of his personality, which you've built up through substantial interaction and observation. Similarly, your belief that the sun will rise tomorrow is based on a long record of observations that the sun does indeed rise every day and the reason why it will is perfectly explained by science. However, one's belief in the existence of a god has no basis whatsoever in empirical evidence. There is simply no reason, beyond superstition and a historical, cultural need (arising out of ignorance - not much of an excuse anymore) for an explanation, why the concept of a god or gods even exists.
J70 the fact you use knowledge of personality, evidence from substantial interaction and observation is perfect - for me as a believer.
I have a deep understanding of Jesus' personality and evidence from an ongoing relationship with Him. This is found in the teachings and traditions of the Church and in scripture. Found in personal prayer and experience and found in relationship.
You may not understand these, but in the same way you would not understand who anyone else is that I have a close relationship with, unless you knew them yourself. Its all about experience here. You can't write something off just because you don't know it or seek to find it.
I've no doubt whatsoever that you feel and believe with all sincerity that you've a relationship with an alleged entity called Jesus. Doesn't make Jesus any more real though. The same goes for any number of religions, gods, prophets or L. Ron Hubbards.
Quote from: J70 on March 06, 2011, 11:18:41 PM
Quote from: BarryBreensBandage on March 06, 2011, 10:50:44 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 06, 2011, 10:39:27 PM
Quote from: BarryBreensBandage on March 06, 2011, 10:27:32 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 06, 2011, 10:16:55 PM
Quote from: BarryBreensBandage on March 06, 2011, 10:04:50 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 06, 2011, 09:49:10 PM
Quote from: ONeill on March 06, 2011, 09:07:10 PM
Hardy, surely you make judgements every day based on non-evidenced reasoning. For example, you would expect your son to report a murder he witnessed on your street to either you or authorities. Yet, you have no evidence to confirm he would act in that way. You have faith in his judgement based on your general experience of his personality. You have no actual proof. Therefore, is it not reasonable for someone to believe in the existence of God in the same way - they have made a decision to believe in something without evidence. Maybe they've had a feeling of enlightenment at certain times which you have not experienced.
Surely the concept of faith/belief can only exist without evidence. I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow can never be I know that the sun will rise tomorrow. The latter is incorrect. I believe there is no God can never be I know there is no God. You have a belief there is no God (I assume) without any form of evidence too.
Presumably your belief that your son would (or would not) report a murder he witnessed would be based on your knowledge of his personality, which you've built up through substantial interaction and observation. Similarly, your belief that the sun will rise tomorrow is based on a long record of observations that the sun does indeed rise every day and the reason why it will is perfectly explained by science. However, one's belief in the existence of a god has no basis whatsoever in empirical evidence. There is simply no reason, beyond superstition and a historical, cultural need (arising out of ignorance - not much of an excuse anymore) for an explanation, why the concept of a god or gods even exists.
From the time when man was shuffling around a cave scratching his hairy arse, he has believed in a higher power, be it the sun, moon, thunder. What if it was scientifically proven that man performs and survives better by believing in a greater power, even if it turns out that that power doesn't exist?
Ok, what if? Assuming you're correct and such a delusional state is advantageous, what does that mean? That we should go on fooling ourselves? We should protect the population from the danger and suppress the spread of certain aspects of scientific knowledge?
Its called Survival of the Fittest and that is not religion or philosophy.
Yes, I think we're all aware of what you were talking about. My question was based on your premise being true, that such a belief offered a survival advantage. Assuming that, what do YOU think we should do about it. (You asked "what if..."?)
I asked "What if", and I wouldn't really have posted the question if I was only interested in my answer.
And fair dues, you gave your answer, albeit in the form of questions.
Yes, my answer was pretty clearly implicit in my questions. There is no way I would advocate encouraging people into falsely believing in gods because it apparently offered some selective advantage in an evolutionary sense.
So, in parallel with this, there is no way that you would advocate not smoking to the younger generation, even though smoking has been clinically proven to massively reduce the chance of survival?
It comes back to the concept of faith. There are those who reject the idea of faith because it isn't concrete - you cannot point to an earlier example to show that it exists or most likely exists. However, to do that is wrongly dismissive. I'm a non-believer (at present) but I acknowledge the legitimacy of faith as I do scientific evidence.
Tomorrow I might stop the car at a garage and attempt to purchase milk. I have no idea if the shop has milk to sell. However, I'm using personal experience as close to reasoning as it can be. Those who believe in God may use the First Cause theory or the evidence of morality in the human race as their reasoning. Both scenarios put faith in personal decision making.
To dismiss the existence of God means you reject the notion or concept of faith as a human characteristic.
Quote from: BarryBreensBandage on March 06, 2011, 11:27:42 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 06, 2011, 11:18:41 PM
Quote from: BarryBreensBandage on March 06, 2011, 10:50:44 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 06, 2011, 10:39:27 PM
Quote from: BarryBreensBandage on March 06, 2011, 10:27:32 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 06, 2011, 10:16:55 PM
Quote from: BarryBreensBandage on March 06, 2011, 10:04:50 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 06, 2011, 09:49:10 PM
Quote from: ONeill on March 06, 2011, 09:07:10 PM
Hardy, surely you make judgements every day based on non-evidenced reasoning. For example, you would expect your son to report a murder he witnessed on your street to either you or authorities. Yet, you have no evidence to confirm he would act in that way. You have faith in his judgement based on your general experience of his personality. You have no actual proof. Therefore, is it not reasonable for someone to believe in the existence of God in the same way - they have made a decision to believe in something without evidence. Maybe they've had a feeling of enlightenment at certain times which you have not experienced.
Surely the concept of faith/belief can only exist without evidence. I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow can never be I know that the sun will rise tomorrow. The latter is incorrect. I believe there is no God can never be I know there is no God. You have a belief there is no God (I assume) without any form of evidence too.
Presumably your belief that your son would (or would not) report a murder he witnessed would be based on your knowledge of his personality, which you've built up through substantial interaction and observation. Similarly, your belief that the sun will rise tomorrow is based on a long record of observations that the sun does indeed rise every day and the reason why it will is perfectly explained by science. However, one's belief in the existence of a god has no basis whatsoever in empirical evidence. There is simply no reason, beyond superstition and a historical, cultural need (arising out of ignorance - not much of an excuse anymore) for an explanation, why the concept of a god or gods even exists.
From the time when man was shuffling around a cave scratching his hairy arse, he has believed in a higher power, be it the sun, moon, thunder. What if it was scientifically proven that man performs and survives better by believing in a greater power, even if it turns out that that power doesn't exist?
Ok, what if? Assuming you're correct and such a delusional state is advantageous, what does that mean? That we should go on fooling ourselves? We should protect the population from the danger and suppress the spread of certain aspects of scientific knowledge?
Its called Survival of the Fittest and that is not religion or philosophy.
Yes, I think we're all aware of what you were talking about. My question was based on your premise being true, that such a belief offered a survival advantage. Assuming that, what do YOU think we should do about it. (You asked "what if..."?)
I asked "What if", and I wouldn't really have posted the question if I was only interested in my answer.
And fair dues, you gave your answer, albeit in the form of questions.
Yes, my answer was pretty clearly implicit in my questions. There is no way I would advocate encouraging people into falsely believing in gods because it apparently offered some selective advantage in an evolutionary sense.
So, in parallel with this, there is no way that you would advocate not smoking to the younger generation, even though smoking has been clinically proven to massively reduce the chance of survival?
Let's keep the discussion sensible...
Quote from: ONeill on March 06, 2011, 11:35:35 PM
It comes back to the concept of faith. There are those who reject the idea of faith because it isn't concrete - you cannot point to an earlier example to show that it exists or most likely exists. However, to do that is wrongly dismissive. I'm a non-believer (at present) but I acknowledge the legitimacy of faith as I do scientific evidence.
Tomorrow I might stop the car at a garage and attempt to purchase milk. I have no idea if the shop has milk to sell. However, I'm using personal experience as close to reasoning as it can be. Those who believe in God may use the First Cause theory or the evidence of morality in the human race as their reasoning. Both scenarios put faith in personal decision making.
To dismiss the existence of God means you reject the notion or concept of faith as a human characteristic.
Faith is obviously a human characteristic. I don't think anyone has ever claimed otherwise. So are lying and murder. There are many human characteristics. Not all of them are good things.
Quote from: J70 on March 06, 2011, 11:22:59 PM
I've no doubt whatsoever that you feel and believe with all sincerity that you've a relationship with an alleged entity called Jesus. Doesn't make Jesus any more real though. The same goes for any number of religions, gods, prophets or L. Ron Hubbards.
It is well documented that Jesus existed - that has never been in question. What is questioned is whether or not He is the Son of God.
Thats for another thread. I encourage you to take some time to find out for yourself. That doesn't mean reading Wikipedia......
Quote from: J70 on March 06, 2011, 11:46:33 PM
Quote from: ONeill on March 06, 2011, 11:35:35 PM
It comes back to the concept of faith. There are those who reject the idea of faith because it isn't concrete - you cannot point to an earlier example to show that it exists or most likely exists. However, to do that is wrongly dismissive. I'm a non-believer (at present) but I acknowledge the legitimacy of faith as I do scientific evidence.
Tomorrow I might stop the car at a garage and attempt to purchase milk. I have no idea if the shop has milk to sell. However, I'm using personal experience as close to reasoning as it can be. Those who believe in God may use the First Cause theory or the evidence of morality in the human race as their reasoning. Both scenarios put faith in personal decision making.
To dismiss the existence of God means you reject the notion or concept of faith as a human characteristic.
Faith is obviously a human characteristic. I don't think anyone has ever claimed otherwise. So are lying and murder. There are many human characteristics. Not all of them are good things.
Lying and murder are actions. Faith is something without material, and often logical, evidence. For me, it is allowed to hold the same weight as physics.
Quote from: The Iceman on March 06, 2011, 11:47:35 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 06, 2011, 11:22:59 PM
I've no doubt whatsoever that you feel and believe with all sincerity that you've a relationship with an alleged entity called Jesus. Doesn't make Jesus any more real though. The same goes for any number of religions, gods, prophets or L. Ron Hubbards.
It is well documented that Jesus existed - that has never been in question. What is questioned is whether or not He is the Son of God.
Thats for another thread. I encourage you to take some time to find out for yourself. That doesn't mean reading Wikipedia......
Is the wikipedia comment an attempted putdown? I don't recall ever presenting it as a source.
A historical figure called Jesus may or may not have existed, but as you say, the key question is whether he is who religious people claim he is. Same as Muhammed, Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard or whoever else you might be inclined by your particular beliefs to make spectacular claims about. And that is the sense in which I commented on his "realness". It is the supposed supernatural Jesus you're talking about after all...
Quote from: ONeill on March 06, 2011, 11:54:56 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 06, 2011, 11:46:33 PM
Quote from: ONeill on March 06, 2011, 11:35:35 PM
It comes back to the concept of faith. There are those who reject the idea of faith because it isn't concrete - you cannot point to an earlier example to show that it exists or most likely exists. However, to do that is wrongly dismissive. I'm a non-believer (at present) but I acknowledge the legitimacy of faith as I do scientific evidence.
Tomorrow I might stop the car at a garage and attempt to purchase milk. I have no idea if the shop has milk to sell. However, I'm using personal experience as close to reasoning as it can be. Those who believe in God may use the First Cause theory or the evidence of morality in the human race as their reasoning. Both scenarios put faith in personal decision making.
To dismiss the existence of God means you reject the notion or concept of faith as a human characteristic.
Faith is obviously a human characteristic. I don't think anyone has ever claimed otherwise. So are lying and murder. There are many human characteristics. Not all of them are good things.
Lying and murder are actions. Faith is something without material, and often logical, evidence. For me, it is allowed to hold the same weight as physics.
Great Post
Quote from: ONeill on March 06, 2011, 11:54:56 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 06, 2011, 11:46:33 PM
Quote from: ONeill on March 06, 2011, 11:35:35 PM
It comes back to the concept of faith. There are those who reject the idea of faith because it isn't concrete - you cannot point to an earlier example to show that it exists or most likely exists. However, to do that is wrongly dismissive. I'm a non-believer (at present) but I acknowledge the legitimacy of faith as I do scientific evidence.
Tomorrow I might stop the car at a garage and attempt to purchase milk. I have no idea if the shop has milk to sell. However, I'm using personal experience as close to reasoning as it can be. Those who believe in God may use the First Cause theory or the evidence of morality in the human race as their reasoning. Both scenarios put faith in personal decision making.
To dismiss the existence of God means you reject the notion or concept of faith as a human characteristic.
Faith is obviously a human characteristic. I don't think anyone has ever claimed otherwise. So are lying and murder. There are many human characteristics. Not all of them are good things.
Lying and murder are actions. Faith is something without material, and often logical, evidence. For me, it is allowed to hold the same weight as physics.
That's pretty dismissive of the scientific field of physics. But each to their own.
Quote from: ONeill on March 06, 2011, 11:54:56 PM
Lying and murder are actions. Faith is something without material, and often logical, evidence. For me, it is allowed to hold the same weight as physics.
Youre sure taking the mick ONeill?
It takes years of "actions" by faith leaders to develop the notion of faith in the young population. Their actions help construct the mental framework to get people to "believe". And lets not forget the material gains made by those who have promoted faith.
Quote from: ONeill on March 06, 2011, 11:54:56 PM
Lying and murder are actions. Faith is something without material, and often logical, evidence. For me, it is allowed to hold the same weight as physics.
Just in from the pub to see the discussion has progressed. For now, all I'll trust myself to say is you cannot be serious - in the context that what (I think) we're talking about is the quest for a reliable model of reality. In what way is faith in God a better model than faith in Russel's teapot?
Goodnight.
Quote from: Hardy on March 07, 2011, 12:20:35 AM
Goodnight.
Nighty night night. Hope you said your prayers and brushed your teeth-God doesn't give out new teeth for free.
Quote from: J70 on March 06, 2011, 11:59:15 PM
Is the wikipedia comment an attempted putdown? I don't recall ever presenting it as a source.
A historical figure called Jesus may or may not have existed, but as you say, the key question is whether he is who religious people claim he is. Same as Muhammed, Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard or whoever else you might be inclined by your particular beliefs to make spectacular claims about. And that is the sense in which I commented on his "realness". It is the supposed supernatural Jesus you're talking about after all...
If Jesus did exist what did he gain from as you put it "claiming to be the Son of God"? or was he just crazy?
Lets not forget Iceman that the jesus stories were written by people who didn't even meet the man and relied of hand me down stories translated from maybe once or twice on the way over 60 or more years after his death. How can stories like that mean anything to anybody and be taken as gospel (pardon the pun)?. Every hand me down story gets embelished.
Quote from: theskull1 on March 07, 2011, 01:00:57 AM
Lets not forget Iceman that the jesus stories were written by people who didn't even meet the man and relied of hand me down stories translated from maybe once or twice on the way over 60 or more years after his death. How can stories like that mean anything to anybody and be taken as gospel (pardon the pun)?. Every hand me down story gets embelished.
Skull you might need to check that out first. Matthew?
Mark also scribed his Gospel on behalf of Peter, maybe you've heard of him? Peter makes reference to Mark is one of his letters.
Luke was a Doctor and co-worker with St.Paul.
John was one of the 12 apostles.
This is what I am talking about folks. Skull can come on here and make bold claims without even fully understanding or doing some research.
Quote from: The Iceman on March 07, 2011, 12:49:07 AM
Quote from: J70 on March 06, 2011, 11:59:15 PM
Is the wikipedia comment an attempted putdown? I don't recall ever presenting it as a source.
A historical figure called Jesus may or may not have existed, but as you say, the key question is whether he is who religious people claim he is. Same as Muhammed, Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard or whoever else you might be inclined by your particular beliefs to make spectacular claims about. And that is the sense in which I commented on his "realness". It is the supposed supernatural Jesus you're talking about after all...
If Jesus did exist what did he gain from as you put it "claiming to be the Son of God"? or was he just crazy?
Well first you assuming that its a historical fact that the historical Jesus, if he existed, did in fact claim to be the "Son of God". But that aside, if he did, he would hardly be the first or the last person in history to make such grandiose claims.
Quote from: J70 on March 07, 2011, 01:30:58 AM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 07, 2011, 12:49:07 AM
Quote from: J70 on March 06, 2011, 11:59:15 PM
Is the wikipedia comment an attempted putdown? I don't recall ever presenting it as a source.
A historical figure called Jesus may or may not have existed, but as you say, the key question is whether he is who religious people claim he is. Same as Muhammed, Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard or whoever else you might be inclined by your particular beliefs to make spectacular claims about. And that is the sense in which I commented on his "realness". It is the supposed supernatural Jesus you're talking about after all...
If Jesus did exist what did he gain from as you put it "claiming to be the Son of God"? or was he just crazy?
Well first you assuming that its a historical fact that the historical Jesus, if he existed, did in fact claim to be the "Son of God". But that aside, if he did, he would hardly be the first or the last person in history to make such grandiose claims.
Do you assume that the historical Jesus did not claim to be God or do you know He didn't?
Do you assume that there was not a man named Jesus recorded in other historical documents from the time or do you know?
Just curious......
The story of Jesus was shaped into whatever form suited the powers-that-be at the time. Hence the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Judas and a handful of other accounts of the events were conveniently taken out of the 'official' story.
Quote from: The Iceman on March 07, 2011, 01:44:34 AM
Quote from: J70 on March 07, 2011, 01:30:58 AM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 07, 2011, 12:49:07 AM
Quote from: J70 on March 06, 2011, 11:59:15 PM
Is the wikipedia comment an attempted putdown? I don't recall ever presenting it as a source.
A historical figure called Jesus may or may not have existed, but as you say, the key question is whether he is who religious people claim he is. Same as Muhammed, Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard or whoever else you might be inclined by your particular beliefs to make spectacular claims about. And that is the sense in which I commented on his "realness". It is the supposed supernatural Jesus you're talking about after all...
If Jesus did exist what did he gain from as you put it "claiming to be the Son of God"? or was he just crazy?
Well first you assuming that its a historical fact that the historical Jesus, if he existed, did in fact claim to be the "Son of God". But that aside, if he did, he would hardly be the first or the last person in history to make such grandiose claims.
Do you assume that the historical Jesus did not claim to be God or do you know He didn't?
Do you assume that there was not a man named Jesus recorded in other historical documents from the time or do you know?
Just curious......
I don't assume or "know" anything Iceman. The burden of proof is on those making the claims as to his supposed divinity. And I have no idea whether or not the historical Jesus actually existed or whether, if he did, he claimed to be a god. Accounts (the gospels) written after his life claim he did exist. That's fine. And not really relevant in the grand scheme... even if such a man did exist, that doesn't do anything to make the case that the "Son of God" came down to earth.
Kinda surprised you took the bait in here IM....there was only ever one direction
this thread was going to go!
I'd have thought with PHP trolling in getting the ball rolling then having nothing at all to add might have given it away...
Quote from: J70 on March 07, 2011, 02:39:56 AM
I don't assume or "know" anything Iceman. The burden of proof is on those making the claims as to his supposed divinity. And I have no idea whether or not the historical Jesus actually existed or whether, if he did, he claimed to be a god. Accounts (the gospels) written after his life claim he did exist. That's fine. And not really relevant in the grand scheme... even if such a man did exist, that doesn't do anything to make the case that the "Son of God" came down to earth.
The Middle East was full of characters like him at the time. It's possible that his torture and execution (assuming it happened as described) coincided with an earthquake and the people jumped to some conclusion that the two events were linked. There was no such thing as a geological survey or richter scale in them days, natural disasters were all presumed to be "God's will" which, incidentally, is the same way people on this thread are talking about the Big Bang.
Quote from: The Iceman on March 07, 2011, 01:14:00 AM
Quote from: theskull1 on March 07, 2011, 01:00:57 AM
Lets not forget Iceman that the jesus stories were written by people who didn't even meet the man and relied of hand me down stories translated from maybe once or twice on the way over 60 or more years after his death. How can stories like that mean anything to anybody and be taken as gospel (pardon the pun)?. Every hand me down story gets embelished.
Skull you might need to check that out first. Matthew?
Mark also scribed his Gospel on behalf of Peter, maybe you've heard of him? Peter makes reference to Mark is one of his letters.
Luke was a Doctor and co-worker with St.Paul.
John was one of the 12 apostles.
This is what I am talking about folks. Skull can come on here and make bold claims without even fully understanding or doing some research.
Yes, but a few other points:
1 - There are plenty of contradictions and inconsistencies between the bible, even the synoptic gospels. And it's fairly clear that there was a bit of copying going on between these three.
2 - As another poster has pointed out, what books have been ommitted and why?
3 - How close are the current texts to the originals?
4 - There is considerable debate as to whether some of the gospels were actually written by their supposed authors.
5 - Some were written well after the death of Jesus.
Quote from: ONeill on March 06, 2011, 09:07:10 PM
Hardy, surely you make judgements every day based on non-evidenced reasoning. For example, you would expect your son to report a murder he witnessed on your street to either you or authorities. Yet, you have no evidence to confirm he would act in that way. You have faith in his judgement based on your general experience of his personality. You have no actual proof. Therefore, is it not reasonable for someone to believe in the existence of God in the same way - they have made a decision to believe in something without evidence. Maybe they've had a feeling of enlightenment at certain times which you have not experienced.
I think the case you’re stating is in favour of evidence-based reasoning. The distinction you state is not between evidence-based and dogma-based belief, which was the distinction I was making. I would expect my son to report a murder because the evidence I have of this likelihood is my experience of his behaviour in all the time I have known him.
The analogy with dogma-based belief would be if somebody (or the whole community, for a closer analogy) came to me and said – see your son there? If he witnessed a murder, we have decided that he wouldn’t report it. In fact, he would go off to Chetenham and back Imperial Commander in the Gold Cup instead.
Why would I give any credence to this suggestion? People might say “well, the whole community seems to believe it”. So I might agree to investigate the source of that belief:
What observed behaviour in my son leads you to such a detailed and specific conclusion, folks?
- Well it’s all written down here in this book.
Oh! Who wrote that book?
- An omnipotent entity. We call it God.
How do you know?
…. etc., etc.
Quote
Surely the concept of faith/belief can only exist without evidence. I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow can never be I know that the sun will rise tomorrow. The latter is incorrect. I believe there is no God can never be I know there is no God. You have a belief there is no God (I assume) without any form of evidence too.
Why do I need evidence that there is no God? It’s impossible to prove a negative. More to the point, there is no requirement to prove this particular one. I might as well ask you to prove that Enda Kenny isn’t a Vulcan.
And I agree that in absolute terms there is no knowing. The world works on probability and likelihood. Science, especially, proceeds on that basis. All of scientific theory is based on the balance of likelihood, taking into account all observed information. In fact, probability and even uncertainty are at the heart of quantum theory.
So my simple working model of reality is, as I said flippantly in a previous post, that I believe things that are likely to be true. This serves me for all practical purposes. For convenience, I have revised my own definition of “knowing”, as most people do, to fit in with that model. I cannot absolutely know that the sun will rise in the morning. But, for all practical purposes I know.
What would be bizarre and akin to the religious approach would be if I were to make up a theory that some benign cosmic goblin raises the sun above the horizon every day, but next Saturday night he’s going to die, so no sun on Sunday. This belief would have no validity, even if I could convince millions of people to accept it.
Quote from: The Iceman on March 06, 2011, 11:47:35 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 06, 2011, 11:22:59 PM
I've no doubt whatsoever that you feel and believe with all sincerity that you've a relationship with an alleged entity called Jesus. Doesn't make Jesus any more real though. The same goes for any number of religions, gods, prophets or L. Ron Hubbards.
It is well documented that Jesus existed - that has never been in question. What is questioned is whether or not He is the Son of God.
Thats for another thread. I encourage you to take some time to find out for yourself. That doesn't mean reading Wikipedia......
Well documented in a book written by people who never met the man!
The bible is incontrovertible truth and unquestionably the word of God. Wikipedia is unreliable.
Discuss.
it must be great being TO. He doesn't do contemplation anymore now that he knows all he needs to
Hardy, is it true to say you reject any form of spirituality or any kind of reality lacking material proof?
What I mean is you adhere to the idea that the human race do not possess a sense which cannot be quantified using biological or physical examination?
Do you believe in the power of positive thought when it comes to overcoming illness or is that just bunkum to you because it cannot be seen or scientifically quantified?
If you answer yes to all the above, you then have a set of ideals/principles that will not allow the concept of faith to exist unless there is some form of material evidence. If that is the case, can you not accept that your method of evaluating human potential is simply your choice using your individual reasoning? The concept of faith has no material evidence and never will have. So, is it not reasonable to accept that the evidence-based outlook is just simply a choice that seems to be the only plausible option to those who think that way.
You are not open to the idea of a God or spiritual presence because you choose not to, using your evidence based principle. That principle makes the belief in something supernatural seem absurd.
There are those (many other millions/billions?) who do believe in something beyond what can be measured using science. It's almost a lifestyle choice. To me, both are equally plausible to the beholder.
Quote from: J70 on March 05, 2011, 03:39:26 PM
Quote from: laoislad on March 05, 2011, 11:41:48 AM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 05, 2011, 11:01:24 AM
Quote from: laoislad on March 05, 2011, 12:01:12 AM
Can never understand why those who don't believe always feel the need or feel they have the right to mock those that do believe.
We've people on this board from both sides - some who believe and who think they are better than those who don't and some who don't believe and think they are better than those who do.
Both are equally annoying.
True,anyone who thinks they are better than the other is equally wrong I agree completely with you ,though you will have to point out to me who those posters are that do have faith who think they are better than those that don't.
Send me a PM if you wish.
I don't really care what anyone believes btw each to their own and all that,but IMO some of those who have no faith are often very smug and arrogant about the fact they think they are far more intelligent and wise than those who do have faith.
I'm sure it's often vice versa as well as you get c***ts in all walks of life,I'm just saying I find it more evident in those that have no faith.
You may find it more evident because the view those sort of people (like me, I'm assuming) are contrary to your own and so you notice them or take offense more. We're all much more forgiving of perceived arrogance in those who are on our side of an issue.
This thread is an internet discussion of praying and prayer, is it not? If you're offended by the tone of the discussion, then ignore the thread or don't read the offender's posts. Personally, I think religion and faith and prayer gets far, far more respect than it is due at this point in our history, and I'm going to point that out in discussions like this. And yes, I absolutely feel that many, many people are simply indoctrinated into religion, and whether out of fear or superstition or a passive contentment in their worldview, simply never seriously consider that the beliefs in which they've been brought up might not bear scrutiny. If you find those views debateable, well then address them and have a discussion, but spare us the complaining because a tiny minority of non-believers have lately begun to assert themselves and challenge the hegemony of religious belief.
Quite a rant there J70.
For the record I couldn't give a toss what you challenge or question regarding ones religious beliefs I just don't think there is a need to be an arrogant p***k when doing so.
Quote from: ONeill on March 07, 2011, 11:16:52 AM
Hardy, is it true to say you reject any form of spirituality or any kind of reality lacking material proof?
What I mean is you adhere to the idea that the human race do not possess a sense which cannot be quantified using biological or physical examination?
I don’t/can’t know. I have a little trouble understanding your proposition of “a sense which cannot be quantified using biological or physical examination?”. I’m not sure what you mean, but I think the follow on below will cover what you’re asking.
Quote
Do you believe in the power of positive thought when it comes to overcoming illness or is that just bunkum to you because it cannot be seen or scientifically quantified?
I outlined my concept of knowing and belief. So in general I don’t believe “in” things. I believe or don’t believe things based on my criterion of knowledge - that they are likely or unlikely to be true based on observed evidence. I haven’t studied “the power of positive thought”, so I‘m not in a position to make a definitive judgement. But from the limited amount of observed evidence I’d be aware of and from my own experience, I’m inclined to think that a positive mental attitude is important in fighting an illness. I don’t imagine there’s any “spiritual” (whatever that means) or metaphysical component to this. I think it’s reasonable to assume that the brain has an important role to play in how the body functions, including how it heals itself.
Quote
If you answer yes to all the above, you then have a set of ideals/principles that will not allow the concept of faith to exist unless there is some form of material evidence.
I don’t. Of course the concept of faith exists. Its usefulness in forming a model of reality is what we’re discussing.
Quote
If that is the case, can you not accept that your method of evaluating human potential is simply your choice using your individual reasoning? The concept of faith has no material evidence and never will have. So, is it not reasonable to accept that the evidence-based outlook is just simply a choice that seems to be the only plausible option to those who think that way.
Of course. And I’m presenting, as best I can, my case for why it’s the only plausible option. Stated simply, it’s
(1) The adoption of an approach that says (as science, for instance, does) we know very little. We search for answers in a methodical fashion using assumptions (hypotheses) based on observed facts; if our search throws up evidence that our assumptions were wrong, we accept that and start again. This approach has given us all the real knowledge we have about how the world works.
(2) The rejection of an approach that says (as religion for instance, does) we know everything because we were told it by God, so there’s no need to search for answers. If evidence shows up that our assumptions were wrong, we must reject that evidence, because God cannot be wrong.
Quote
You are not open to the idea of a God or spiritual presence because you choose not to, using your evidence based principle. That principle makes the belief in something supernatural seems absurd.
Indeed. “Choose” is an important word. I’ve stated the basis for my choice. Those who believe in God choose to do so. What is the basis for their choice? In fact, how do you just “choose” to believe something in the absence of a concrete reason for such a choice? How is a choice made like this to believe in God more valid than a choice to believe in any of the infinite number of other unsupported hypotheses of how the world works?
Quote
There are those (many other millions/billions?) who do believe in something beyond what can be measured using science. It's almost a lifestyle choice. To me, both are equally plausible to the beholder.
Agreed, except for the last sentence. How can they possibly be equally plausible (as a model of reality, I mean). Isn’t that a complete suspension of judgement and reason? Again, my test would be – if God is as valid as science, what invalidates the infinite number of other hypotheses? Or even the few popularly suggested ones? How is God more plausible than Russell’s Teapot, The Flying Spaghetti Monster or The Invisible Pink Unicorn?
How is God more plausible than Russell's Teapot, The Flying Spaghetti Monster or The Invisible Pink Unicorn?
'God' doesn't have to be a physical or invisible identity with description. Can it not just be the First Cause? Something created time. I'm not up to speed on this but isn't it an accepted scientific truth that there was a 'start'; that time is not, nor has been, infinite?
Quote from: ONeill on March 07, 2011, 12:08:13 PM
How is God more plausible than Russell’s Teapot, The Flying Spaghetti Monster or The Invisible Pink Unicorn?
'God' doesn't have to be a physical or invisible identity with description. Can it not just be the First Cause? Something created time. I'm not up to speed on this but isn't it an accepted scientific truth that there was a 'start'; that time is not, nor has been, infinite?
You're pushing the boundaries of my knowledge. I imagine first cause might as easily be called "God" as "Big Bang". The difference between science and religion is that religion states as an incontrovertible fact that God made the world. Science states that we don't know, but we're trying to find out. At the moment, the Big Bang fits all the knowledge we have and is useful in modelling reality. What gave rise to the Big Bang? We haven't a clue. But ignorance is not ignoble and scepticism should be our default state or we have no basis for learning. Denial of ignorance and pretence of knowledge are what's ignoble.
I was arguing more about the everyday principles we use to inform our decisions. And to misinform them. For instance, the belief in the implausble becomes important when shite and mumbo-jumbo are accorded equal billing with well-established science. That's when it gets dangerous. I think it's criminal that people who proclaim themselves reflexologists or reiki practitoiners or hawkers of "homeopathic" remedies are given license (yes, officially and covered by VHI) to "treat" sick people.
That's why I think it's important to apply critical faculties in making our choices (the important ones, anyway) rather than "choosing" to believe something because it's presented persuasively, whether by a huckster in a TV advert or a venerable man in a robe and a funny hat.
Arnica (a homeopathic remedy) works for reducing swelling and sprains, and should be an ever-present in any sports coaches kit-bag (it is an ever-present, recently I believe, in ambulances).
I'm a scientist, by the way, and agree wholeheartedly with Hardy.
So you still won't accept this: Two men, sitting opposite each other with exactly equal intelligence and experience, have opposing views on this topic. Once adheres to likelihood based on science and physics (i.e. there is no, nor ever has there been a, God/everything can be explained through this eventually). The other believes in God or some form of intelligent design. One uses the faculty of evidenced reasoning, the other exercises the human capacity for faith (be it 'received wisdom' or philosophical analysis). Individually, both have equally plausible approaches.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
A boy Einstein.
Quote from: ONeill on March 07, 2011, 12:42:13 PM
So you still won't accept this: Two men, sitting opposite each other with exactly equal intelligence and experience, have opposing views on this topic. Once adheres to likelihood based on science and physics (i.e. there is no, nor ever has there been a, God/everything can be explained through this eventually). The other believes in God or some form of intelligent design. One uses the faculty of evidenced reasoning, the other exercises the human capacity for faith (be it 'received wisdom' or philosophical analysis). Individually, both have equally plausible approaches.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
A boy Einstein.
The bit I don't accept is that the approaches are equally plausible. I've explained why I don't accept that. Can I ask you to explain why you believe they're equally plausible and what distinguishes one faith-based deduction from another?
That is, if you believe that the two opposing approaches you stated are equally plausible, do you also believe that any two sets of beliefs are equally plausible?
Is a belief that rainbows are formations of electrostatically-charged multicoloured dragonflies as plausible as the belief that it's reasonable to ask God for a desired outcome through prayer? If not, what makes one more or less plausible than the other?
Then theres the question of
Given our knowledge (sorry) current scientific thinking as regards to the size, the age and development of the universe and the time since the beginning of the universe that life has been ABLE to evolve on this planet (and will eventually not be able to exist in a billon years or so), what makes the religeous types think that there has to be any meaning to us existing at all?
I'm quite content in the knowledge that we do exist (at least I think we do) and that we should as societies develop structures/ways of life which makes existense on this planet and the lives of those who go after us better. I'm convinced religions are based on similar premises but moreso for their controlling influences on populations (which from a rulers point of view makes things easier). That doesn't make the stories of religions true regardless of whether you think a religeous society is better than a secular one.
Starting with plausible defining as 'worthy of belief', the reason why the believer is on an equal footing to the nonbeliever is because they arrive at their destination using different but real values. The reasons for believing in a God, or a distinctive first cause or intelligent design, may range from the magnificence and order of the cosmos to the presence of morality in everyday life. They don't reject science as it is incredulous to do so, but believe in a higher power which helped create the conditions science explains and continues to explain.
I see science and religious philosophy as equals with wholly distinctive and very difference characteristics. The scientist can never disprove the existence of God. The believer can never prove the existence of God. For me, scientific evidence and philosophically intelligent thought should be given equal respect. The scientist will never accept that as it goes against their methods of understanding.
I'm not really interested in the legitimacy of the plethora of religious beliefs out there. That's just the human race acting the arse.
Quote from: theskull1 on March 07, 2011, 01:09:11 PM
Then theres the question of
Given our knowledge (sorry) current scientific thinking as regards to the size, the age and development of the universe and the time since the beginning of the universe that life has been ABLE to evolve on this planet (and will eventually not be able to exist in a billon years or so), what makes the religeous types think that there has to be any meaning to us existing at all?
I'm quite content in the knowledge that we do exist (at least I think we do) and that we should as societies develop structures/ways of life which makes existense on this planet and the lives of those who go after us better. I'm convinced religions are based on similar premises but moreso for their controlling influences on populations (which from a rulers point of view makes things easier). That doesn't make the stories of religions true regardless of whether you think a religeous society is better than a secular one.
Nice bit of dodging there Skull. You were completely wrong on your assumptions but of course won't admit or address those.
One of man's greatest disadvantages is that we are too prone to welcome everyone else's wrong solution to the problems of life. There is a natural laziness that moves us to accept the easiest solutions - the ones that have common currency amoung our peers and society.
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 07, 2011, 08:35:08 AM
Yes, but a few other points:
1 - There are plenty of contradictions and inconsistencies between the bible, even the synoptic gospels. And it's fairly clear that there was a bit of copying going on between these three.
What difference does that make to the thread? That different people said different things at different times. That different eye witness accounts are different? That different people recounted different perspectives? What does that add Maguire?
2 - As another poster has pointed out, what books have been ommitted and why?
Again of no relevance.
3 - How close are the current texts to the originals?
I think you were involved and contributed to a thread on this very question. The typology of the bible was addressed.
4 - There is considerable debate as to whether some of the gospels were actually written by their supposed authors.
Debate yes, fact? ....?
5 - Some were written well after the death of Jesus.
Would you have preferred if people wrote things down as they went along?
It's very easy to throw in questions. Its harder to go and find out the answers for yourself. Which road will you take?
Quote from: The Iceman on March 07, 2011, 02:41:43 PM
Quote from: theskull1 on March 07, 2011, 01:09:11 PM
Then theres the question of
Given our knowledge (sorry) current scientific thinking as regards to the size, the age and development of the universe and the time since the beginning of the universe that life has been ABLE to evolve on this planet (and will eventually not be able to exist in a billon years or so), what makes the religeous types think that there has to be any meaning to us existing at all?
I'm quite content in the knowledge that we do exist (at least I think we do) and that we should as societies develop structures/ways of life which makes existense on this planet and the lives of those who go after us better. I'm convinced religions are based on similar premises but moreso for their controlling influences on populations (which from a rulers point of view makes things easier). That doesn't make the stories of religions true regardless of whether you think a religeous society is better than a secular one.
Nice bit of dodging there Skull. You were completely wrong on your assumptions but of course won't admit or address those.
One of man's greatest disadvantages is that we are too prone to welcome everyone else's wrong solution to the problems of life. There is a natural laziness that moves us to accept the easiest solutions - the ones that have common currency amoung our peers and society.
Iceman, those last few lines are an excellent summation of the way in which religion has achieved such an exalted position in our society!
Looking at some estimations J70 I disagree. About 33% of the world claim to be Christian, a smaller % are Catholic, a smaller % than that go to Mass and a smaller % than that even believe in Jesus in the Eucharist, the very center of their supposed "faith".
Being in that small percentile is definitely not the easiest solution. It is in fact the hardest. If it was the solution everyone chose in "Catholic" Ireland then why I am I one of few people on the thread with the opposite opinion of you et al? If it was the easiest solution then why are only 18% of parishioners going to Mass in Dublin, 2% in other parishes...... (from a statement issues by the Bishop of Dublin February 2011)
Quote from: The Iceman on March 07, 2011, 04:31:24 PM
Looking at some estimations J70 I disagree. About 33% of the world claim to be Christian, a smaller % are Catholic, a smaller % than that go to Mass and a smaller % than that even believe in Jesus in the Eucharist, the very center of their supposed "faith".
Being in that small percentile is definitely not the easiest solution. It is in fact the hardest. If it was the solution everyone chose in "Catholic" Ireland then why I am I one of few people on the thread with the opposite opinion of you et al? If it was the easiest solution then why are only 18% of parishioners going to Mass in Dublin, 2% in other parishes...... (from a statement issues by the Bishop of Dublin February 2011)
I think his point is that religion has an exalted place in our society ecause it has been the path of least resistance throughout history. Things have changed in the 20th century but you still see (for example) civic leaders engaging in religious ceremonies that they may not actually believe in as part of their formal duties
Quote from: The Iceman on March 07, 2011, 04:31:24 PM
Looking at some estimations J70 I disagree. About 33% of the world claim to be Christian, a smaller % are Catholic, a smaller % than that go to Mass and a smaller % than that even believe in Jesus in the Eucharist, the very center of their supposed "faith".
Being in that small percentile is definitely not the easiest solution. It is in fact the hardest. If it was the solution everyone chose in "Catholic" Ireland then why I am I one of few people on the thread with the opposite opinion of you et al? If it was the easiest solution then why are only 18% of parishioners going to Mass in Dublin, 2% in other parishes...... (from a statement issues by the Bishop of Dublin February 2011)
Just so I'm clear, you seem to be lamenting the fact that the very thing that led to the pervasion of religious belief throughout human cultures is now causing its dilution. Is that right?
Quote from: J70 on March 07, 2011, 04:48:37 PM
Just so I'm clear, you seem to be lamenting the fact that the very thing that led to the pervasion of religious belief throughout human cultures is now causing its dilution. Is that right?
You'll have to translate that in to lay mans terms for me.
Quote from: The Iceman on March 07, 2011, 04:53:14 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 07, 2011, 04:48:37 PM
Just so I'm clear, you seem to be lamenting the fact that the very thing that led to the pervasion of religious belief throughout human cultures is now causing its dilution. Is that right?
You'll have to translate that in to lay mans terms for me.
1. Religion became popular because the masses were indoctrinated and, whether out of the state of knowledge at the time, societal/political pressure or whatever, for the most part never questioned the beliefs they were brought up into. Hence the geographical domination of the various major religions and their sub-sects.
2. Religious belief is now being watered down (as evidenced by declining mass attendance, vocations etc) because people are, out of a similar intellectual laziness to that which gave rise to mass religious belief, going along with the (for the sake of this discussion) the prevailing scientific/secular pressures to accept a non-religious explanation for life and existence.
Is that any clearer?
Thanks for the clarification.
And YES I would agree with that.
Would you agree with that yourself J70 or what are your thoughts?
Although I am not happy with the state of things today I have enjoyed the discussion here and unpacking some of this...
As humans, I think we are incapable of truely comprehending something which has no beginning and no end, something which has no start date and no end date. In our minds, we cannot truely comprehend something which is infinitive. We need a beginning and an end so as to understand.
This is the reason why we can debate the meaning of life, the universe, why we are here etc. for as long as we like - we will never understand or answer those questions, because, as humans, we are incapable of doing so ... imo.
Quote from: The Iceman on March 07, 2011, 02:41:43 PM
Nice bit of dodging there Skull. You were completely wrong on your assumptions but of course won't admit or address those.
One of man's greatest disadvantages is that we are too prone to welcome everyone else's wrong solution to the problems of life. There is a natural laziness that moves us to accept the easiest solutions - the ones that have common currency amoung our peers and society.
Not at all IM. I'm trying to find some detailed university lectures I have somewhere on a hard drive. I intend to reply
Quote from: theskull1 on March 07, 2011, 05:37:13 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 07, 2011, 02:41:43 PM
Nice bit of dodging there Skull. You were completely wrong on your assumptions but of course won't admit or address those.
One of man's greatest disadvantages is that we are too prone to welcome everyone else's wrong solution to the problems of life. There is a natural laziness that moves us to accept the easiest solutions - the ones that have common currency amoung our peers and society.
Not at all IM. I'm trying to find some detailed university lectures I have somewhere on a hard drive. I intend to reply
I look forward to the evidence you have to present on how the Gospels were written by people who didn't even know Jesus.
Quote from: laoislad on March 07, 2011, 11:31:20 AM
Quite a rant there J70.
For the record I couldn't give a toss what you challenge or question regarding ones religious beliefs I just don't think there is a need to be an arrogant p***k when doing so.
It's very hard to challenge religious belief without people taking it personally and labelling you as 'arrogant'. Personalising the debate isn't going to do much good mind you. I've met plenty of arrogant people on the other side who have talked down to me as if I'm some sort of deluded eejit going through "a phase" and come back to "his" faith. It could get very tedious if we start playing the arrogance card, so let's just play the ball and not the man.
Quote from: The Iceman on March 07, 2011, 05:45:11 PM
I look forward to the evidence you have to present on how the Gospels were written by people who didn't even know Jesus.
The Gospels were written 60 to 100 years after the events they purport to depict.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 07, 2011, 05:58:16 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 07, 2011, 05:45:11 PM
I look forward to the evidence you have to present on how the Gospels were written by people who didn't even know Jesus.
The Gospels were written 60 to 100 years after the events they purport to depict.
I think we have already addressed this.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 07, 2011, 05:58:16 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 07, 2011, 05:45:11 PM
I look forward to the evidence you have to present on how the Gospels were written by people who didn't even know Jesus.
The Gospels were written 60 to 100 years after the events they purport to depict.
Eamonnca1, I just listened to a song and your avatar kept beat perfectly for the whole ditty. It was mesmerising. Surely that's another sign!
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 07, 2011, 05:54:16 PM
I've met plenty of arrogant people on the other side who have talked down to me as if I'm some sort of deluded eejit going through "a phase" and come back to "his" faith.
I agree and have already stated that in previous posts that there may be people on the other side of the debate whom do have faith that act just as arrogant.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 07, 2011, 05:54:16 PM
It could get very tedious if we start playing the arrogance card, so let's just play the ball and not the man.
Wrong thread, I think this is the one you are looking for..
http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=18718.0
Quote from: laoislad on March 07, 2011, 06:24:28 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 07, 2011, 05:54:16 PM
It could get very tedious if we start playing the arrogance card, so let's just play the ball and not the man.
Wrong thread, I think this is the one you are looking for..
http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=18718.0
I walked into that one, didn't I? :D
Quote from: The Iceman on March 07, 2011, 02:47:40 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 07, 2011, 08:35:08 AM
Yes, but a few other points:
1 - There are plenty of contradictions and inconsistencies between the bible, even the synoptic gospels. And it's fairly clear that there was a bit of copying going on between these three.
What difference does that make to the thread? That different people said different things at different times. That different eye witness accounts are different? That different people recounted different perspectives? What does that add Maguire?
2 - As another poster has pointed out, what books have been ommitted and why?
Again of no relevance.
3 - How close are the current texts to the originals?
I think you were involved and contributed to a thread on this very question. The typology of the bible was addressed.
4 - There is considerable debate as to whether some of the gospels were actually written by their supposed authors.
Debate yes, fact? ....?
5 - Some were written well after the death of Jesus.
Would you have preferred if people wrote things down as they went along?
It's very easy to throw in questions. Its harder to go and find out the answers for yourself. Which road will you take?
I have a keen interest in the bible from a literary / historical (rather than spiritual) perspective and studied the synoptic gospels in a bit of detail quite a few years ago. Why did I make these points? because you said
"Its in the Bible lad" in an earlier post, as if the bible was a definitive and reliable source of information. It's far from it. And my questions were largely rhetorical.
But to address each:
1 - Related mainly to reliability of the document - not a question, rather a comment. I assumed the relevance would be obvious.
2 - Surely you understand that acts of omission shape a story just as much as what
is said? Maybe other writings didn't 'fit' with what those editing the bible wanted to say.
3 - I can't remember the contribution made. Again my point was in relation the reliability of the document. There are significant studies pointing to changes in these texts.
4 - I didn't say fact. But you're the one holding it up as gospel. Although there is a general consensus on the authorship of quite a few of the books.
5 - Again, my point was in relation to reliability of a document that was written 20, 30 or even more years after the event. An oral tradition preceeded the written record of these stories and as such, these works are prone to evolving / embellishment.
Quote from: The Iceman on March 07, 2011, 01:14:00 AM
Quote from: theskull1 on March 07, 2011, 01:00:57 AM
Lets not forget Iceman that the jesus stories were written by people who didn't even meet the man and relied of hand me down stories translated from maybe once or twice on the way over 60 or more years after his death. How can stories like that mean anything to anybody and be taken as gospel (pardon the pun)?. Every hand me down story gets embelished.
Skull you might need to check that out first. Matthew?
Mark also scribed his Gospel on behalf of Peter, maybe you've heard of him? Peter makes reference to Mark is one of his letters.
Luke was a Doctor and co-worker with St.Paul.
John was one of the 12 apostles.
This is what I am talking about folks. Skull can come on here and make bold claims without even fully understanding or doing some research.
In relation to the original post that I had replied to, you had a go at 'the skull', advising him to do some research when he commented that the stories were written by people who 'didn't even meet the man'. You then refer to the authors of the 4 gospels:
- Matthew - Most scholars believe the Gospel of Matthew was composed in the latter part of the 1st century by a Jewish Christian. Early Christian writings state that Matthew the Apostle wrote the Hebrew Gospel. Modern scholars believe that the canonical Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Greek by a non-eyewitness whose name is unknown to us. Doesn't sound like this Matthew met Jesus.
- Mark - Author unknown, but thought to be someone who listened to Peter's preaching in Rome, as you refer. Again, sounds like Mark didn't meet Jesus.
- Luke - Pretty much accepted that he didn't meet Jesus.
- John - Most scholars now dispute that John the disciple was the author.
Now of course all of these are open for debate (probably better done by people with a bit more time and knowledge than ourselves), but you were a bit quick of the mark to suggest that another poster needed to do some research.
Quote from: The Iceman on March 07, 2011, 06:06:25 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 07, 2011, 05:58:16 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 07, 2011, 05:45:11 PM
I look forward to the evidence you have to present on how the Gospels were written by people who didn't even know Jesus.
The Gospels were written 60 to 100 years after the events they purport to depict.
I think we have already addressed this.
So what age do you think people lived to 2,000 years ago?
Maguire nothing you posted on the authors of the Gospel carries nay weight though if its simply a case of some scholars or most scholars.......
You choose your words well: Mark was someone who heard Peter preach..... come one, He heard him Preach and was able to write an entire account of Jesus' life from this?
Yes these things do require more research as to the written word. Equally important is the oral traditions that have been based down and carry equal weight.
My point with skull was that if he could be so off the mark on something as straightforwards as the authors of the 4 Gospels, what else is he or anyone else missing?
People are quick to rubbish the beliefs of the Church and the faith of believers. My problem is that if people actually took some real time to look into this before they rubbished it I would appreciate and respect their opinion some more.
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 07, 2011, 07:03:22 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 07, 2011, 06:06:25 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 07, 2011, 05:58:16 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 07, 2011, 05:45:11 PM
I look forward to the evidence you have to present on how the Gospels were written by people who didn't even know Jesus.
The Gospels were written 60 to 100 years after the events they purport to depict.
I think we have already addressed this.
So what age do you think people lived to 2,000 years ago?
Look lets think about this logically Maguire. Why would Matthew or John or Peter or any of the apostles pen the gospels while Jesus was still alive? They didn't know what they were witnessing until later on in His ministry and they were only with Jesus for 3 years. 60-100 years is Cold Teas' claim - does not mean it is true or correct.
We covered the accuracy of the Bible as a document back in the Religious Views thread (original one). J70 and Maguire seem to be well read posters, From a content purpose (i'm not talking about whether its true or not) from a literary perspective, based on bibliographic testing the New Testament is recognized as the most accurate of all the ancient texts known to man. Here is some light reading for you (only one page) on this:
http://www.newmediaministries.org/Bible/Bibliographic_S.html (http://www.newmediaministries.org/Bible/Bibliographic_S.html)
Quote from: The Iceman on March 07, 2011, 07:04:25 PM
Maguire nothing you posted on the authors of the Gospel carries nay weight though if its simply a case of some scholars or most scholars.......
It carries plenty of weight against someone claiming that they were written by first-hand eyewitnesses. Are you saying the work and conclusions of scholars over centuries is of no value? Their conclusions are evidence based, in many cases based on what is in the gospels themselves.
Quote from: The Iceman on March 07, 2011, 07:04:25 PM
You choose your words well: Mark was someone who heard Peter preach..... come one, He heard him Preach and was able to write an entire account of Jesus' life from this?
I always choose my words well. But that's beside the point. Mark wasn't a first hand account. He didn't meet Jesus. That was the point of discussion. And second-hand account is not going to be as reliable as a first-hand account. It's the same principle that applied to our legal system.
Quote from: The Iceman on March 07, 2011, 07:04:25 PM
Yes these things do require more research as to the written word. Equally important is the oral traditions that have been based down and carry equal weight.
I don't buy that the oral tradition carries equal weight. Stories develop overtime, and are often embellished. Oral tradition is much more susceptible to this.
Quote from: The Iceman on March 07, 2011, 07:04:25 PM
My point with skull was that if he could be so off the mark on something as straightforwards as the authors of the 4 Gospels, what else is he or anyone else missing?
But he wasn't so far off the mark at all. It's generally accepted that some of the gospels' authors didn't meet Jesus and there's considerable opinion to that end on the others.
Quote from: The Iceman on March 07, 2011, 07:04:25 PM
People are quick to rubbish the beliefs of the Church and the faith of believers. My problem is that if people actually took some real time to look into this before they rubbished it I would appreciate and respect their opinion some more.
Maybe not. I was a lot less convinced after my studies.
Quote from: The Iceman on March 07, 2011, 07:07:44 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 07, 2011, 07:03:22 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 07, 2011, 06:06:25 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 07, 2011, 05:58:16 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 07, 2011, 05:45:11 PM
I look forward to the evidence you have to present on how the Gospels were written by people who didn't even know Jesus.
The Gospels were written 60 to 100 years after the events they purport to depict.
I think we have already addressed this.
So what age do you think people lived to 2,000 years ago?
Look lets think about this logically Maguire. Why would Matthew or John or Peter or any of the apostles pen the gospels while Jesus was still alive? They didn't know what they were witnessing until later on in His ministry and they were only with Jesus for 3 years. 60-100 years is Cold Teas' claim - does not mean it is true or correct.
My point was that they would be dead after that period.
Quote from: Maguire01 link=topic=18713.msg928445#msg928445 date=1299525607
quote author=The Iceman link=topic=18713.msg928439#msg928439 date=1299524665]
People are quick to rubbish the beliefs of the Church and the faith of believers. My problem is that if people actually took some real time to look into this before they rubbished it I would appreciate and respect their opinion some more.
Maybe not. I was a lot less convinced after my studies.
[/quote]
I respect your right to an opinion and respect it more because you took some time. Do i like the outcome? No but its not on me to Judge is it?
It ain't necessarily so
It ain't necessarily so
The t'ings dat yo' li'ble
To read in de Bible,
It ain't necessarily so.
Li'l David was small, but oh my !
Li'l David was small, but oh my !
He fought Big Goliath
Who lay down an' dieth !
Li'l David was small, but oh my !
Wadoo, zim bam boddle-oo,
Hoodle ah da wa da,
Scatty wah !
Oh yeah !...
Oh Jonah, he lived in de whale,
Oh Jonah, he lived in de whale,
Fo' he made his home in
Dat fish's abdomen.
Oh Jonah, he lived in de whale.
Li'l Moses was found in a stream.
Li'l Moses was found in a stream.
He floated on water
Till Ol' Pharaoh's daughter,
She fished him, she said, from dat stream.
Wadoo ...
Well, it ain't necessarily so
Well, it ain't necessarily so
Dey tells all you chillun
De debble's a villun,
But it ain't necessarily so !
To get into Hebben
Don' snap for a sebben !
Live clean ! Don' have no fault !
Oh, I takes dat gospel
Whenever it's pos'ble,
But wid a grain of salt.
Methus'lah lived nine hundred years,
Methus'lah lived nine hundred years,
But who calls dat livin'
When no gal will give in
To no man what's nine hundred years ?
I'm preachin' dis sermon to show,
It ain't nece-ain't nece
Ain't nece-ain't nece
Ain't necessarily ... so !
Quote from: The Iceman on March 07, 2011, 07:04:25 PM
Maguire nothing you posted on the authors of the Gospel carries nay weight though if its simply a case of some scholars or most scholars.......
You choose your words well: Mark was someone who heard Peter preach..... come one, He heard him Preach and was able to write an entire account of Jesus' life from this?
Yes these things do require more research as to the written word. Equally important is the oral traditions that have been based down and carry equal weight.
My point with skull was that if he could be so off the mark on something as straightforwards as the authors of the 4 Gospels, what else is he or anyone else missing?
People are quick to rubbish the beliefs of the Church and the faith of believers. My problem is that if people actually took some real time to look into this before they rubbished it I would appreciate and respect their opinion some more.
is it fair to say that people who rubbish the things you mention have been brought up in a faith based religion and have therefore taken the time to think about their own situations and make decisions based on this? or is this not the "real time you mean?"
The Catholic Church and education system in Ireland has failed miserably to educate people properly in the faith.
Ask any Catholic where the scriptural reference is for Transubstantiation is or what in fact Transubstantiation is and you will likely draw blanks. Ask them what the catechism teaching is on the Marriage, Confession or Celibate Priests and you'll draw blanks. Some homes may have been exceptions, perhaps more instruction was given on the faith but I certainly didn't have access to a Bible growing up, I wasn't taught anything but prayers and whatever was taught in RE in school to satisfy the curriculum.
So to your point I don't think that constitutes "real time".
Ask any young fella who is playing football today at club level what they want, they'll likely tell you they want to win the county title. Ask them what are they going to do to make that happen. Responses might look like: Train hard every day,lift weights, work on drills, practice games and play their heart out every weekend.
Then look at the faith we are taught: Say a few prayers, go to Mass for 45 minutes on a Sunday and don't think about God the rest of the time.
People spend more time on the toilet than they do in relationship with God.
Real time.
I was given a daily dose of religion for about half an hour a day from the age of 3 when I started school to the age of 16 when I finally escaped the catholic brainwashing system. We were drilled in great detail about ALL the minute details of the faith. The colours of the vestaments, the meanings of all the ceremonies in the mass, the prayers, the philosophy behind the faith, the scholarly origins of it, line-by-line study of Mark's Gospel, you name it we covered it at least once.
I spent a great deal of time thinking about this faith business. I looked around me wondering how many people were actually falling for this. I tried my damndest to believe it when I was a child because that's what I was taught was the right thing to do. It was as if to be an atheist was to be synonymous with being an evil devil-worshipper. When I finally admitted to myself that I wasn't buying it (age 12, I remember it well) it was like a huge weight off my shoulders, I felt a huge sense of relief because I could finally stop fooling myself and stop the battle going on in my mind.
Nothing insults me more than the assumption that people throw at me all the time, "Oh you haven't really thought about it." Excuse me, buster, I've thought about it harder than you'll ever know.
then what do you mean by real time? on your knees doing laps of the rosary? reading the bible front to back a few times? from my experience when i got to a certain age I started looking for answers to questions I had and found that certain thinks made more sense than others. does this count for real time even if i didn't end up at the same place as you? or was my time wasted or used wrongly? maybe I am reading you wrongly but my impression is that if everyone put in as much "time" as you did, we would all share the same beliefs as you, but those who don't just haven't tried hard enough.
I think that if evolution by natural selection were properly taught in schools there'd be a lot more atheists out there. That was a huge factor in undermining faith-based reasoning for me.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 07, 2011, 09:54:37 PM
I think that if evolution by natural selection were properly taught in schools there'd be a lot more atheists out there. That was a huge factor in undermining faith-based reasoning for me.
It was taught to me and made sense but didn't make me an atheist. Does evolution disprove God?
Well the catholic church fudges it by accepting evolution but saying that God guided the process. It won't make everyone an atheist but it certainly would increase the liklihood of people being atheist if it were better understood since it undermines one of the reasons that a lot of people put forward in support of the God hypothesis. Argumentum ad ignorantum is rampant where this is concerned. I wish I had a dollar * for every time someone told me they believed in God because they don't understand how life could have arisen by natural means, even though science has pretty much nailed it.
There's no such thing as "disproving" God as others have explained, you can't prove a negative. See the Russel's Teapot or Flying Spaghetti Monster comments above.
*Sorry for the cliché.
I'd be an agnostic.
My take on Christianity is that it's religion's equivalent to soccer. It took off because it was easy to understand, easy to get involved in, easy to get passionate about. It's cheap and easy to run events, but potentially lucrative due to the sheer numbers willing to get involved. It's worldwide, with strongholds in Europe and America, and is controlled out of Europe by a group of men who, outwardly anyway, seem more interested in power than the thing they're meant to promote.
And like soccer, it has hundreds of thousands of people across the world who can't imagine life without it, people who get so passionate about a simple once-a-week congregation, that they're quite happy to ignore commonsense, hypocrisy and even morality in order to pronounce their allegiance. Plus they're quite happy to ignore the simple fact that most of the time it's not a rewarding experience; favouring instead to keep schtum and stay part of their crowd. Rather sadly, more than a few are quite happy to have stand-up rows, and even kill, just to show how much they care.
Frankly, I don't believe it's possible that a being who is smart and capable enough to create this absolutely baffling and unique universe we inhabit, could then in turn expect, demand or enjoy the repetitive, insular and myopic actions of Christians.
Nor do I believe that even if he did exist, that he must still be alive today; for this would be an unfair and unjust paradox to the universe he created.
If he does exist still, he's either having a bloody good laugh at our expense, or just doesn't care enough to bother with us anymore. We could have been his P6 science experiment, and he's now at university.
By the way, everything on this thread from either side of the argument is little more than conjecture. I personally believe that religion is little more than a self-preservation tool cultivated by society. But, I don't have either intelligence nor the will to understand, and therefore prove to myself, that the baffledom produced by scientists is any more trustworthy. If it was possible to remove ego and agenda from scientists, I might lessen this stance, but it's not, and if Christianity is one woman's lie that got out of hand, then we shouldn't repeat those steps again with science.
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 07, 2011, 06:56:25 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 07, 2011, 01:14:00 AM
Quote from: theskull1 on March 07, 2011, 01:00:57 AM
Lets not forget Iceman that the jesus stories were written by people who didn't even meet the man and relied of hand me down stories translated from maybe once or twice on the way over 60 or more years after his death. How can stories like that mean anything to anybody and be taken as gospel (pardon the pun)?. Every hand me down story gets embelished.
Skull you might need to check that out first. Matthew?
Mark also scribed his Gospel on behalf of Peter, maybe you've heard of him? Peter makes reference to Mark is one of his letters.
Luke was a Doctor and co-worker with St.Paul.
John was one of the 12 apostles.
This is what I am talking about folks. Skull can come on here and make bold claims without even fully understanding or doing some research.
In relation to the original post that I had replied to, you had a go at 'the skull', advising him to do some research when he commented that the stories were written by people who 'didn't even meet the man'. You then refer to the authors of the 4 gospels:
- Matthew - Most scholars believe the Gospel of Matthew was composed in the latter part of the 1st century by a Jewish Christian. Early Christian writings state that Matthew the Apostle wrote the Hebrew Gospel. Modern scholars believe that the canonical Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Greek by a non-eyewitness whose name is unknown to us. Doesn't sound like this Matthew met Jesus.
- Mark - Author unknown, but thought to be someone who listened to Peter's preaching in Rome, as you refer. Again, sounds like Mark didn't meet Jesus.
- Luke - Pretty much accepted that he didn't meet Jesus.
- John - Most scholars now dispute that John the disciple was the author.
Now of course all of these are open for debate (probably better done by people with a bit more time and knowledge than ourselves), but you were a bit quick of the mark to suggest that another poster needed to do some research.
Quote from: theskull1 on March 07, 2011, 05:37:13 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 07, 2011, 02:41:43 PM
Nice bit of dodging there Skull. You were completely wrong on your assumptions but of course won't admit or address those.
One of man's greatest disadvantages is that we are too prone to welcome everyone else's wrong solution to the problems of life. There is a natural laziness that moves us to accept the easiest solutions - the ones that have common currency amoung our peers and society.
Not at all IM. I'm trying to find some detailed university lectures I have somewhere on a hard drive. I intend to reply
Many thanks Maguire for setting my mind at ease. Its been 5-6 years since I spent time studying the history of the bible so didn't have the details on the top of my head but I'm happy that I at least remembered the basic facts that I stated correctly. Iceman I wish you had more faith in me.
Even though "they" produced the four best selling books in the history of the world, there is simply no way to trace with any accuracy if "they" even existed. The picture you are presented with is always based on assumptions and guesses by scientists and theologians with agendas.
But, because one synposis they heard once upon a time happened to strike a chord, the fellas above have picked up a couple of tidbits that they're happy to believe in above all things else.
The argument above about the authors of the bible is the kind of thing that makes me think of soccer. It's like when your granda tells you Nat Lofthouse was a better player than Ruud van Nistelrooy, and you continue to push this as a fact when people will listen, even though the closest your granda got to Nat Lofthouse was through a wireless in the front room.
Quote from: thewobbler on March 07, 2011, 10:28:31 PM
I'd be an agnostic.
My take on Christianity is that it's religion's equivalent to soccer. It took off because it was easy to understand, easy to get involved in, easy to get passionate about. It's cheap and easy to run events, but potentially lucrative due to the sheer numbers willing to get involved. It's worldwide, with strongholds in Europe and America, and is controlled out of Europe by a group of men who, outwardly anyway, seem more interested in power than the thing they're meant to promote.
And like soccer, it has hundreds of thousands of people across the world who can't imagine life without it, people who get so passionate about a simple once-a-week congregation, that they're quite happy to ignore commonsense, hypocrisy and even morality in order to pronounce their allegiance. Plus they're quite happy to ignore the simple fact that most of the time it's not a rewarding experience; favouring instead to keep schtum and stay part of their crowd. Rather sadly, more than a few are quite happy to have stand-up rows, and even kill, just to show how much they care.
Frankly, I don't believe it's possible that a being who is smart and capable enough to create this absolutely baffling and unique universe we inhabit, could then in turn expect, demand or enjoy the repetitive, insular and myopic actions of Christians.
Nor do I believe that even if he did exist, that he must still be alive today; for this would be an unfair and unjust paradox to the universe he created.
If he does exist still, he's either having a bloody good laugh at our expense, or just doesn't care enough to bother with us anymore. We could have been his P6 science experiment, and he's now at university.
By the way, everything on this thread from either side of the argument is little more than conjecture. I personally believe that religion is little more than a self-preservation tool cultivated by society. But, I don't have either intelligence nor the will to understand, and therefore prove to myself, that the baffledom produced by scientists is any more trustworthy. If it was possible to remove ego and agenda from scientists, I might lessen this stance, but it's not, and if Christianity is one woman's lie that got out of hand, then we shouldn't repeat those steps again with science.
Fantastic post wobbler - , have appreciated both sides of the discussion, but would be agnostic like yourself. Still searching....
I have a question - with all our new-found wealth of knowledge on this subject do we consign our parents' generation of thinking to the bin? Do we dismiss them as fools or that they were not enlightened, or that their faith was blind?
Because the people I know who have a strong belief in God are neither stupid nor crowd-folllowing.
And as one post stated, faith has helped an awful lot of people through grief which otherwise would have killed them. Are all the examples of good people that I know wrong to believe in something that gives them direction, solace, and comfort?
I am not forgiving religion's influence on the world, but this is where faith and religion separate. Is it foolish to have a faith in a greater power?
To finish off, a list that I found interesting - of people who believed in Jesus Christ:
Moses - A political leader, trained in the universities of Egypt,
Peter - A fisherman
Amos - A herdsman
Joshua - A military General
Nehemiah - A Cupbearer
Daniel - A Prime Minister
Luke - A Doctor
Solomon - A King
Matthew - A Tax Collector
Paul - A Rabbi
Were they, and our parents all wrong?
Quote from: thewobbler on March 07, 2011, 11:40:53 PM
Even though "they" produced the four best selling books in the history of the world, there is simply no way to trace with any accuracy if "they" even existed. The picture you are presented with is always based on assumptions and guesses by scientists and theologians with agendas.
But, because one synposis they heard once upon a time happened to strike a chord, the fellas above have picked up a couple of tidbits that they're happy to believe in above all things else.
The argument above about the authors of the bible is the kind of thing that makes me think of soccer. It's like when your granda tells you Nat Lofthouse was a better player than Ruud van Nistelrooy, and you continue to push this as a fact when people will listen, even though the closest your granda got to Nat Lofthouse was through a wireless in the front room.
Why do you think scientific study would have "an agenda"? ???
Yes there will be unknowns but there will also be things that will have a high level of certainty when studying that period in history.
Writing material was very easily damaged so lots of copying taking place over 300 years and the subsequent 1100 odd years before the printing press (error prone copying)
The vast majority of people in these times could not read
At the time of their writings - god told no one to write a bible. It was a collated group of writing commissioned by the Emporer of Rome 300 years after the death of the historical Jesus and the content of which was debated continually for centuries.
Mark was copied by Matthew and Luke.
Should we not consider such things and ponder the notion that the Bible is the inspired word of god?
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 07, 2011, 09:48:44 PM
I was given a daily dose of religion for about half an hour a day from the age of 3 when I started school to the age of 16 when I finally escaped the catholic brainwashing system. We were drilled in great detail about ALL the minute details of the faith. The colours of the vestaments, the meanings of all the ceremonies in the mass, the prayers, the philosophy behind the faith, the scholarly origins of it, line-by-line study of Mark's Gospel, you name it we covered it at least once.
I spent a great deal of time thinking about this faith business. I looked around me wondering how many people were actually falling for this. I tried my damndest to believe it when I was a child because that's what I was taught was the right thing to do. It was as if to be an atheist was to be synonymous with being an evil devil-worshipper. When I finally admitted to myself that I wasn't buying it (age 12, I remember it well) it was like a huge weight off my shoulders, I felt a huge sense of relief because I could finally stop fooling myself and stop the battle going on in my mind.
Nothing insults me more than the assumption that people throw at me all the time, "Oh you haven't really thought about it." Excuse me, buster, I've thought about it harder than you'll ever know.
Were your thoughts done at 12 years old or did this process continue? Because to tell me on here you had it all figured out at 12 is insulting to me. You barely had a grasp of your times tables at 12 but you had figured out the answer to whether or not God existed. Bravo!
QuoteWhy do you think scientific study would have "an agenda"?
Scientists and theologians will set out to either prove or disprove a theory. Like it or not, their vested interests in the study will colour many of the assumptions that simply have to be made to fill in the blanks.
QuoteWriting material was very easily damaged so lots of copying taking place over 300 years and the subsequent 1100 odd years before the printing press (error prone copying)
The vast majority of people in these times could not read
At the time of their writings - god told no one to write a bible. It was a collated group of writing commissioned by the Emporer of Rome 300 years after the death of the historical Jesus and the content of which was debated continually for centuries.
Mark was copied by Matthew and Luke.
Should we not consider such things and ponder the notion that the Bible is the inspired word of god?
At its heart the Bible is a wonderful book, but presenting it as a unified source of God's thoughts, teachings and wishes, requires a tremendous amount of faith, that in all other walks of life would look misguided.
You believe that current status of the Bible is the result of God's intervention and guiding hand. Personally I believe that the current status of the Bible (whichever one your prefer) is the result of several thousand rewrites, edits, additions and translations, each undertaken by human beings with different interests, motivations and goals.
I'm not trying to discredit the Bible, but if either of us is lucky enough to be alive 2100, I can only imagine that by then the "outdated" and possibly perilous passages of the Bible which advocate (or at least turn a blind eye to) misogyny, slavery and racism, will have been discreetly phased out. According to you, this will be by the hand of God. According to me, it will be by the needs of churches to react and stay relevant, and through the judgement of professional copywriters.
QuoteWere your thoughts done at 12 years old or did this process continue? Because to tell me on here you had it all figured out at 12 is insulting to me. You barely had a grasp of your times tables at 12 but you had figured out the answer to whether or not God existed. Bravo!
That's an unnecessarily pious and harsh response. Instead of condemning a 12 year old mind, why not take a step back and ask why an undeveloped mind can reach such clear conclusions? CS Lewis once said that the reason he took so long to embrace Christianity was because of the attitude of Christians.
Quote from: thewobbler on March 08, 2011, 02:59:55 PM
QuoteWhy do you think scientific study would have "an agenda"?
Scientists and theologians will set out to either prove or disprove a theory. Like it or not, their vested interests in the study will colour many of the assumptions that simply have to be made to fill in the blanks.
But the agenda of an individual scientist (or group of scientists) is irrelevant and has no effect on how science models nature and the universe. Whereas both theologians and scientists may have individual agendas and personal vested interests, science, unlike theology, has a reasonably reliable mechanism to ensure that dogma isn't accepted as fact. For that reason, an individual scientist's pet theories or petty prejudices have no effect on the credibility of science itself. The scientific method ensures that we can be confident of accepted scientific theories as the most reliable model of reality available to us based on all we know at any given time.
That's not to say that there is no argument about the areas where there is disagreement about interpretation of observations. In fact that's an essential component of the scientific process. It's a wee bit different to a system that relies on the ex cathedra pronouncements of a self proclaimed infallible interpreter of truth.
The essential difference, if I can be forgiven for repetition, is that religion insists "this is the answer" and disparages calls for proof to the extent of eternal damnation for those making such calls. Science spends its time trying to disprove what we think we know. Or, to put it another way, religion, which ironically proclaims humility as a value, is built on the hubris of presumption, whereas science, accused of hubris by many religious believers, presumes nothing and proceeds by assuming itself to be wrong about everything. It's the difference between a conman and a teacher, for me.
ummmm ::)
Read that post of mine again wobbler. You've totally misinterpreted it
Similar to Eamonnca1 I was around that age when I started to become sceptical. In my late teens the cover up and protection of child abusing priest made me think...if all these Bishops and Cardinals with their vast theological knowledge (and you would have thought ...a devout belief in the existense of God and the consequense of their actions on earth) would put the interests of child molesters ahead of their victims.....that just doesn't stack up. Surely Christians with convictions would step out from behind the religeous institution and stand up for what is right....but none did. It was one cover up after another and they all stayed silent. What was one to think when these men of the cloth who are meant to be the leaders of the faith do such things?
Quote from: theskull1 on March 08, 2011, 04:21:17 PM
ummmm ::)
Read that post of mine again wobbler. You've totally misinterpreted it
Similar to Eamonnca1 I was around that age when I started to become sceptical. In my late teens the cover up and protection of child abusing priest made me think...if all these Bishops and Cardinals with their vast theological knowledge (and you would have thought ...a devout belief in the existense of God and the consequense of their actions on earth) would put the interests of child molesters ahead of their victims.....that just doesn't stack up. Surely Christians with convictions would step out from behind the religeous institution and stand up for what is right....but none did. It was one cover up after another and they all stayed silent. What was one to think when these men of the cloth who are meant to be the leaders of the faith do such things?
The old cliche of power leads to corruption.
There is no doubt that the Church has been filled to the seams with corruption for hundreds and hundreds of years - actually probably 2,000 years.
Doesn't mean that God and Jesus aren't real, but believing that the teachings of the Catholic Church (or any of the Protestant churches) is the true Christianity is bullshít of the highest degree in my opinion. All the man made changes had absolutely nothing to do with God, and were just men making decisions for varying reasons. Just like all the murders, rapes, etc. carried out by "men of God" have nothing to do with God.
Quote from: Hound on March 08, 2011, 04:33:06 PM
The old cliche of power leads to corruption.
There is no doubt that the Church has been filled to the seams with corruption for hundreds and hundreds of years - actually probably 2,000 years.
Doesn't mean that God and Jesus aren't real, but believing that the teachings of the Catholic Church (or any of the Protestant churches) is the true Christianity is bullshít of the highest degree in my opinion. All the man made changes had absolutely nothing to do with God, and were just men making decisions for varying reasons. Just like all the murders, rapes, etc. carried out by "men of God" have nothing to do with God.
I'm not say that either. It simply made one think about the fact that, in this massive institution, there existed noone with the courage of their faith to stand up for what was right. The man made institution was more important. That speaks volumes to me about what the leaders of the church believe when it comes to the existense of god. They were quite happy to be in the upper echelons of the institution and pump out the message to the masses whilst covering up one scandal after another.
Quote from: BarryBreensBandage on March 08, 2011, 12:32:56 AM
Quote from: thewobbler on March 07, 2011, 10:28:31 PM
I'd be an agnostic.
My take on Christianity is that it's religion's equivalent to soccer. It took off because it was easy to understand, easy to get involved in, easy to get passionate about. It's cheap and easy to run events, but potentially lucrative due to the sheer numbers willing to get involved. It's worldwide, with strongholds in Europe and America, and is controlled out of Europe by a group of men who, outwardly anyway, seem more interested in power than the thing they're meant to promote.
And like soccer, it has hundreds of thousands of people across the world who can't imagine life without it, people who get so passionate about a simple once-a-week congregation, that they're quite happy to ignore commonsense, hypocrisy and even morality in order to pronounce their allegiance. Plus they're quite happy to ignore the simple fact that most of the time it's not a rewarding experience; favouring instead to keep schtum and stay part of their crowd. Rather sadly, more than a few are quite happy to have stand-up rows, and even kill, just to show how much they care.
Frankly, I don't believe it's possible that a being who is smart and capable enough to create this absolutely baffling and unique universe we inhabit, could then in turn expect, demand or enjoy the repetitive, insular and myopic actions of Christians.
Nor do I believe that even if he did exist, that he must still be alive today; for this would be an unfair and unjust paradox to the universe he created.
If he does exist still, he's either having a bloody good laugh at our expense, or just doesn't care enough to bother with us anymore. We could have been his P6 science experiment, and he's now at university.
By the way, everything on this thread from either side of the argument is little more than conjecture. I personally believe that religion is little more than a self-preservation tool cultivated by society. But, I don't have either intelligence nor the will to understand, and therefore prove to myself, that the baffledom produced by scientists is any more trustworthy. If it was possible to remove ego and agenda from scientists, I might lessen this stance, but it's not, and if Christianity is one woman's lie that got out of hand, then we shouldn't repeat those steps again with science.
Fantastic post wobbler - , have appreciated both sides of the discussion, but would be agnostic like yourself. Still searching....
I also would consider myself agnostic but am not searching for any great answer, however the splinters are a bit sore now and again.
Quote from: BarryBreensBandage on March 08, 2011, 12:32:56 AM
I have a question - with all our new-found wealth of knowledge on this subject do we consign our parents' generation of thinking to the bin? Do we dismiss them as fools or that they were not enlightened, or that their faith was blind?
Because the people I know who have a strong belief in God are neither stupid nor crowd-folllowing.
And as one post stated, faith has helped an awful lot of people through grief which otherwise would have killed them. Are all the examples of good people that I know wrong to believe in something that gives them direction, solace, and comfort?
I am not forgiving religion's influence on the world, but this is where faith and religion separate. Is it foolish to have a faith in a greater power?
To finish off, a list that I found interesting - of people who believed in Jesus Christ:
Moses - A political leader, trained in the universities of Egypt,
Peter - A fisherman
Amos - A herdsman
Joshua - A military General
Nehemiah - A Cupbearer
Daniel - A Prime Minister
Luke - A Doctor
Solomon - A King
Matthew - A Tax Collector
Paul - A Rabbi
Were they, and our parents all wrong?
why does there have to be a right and wrong? If they believed in something you don't where's the harm?
If people get some good and fulfilling out of believing in god, attending the sacraments etc then let at it, I'm not going to sneer at them. Some people enjoy meditation and yoga, acupuncture and nettle tea, some sneer and look down their noses, but if they're getting something from it then fire away. If someone believes their life is more fulfilled by not believing in some all powerful being then good for them as well.
I take exception to anyone on either side of the believer, agnostic, atheist scale taking the moral or intellectual high ground.
Quote from: BarryBreensBandage on March 08, 2011, 12:32:56 AM
To finish off, a list that I found interesting - of people who believed in Jesus Christ:
Moses - A political leader, trained in the universities of Egypt,
Peter - A fisherman
Amos - A herdsman
Joshua - A military General
Nehemiah - A Cupbearer
Daniel - A Prime Minister
Luke - A Doctor
Solomon - A King
Matthew - A Tax Collector
Paul - A Rabbi
Were they, and our parents all wrong?
Most of those people never heard of Jesus Christ.
Quote from: The Iceman on March 08, 2011, 02:30:25 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 07, 2011, 09:48:44 PM
I was given a daily dose of religion for about half an hour a day from the age of 3 when I started school to the age of 16 when I finally escaped the catholic brainwashing system. We were drilled in great detail about ALL the minute details of the faith. The colours of the vestaments, the meanings of all the ceremonies in the mass, the prayers, the philosophy behind the faith, the scholarly origins of it, line-by-line study of Mark's Gospel, you name it we covered it at least once.
I spent a great deal of time thinking about this faith business. I looked around me wondering how many people were actually falling for this. I tried my damndest to believe it when I was a child because that's what I was taught was the right thing to do. It was as if to be an atheist was to be synonymous with being an evil devil-worshipper. When I finally admitted to myself that I wasn't buying it (age 12, I remember it well) it was like a huge weight off my shoulders, I felt a huge sense of relief because I could finally stop fooling myself and stop the battle going on in my mind.
Nothing insults me more than the assumption that people throw at me all the time, "Oh you haven't really thought about it." Excuse me, buster, I've thought about it harder than you'll ever know.
Were your thoughts done at 12 years old or did this process continue? Because to tell me on here you had it all figured out at 12 is insulting to me. You barely had a grasp of your times tables at 12 but you had figured out the answer to whether or not God existed. Bravo!
1 - We learned our times tables at the age of 7.
2 - I'm sorry to hear that you find my belief system "insulting".
3 - The Catholic sacrament of Confirmation, when you're supposed to be old enough to have figured out all the stuff you weren't aware of at Baptism, is something you go through at age 10. "Bravo" indeed!
4 - Yes, this thought process has continued every single day since then and the more I think about it the more convinced I become that the God hypothesis is as antiquated as it is false.
Any other assumptions you'd like to make about me?
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 08, 2011, 06:12:46 PM
3 - The Catholic sacrament of Confirmation, when you're supposed to be old enough to have figured out all the stuff you weren't aware of at Baptism, is something you go through at age 10. "Bravo" indeed!
I was about to make the exact same point!
And as a general point, not being able to make a proper decision as a child is a very valid argument to delaying all sacraments until someone is old enough to make an informed decision for themselves. Maybe leave all sacraments until you're 16/18?
I had no idea what was supposed to be going on during my confirmation. I didn't understand the meaning of this word "confirmed" and nobody could explain it to me. I was told that you'll be sitting in the chapel, and at a certain moment in the ceremony you'll be filled with some sensation of something called the 'Holy Spirit' filling your body. I didn't feel a thing and it was around this time that I started becoming even more suspicious that the whole thing was a big elaborate hoax.
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 08, 2011, 06:55:47 PM
Maybe leave all sacraments until you're 16/18?
Interesting proposal. I think the solution to this issue lies in further research into earning potential. At what age is this maximised? When only seven or eight it's possible that you may be too easily fobbed off with a cheap fiver. While the drop off rate in random donations altogether towards the latter teenage years is even more concerning. I am certain though that it is crucial that at least two major fundraising events are retained.
Quote from: Hardy on March 08, 2011, 05:17:52 PM
Quote from: BarryBreensBandage on March 08, 2011, 12:32:56 AM
To finish off, a list that I found interesting - of people who believed in Jesus Christ:
Moses - A political leader, trained in the universities of Egypt,
Peter - A fisherman
Amos - A herdsman
Joshua - A military General
Nehemiah - A Cupbearer
Daniel - A Prime Minister
Luke - A Doctor
Solomon - A King
Matthew - A Tax Collector
Paul - A Rabbi
Were they, and our parents all wrong?
Most of those people never heard of Jesus Christ.
Even though they are listed among the authors of the bible?
Quote from: BarryBreensBandage on March 08, 2011, 09:56:00 PM
Quote from: Hardy on March 08, 2011, 05:17:52 PM
Quote from: BarryBreensBandage on March 08, 2011, 12:32:56 AM
To finish off, a list that I found interesting - of people who believed in Jesus Christ:
Moses - A political leader, trained in the universities of Egypt,
Peter - A fisherman
Amos - A herdsman
Joshua - A military General
Nehemiah - A Cupbearer
Daniel - A Prime Minister
Luke - A Doctor
Solomon - A King
Matthew - A Tax Collector
Paul - A Rabbi
Were they, and our parents all wrong?
Most of those people never heard of Jesus Christ.
Even though they are listed among the authors of the bible?
Yes. Since a lot of them lived and died long before Jesus came around, knowing the man would have been quite an achievement.
(You are aware that the Old Testamant stories were all set in the BC era, aren't you?)
Quote from: BarryBreensBandage on March 08, 2011, 12:32:56 AM
Nehemiah - A Cupbearer
I feel a bit stupid, because nobody else has asked this, that means I'm the only one wondering what the hell a Cupbearer does?
As for the bible being naturally mis-translated over the ages, does that mean God created the world in 70 days with numerous rest days? I still find it absurd
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 08, 2011, 10:01:50 PM
Quote from: BarryBreensBandage on March 08, 2011, 09:56:00 PM
Quote from: Hardy on March 08, 2011, 05:17:52 PM
Quote from: BarryBreensBandage on March 08, 2011, 12:32:56 AM
To finish off, a list that I found interesting - of people who believed in Jesus Christ:
Moses - A political leader, trained in the universities of Egypt,
Peter - A fisherman
Amos - A herdsman
Joshua - A military General
Nehemiah - A Cupbearer
Daniel - A Prime Minister
Luke - A Doctor
Solomon - A King
Matthew - A Tax Collector
Paul - A Rabbi
Were they, and our parents all wrong?
Most of those people never heard of Jesus Christ.
Even though they are listed among the authors of the bible?
Yes. Since a lot of them lived and died long before Jesus came around, knowing the man would have been quite an achievement.
(You are aware that the Old Testamant stories were all set in the BC era, aren't you?)
That last bit does not even credit a response.
Could I just ask that you read my posts properly - some difference in knowledge and belief - to back up what I was saying, the belief in Jesus Christ in the Old Testament for ref: Book of Leviticus.
Also, He was not called Jesus Christ at this juncture, but there was certainly belief in a "Lamb of God", a substitute for us that God would send, to be sacrificed in place of man for all sins committed (Genesis ch 22).
Is this not what links the Old and New Testament and is the fundamental message of the Bible, whether you believe it or not?
So to my original point, again if you read the post properly was - were people fools for believing this theory?
Of course the historical jesus could have been the self fulfilling prophesy that was predicted
Quote from: stephenite on March 08, 2011, 10:23:00 PM
Quote from: BarryBreensBandage on March 08, 2011, 12:32:56 AM
Nehemiah - A Cupbearer
I feel a bit stupid, because nobody else has asked this, that means I'm the only one wondering what the hell a Cupbearer does?
As for the bible being naturally mis-translated over the ages, does that mean God created the world in 70 days with numerous rest days? I still find it absurd
"I believe in God because it is impossible to believe. I believe in God because it is absurd". - Tertullian
"If you believe in the possible, it is of no consequence. If you believe in the argument it is not religious. This approach belongs to science. Only if you believe in the absurd does something come from you that is beyond the mind." - Eckhart
"You are a fool if you are only rational. To be rational is not enough. The irrational must have its own corner to exist. Only if a person is both rational and irrational is he reasonable". Lao Tzu
I rest my case.
Quote from: BarryBreensBandage on March 08, 2011, 12:32:56 AM
To finish off, a list that I found interesting - of people who believed in Jesus Christ:
Moses - A political leader, trained in the universities of Egypt,
Peter - A fisherman
Amos - A herdsman
Joshua - A military General
Nehemiah - A Cupbearer
Daniel - A Prime Minister
Luke - A Doctor
Solomon - A King
Matthew - A Tax Collector
Paul - A Rabbi
Were they, and our parents all wrong?
In a word, yes.
Although I don't see where you're going with this list.
Quote from: BarryBreensBandage on March 09, 2011, 01:19:08 PM
Quote from: stephenite on March 08, 2011, 10:23:00 PM
Quote from: BarryBreensBandage on March 08, 2011, 12:32:56 AM
Nehemiah - A Cupbearer
I feel a bit stupid, because nobody else has asked this, that means I'm the only one wondering what the hell a Cupbearer does?
As for the bible being naturally mis-translated over the ages, does that mean God created the world in 70 days with numerous rest days? I still find it absurd
"I believe in God because it is impossible to believe. I believe in God because it is absurd". - Tertullian
"If you believe in the possible, it is of no consequence. If you believe in the argument it is not religious. This approach belongs to science. Only if you believe in the absurd does something come from you that is beyond the mind." - Eckhart
"You are a fool if you are only rational. To be rational is not enough. The irrational must have its own corner to exist. Only if a person is both rational and irrational is he reasonable". Lao Tzu
And Cupbearer, maybe it's a sort of an ancient waiter?
I checked, it is, more of a loungeboy really
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=cupbearer (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=cupbearer)