I don't think christians or indeed jews believe that god actually wrote any part of the bible himself. And the text is acknowledged to be the result of a process of editing. Certainly in the case of the old testament, there are issues about when particular bits were written and by whom. I'm also not at all convinced that anyone thinks the bible consists of a complete account of the nature of god.

[EDIT: as roblerner's link demonstrates, some people are inevitably more head-banging than I give them credit for…]

Muslims do (I think) believe that god more-or-less dictated the koran to Mohammed, but that bit is separate anyway from the hadith, which consists of a record of things Mohammed is said to have said about things.

BigDummy – Member

So if my idea of paradise…

I think this is a great example of "us" not having enough understanding of theology to argue about the subject

It's true that, as an Atheist, I have no "Theology".

I am however, perfectly comfortable in saying that Leprechauns do not exist despite (shock, horror!!) having no "Leprechaunology".

Or "Unicornology", Santa-Clausology" or "Fairies-at-the-bottom-of-the-garden" ology…

And yet on the ghost thread…

The souls of the dead walking the world? Or a
dodgy switch? You decide!
…{dodgy switch} seems VASTLY more plausible (and physically possible) than the echoes of dead people turning on your cooker hood (ffs!)

Whether or not a switch is dodgy is FIRMLY within the realms of science, I'm afraid. As is whether or not people can still be around when they die. It's about my assessment of relative probability.

The point is, I didn't ridicule anyone in that thread, I just posted an assessment of the specific situation regarding the cooker hood. I didn't pass judgement on their intelligence either or other mental faculties.

Religion is not the same thing as belief in the 'paranormal' at all.

it's often readily apparent why someone believes

You might think that, but it's not fair to assume unless you actually take the time to talk to them about it and try and understand their point of view. See point 5).

If you follow your free will argument, then having faith at all (even in the absence of 'proof') removes free will, as your actions are controlled or influenced by the presence of a god, and the rules laid down by that god. So if free will is the ultimate aim then god would rather we didn't have faith. But then we all go to hell. Hmm.

Now we are getting somewhere 🙂

some [religious] people have an uncanny ability to ignore obvious inconsistencies and avoid logical arguments

That am true.

having no "Leprechaunology".

Yes. I don't believe in god either. The point I was making is that I can't have a sensible conversation about what learned christians believe about the nature of heaven with GrahamS, because I don't really know what learned christians believe and neither does he.

I have the same problem with hifi. While I believe in hifi's of course, I have no idea why people who are really interested in them care so much. You were talking the other day about "reference level", a concept with which I was not familiar, but which is clearly needed to understand the subject and to have a reasonably informed opinion about whether really expensive hifi's are a waste of money.

We're conducting a debate on here without understanding (for example) the difference between biblical infallibility and inerrancy. That hampers us in even discussing what it is that people believe about the nature of the bible. So we never get beyond a fairly low-level discussion of it.

🙂

Religion is not the same thing as belief in the 'paranormal' at all

I'd say they're similar: Ideas believed to be true based on little or no scientific evidence. and/or. Ways of explaining things in the absence of any proven alternative, with a disregard for other more plausible/reasonable explanations and any scientific evidence to the contrary.

The subject matter is different, but to me it's the same ethos.

[/I'm a scientist]

Religion's are fundamentally selfish obsessions with the pretence of being good to others for the ultimate goal of getting one's self into heaven.
(from martyring yourself too door to door recruiting, it’s all about brownie points)

Therefore the failing (biggest hypocrisy) in any religion is the concept of an afterlife as this makes the entire belief selfserving.

If there is a god(s) then is this man-made idea of religion that is followed really what he/she would have wanted? And as any god would have to be far superior in mind to any of its creations are we actually capable of understanding/interpreting what would be wanted of us

The subject matter is different, but to me it's the same ethos.

It depends who you read (I've been rather influenced in this by Terry Eagleton), but the proposition of (modern?) christianity is not "there is a god, who created the world in 7 days and hates shrimp", it is more like "god is love". The existence of god is understood to be essentially unprove-able, but the ramifications of his theorised existence and character to the world are what is interesting.

The reverse is true of ghosties and ghoulies. One hears something going bump in the night, and theorises about what it could be, in a rather imaginative manner. 🙂

I disagree. Ghosts either exist or they don't. They don't offer any kind of moral framework as to what you should be doing with your life. No different to say, the Higgs boson.

People don't base their whole lives and value systems on ghosts 🙂

it's not fair to assume unless you actually take the time to talk to them about it

Well, yes, sometimes. Sometimes it's obvious, (hence "apparant"), sometimes it requires a conversation. I've had quite a lot of those over the years. (-:

it is more like "god is love". The existence of god is understood to be essentially unprove-able, but the ramifications of his theorised existence and character to the world are what is interesting.

I wonder what ants in a colony think of God?

The point is, I didn't ridicule anyone in that thread, I just posted an assessment of the specific situation regarding the cooker hood. I didn't pass judgement on their intelligence either or other mental faculties.

I'd say the "You decide!" and "(ffs!)" were pretty clear indications that you favoured an Occam's Razor approach and thought the previous poster was a little daft for entertaining more elaborate fantasies.

I can't have a sensible conversation about what learned christians believe about the nature of heaven with GrahamS

Fixed that for you. 😉

I'm pretty confident that ants are basically unimaginative, fascistic little bastards with no appreciation of god's love for them. 🙂

People don't base their whole lives and value systems on ghosts

I would disagree with that.

"…first became interested in the paranormal from an early age after personally experiencing paranormal activity. They set up this organisation with the intention of helping more people understand and find answers to the paranormal…"

From here. Sounds like a religion to me. Just because fewer people believe in ghosts doesn't mean it's any more/less valid logical than religious beliefs. Or than choosing to spend your life finding ghosts and converting everyone to paranormal-tianity is any more/less of a waste of time legitimate calling. 😉

without understanding (for example) the difference between biblical infallibility and inerrancy.

Within christianity there are divisions between those that believe in Biblical inerrancy and those that believe it is only infallible in matters of faith and practice.

Oh, and I for one do understand the difference. 😉

Forgive BD, Father, for he knows not what ants do.

I for one do understand the difference

Good. I'm not sure I do really I'm afraid. People who are arguing about whether the bible is god's autobiography are hiding it well if they do, though. 🙂

Ants carry out specific tasks unceasingly, and all mesh together to work perfectly and effectively. What controls and manages them all? It has been referred to as the 'hive mind' – the contributions of each tiny ant's thoughts making up a larger thinking capable being.

The 'hive mind' could be God, for the ants at least.

Antz = top film. Someone managed to persuade Hollywood to make a Marxist film without them noticing it. Love it 🙂 It even quotes Marx!

The 'hive mind' could be God, for the ants at least.

And this is how religion used to work for humans. It was a system that basically brought social cohesion. And to this end shows how religious belief can be a good thing.

It was a system that basically brought social cohesion

Yeah that's religion. Religion is something organised by humans. And often (frequently) subverted for control of others.

I am talking about the very nature of God though.

but which comes first god or religion?

Assuming god isn't a being but an ideology. Which you have to consider if you are talking about the nature of god

but which comes first god or religion?

I'd say god came first.

God is someone lying on the grass, looking at the stars and going "who put that there?"

Religion(*) is a group of people going "ooh, we know, and if you don't agree with us we'll stone you to death."

(* – no actual religion implied, other religions are available.)

Assuming god isn't a being but an ideology

Well I would consider it more of a concept. Like 'God is love' or similar. If people base their life decisions around a shared idea then that idea is a reality of God.

Reality is a very fluid concept, you have to remember 🙂

But yes I'd agree with Cougar.

God is someone lying on the grass, looking at the stars and going "who put that there?"

Isn't that just someone lying on the grass?

In my view you can ask questions about why things 'are' without resorting to non-sayings like "god is love". To live and love is human, why does that have anything to do with any kind of god concept?

Am I too cynical? Will I die alone and unhappy? 😉

The point I was making is that I can't have a sensible conversation about what learned christians believe about the nature of heaven with GrahamS, because I don't really know what learned christians believe and neither does he.

and more to the point, why would you want to ? More interesting to discuss your own beliefs (if any)

We're conducting a debate on here without understanding (for example) the difference between biblical infallibility and inerrancy

were are? I think it fair to say you may be trying to but no one else is reciprocating 🙂 Whilst religions typically feature shared beliefs, faith does not require you to agree with everyone else of the same denomination, or even to know what they think about all (any?) topics.

Will I die alone and unhappy?

Yes, but that's unrelated to your religious beliefs. (-:

so far, everyone I thought to be putting forward religious views has gone on to claim to be an atheist, so perhaps the religionists are refusing to be drawn in, and the entire thread is as moot as Catholic priests discussing sex ? [intentional irony]

To live and love is human, why does that have anything to do with any kind of god concept?

It dosen't.

I would consider it more of a concept. Like 'God is love' or similar

Which can still lead to a religion a non god based one. So which comes first god/love or the concept with the belief that love is good.

the religionists are refusing to be drawn in

I can't say I blame them in the slightest. But yes. 🙂

so perhaps the religionists are refusing to be drawn in

Perhaps there not very good at discussing there beliefs as when discussed rationally and intellectually there are many holes that can't be filled without blind faith. Which can have the affect of strengthening someone’s belief or destroying it.

resorting to non-sayings like "god is love"

It's not really a non-saying. I am finding it a little hard to explain succinctly though 🙁 Maybe later.

Almost all British religious people (that I know) treat it as a fairly private matter (and rightly so), so don't bang on about it to their mates. This is at odds with Woppit's idea of legions of insistent evangelicals tho that I seem to remember from previous threads.

Perhaps there not very good at discussing there beliefs as when discussed rationally and intellectually there are many holes that can't be filled without blind faith

Perhaps they don't want to waste time arguing with ignorant folk who think they are superior and don't get it, never will get it and don't WANT to take the time to understand their point.

Perhaps there not very good at discussing there beliefs as when discussed rationally and intellectually there are many holes

I was thinking along similar lines. Once you have settled upon a relgion, you can get on with saying prayers, burning incense, interfering with children or growing a beard as prescribed without further troubling yourself with justifications or arguments.

Woppit's idea of legions of insistent evangelicals tho that I seem to remember from previous threads.

Nope. Either quote me or piss off.

Quote yourself!

I SEEM to remember that you were complaining about people always trying to convert others – however my memory is fallible.

Yay. The voice of reasoned argument and polite debate is amongst us again. 🙂

I SEEM to remember that you were complaining about people always trying to convert others – however my memory is fallible.

It's worse than that, it's making itself up without your permission.

Now I'd like to see another thread where the relgious discuss atheism!

Perhaps they don't want to waste time arguing with ignorant folk who think they are superior and don't get it, never will get it and don't WANT to take the time to understand their point.

Exactly right. There are all sorts of religious people, obviously, and some of them are really quite bright and are not afraid to be challenged but this ain't really the place for that. Even so, in the past some have tried to discuss in a sensible manner but some of the more vocal Dawkins followers on here feel they are so superior and see believers as really just a bit dim who if they could just be logical for a moment would surely see the stupidity of their ways. As it happens the brightest guy I've ever met is a Christian – and I've met a lot of bright people.

It's worse than that, it's making itself up without your permission.

As most people's memories do. I'm trying to search to find the original thread.