"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion.” Steven Weinberg
Yeah, but he came up with that when he was stoned int his first year at college, same as everyone else.
Neither comedy (the Brigstock clip) nor Hitchens make for a proper debate.
No matter what the topic under discussion, there is no answer to comedy. Indeed, if ever you want to undermine an opponents integrity in argument, use comedy. That does not, however, make it a legitimate rhetorical device.
As for Hitchens, I don't even [i]care[/i] about circumcision, but I hate his bullying. I suspect (and I have no proof for this other than instinct) that circumcision arose as a religious ritual as a result of form following function. It was probably determined by that particular tribe (the Israelites) that circumcision saved on a good deal of grief later in life. Certainly a good friend of mine wished he had been circumcised when he had to have it done as emergency operation when he was an adult backpacking in Peru! 😯
Asking for 'facts' in relation to discussing religion reveals a basic lack of understanding of what faith is! Christianity is all about having the free will to believe in God. Faith would not exist if we were simply presented with facts. Just because there are no facts does not mean that God does not exist.
You know what, I think that some (not all, obviously) people find it easy to reject religion because they are only comfortable in life if they have hard facts, and it's easy to say that the events describe in the Bible are not facts and therefore religion has no basis.
Similarly, science is not all about facts, actually.
Fair point SaxonRider, almost all of the 15 pages of this debate have been pretty respectful. I do feel that there are a few people who want the impossible (ie, facts) from this discussion. I am unable to provide facts about my faith because (as I tried to explain above) faith doesn't involve fact.
Wow. This was on page 6 or so when I went away for the weekend. Plenty of points I'd have liked to discuss, but the discussion has moved on. So, a couple of things from the more recent pages:
Let's go with this, first.
a good friend of mine wished he had been circumcised when he had to have it done as emergency operation
By that logic, we should all have routine appendectomies as kids, and possibly remove a few other redundant organs.
CharlieMungus posited that "circumsed penii are quite attractive to some folks. So, not everyone sees it as mutilation" and no-one picked up on this. I was curious CM, do you also support any other form of non-consensual infantile cosmetic surgery? I was thinking of a nice tattoo for Cougar Jr perhaps, or maybe a Prince Albert.
On the subject of mandatory RE being "like History"; when I was at (state) high school at least, you got a general education to third year and then took your options. So you could opt in to, or out of, things like History (and various other arts and sciences. Outside of this were core subjects which were considered so important that you couldn't elect not to do them; Maths, English Language, English Literature, PE, and RE. The latter two you could also choose as options, but basic PE and RE were mandatory core subjects right the way through till you were 16.
The RE teacher's stance on 'fact' was that Jesus was who he said he was, or he was the greatest trickster who ever lived. Which at the time I thought was quite balanced and pragmatic, but it does imply that either way it's a fact that Jesus existed, which is a bit sneaky. I don't remember the lessons all too clearly now, but I think they were mostly Bible studies; looking at parables and interpreting them, and such. I don't recall much if any non-Xtian teachings though.
Christianity is all about having the free will to believe in God.
Presumably you mean "...the free will to believe in God, or not to"? Otherwise, what you've got there is basically Hobson's Choice.
Just because there are no facts does not mean that God does not exist.
...
it's easy to say that the events describe in the Bible are not facts and therefore religion has no basis.
If there are no facts, aren't you essentially describing "making things up" here? You could say the same thing about purple unicorns and the flying spaghetti monster, both of which are equally plausible.
"Facts" aside, there has to be [i]something[/i] upon which to form beliefs, surely? Where does that faith come from? Your parents and / or some bloke in a frock saying "trust me, this is how it is"? Or something else?
Similarly, science is not all about facts, actually.
Whilst the rest of your sentence is correct, "similarly" is disingenuous. They aren't similar at all.
Science isn't about facts. It is about evidence, and about trying to disprove theories. The more that theories fail to be disproven, the more it strengthens the theory. People who "believe" in science welcome and encourage criticism and review.
This is in direct contrast with religion, which fails proof at every turn and then either gets angry when you point it out or says "well, we didn't really mean that bit, it's just an allegory."
Both aren't about facts. But for very, very different reasons.
CharlieMungus posited that "circumsed penii are quite attractive to some folks. So, not everyone sees it as mutilation" and no-one picked up on this. I was curious CM, do you also support any other form of non-consensual infantile cosmetic surgery? I was thinking of a nice tattoo for Cougar Jr perhaps, or maybe a Prince Albert.
Well, non-consensual may be a red herring in this context as the parents give consent, as they do for all issues with kids under 16. You mention tattos or a Prince Albert, but how about ear piercing. How are you defining mutiliation here? Do you know many circumcised men? How many wish it had not been done?
The latter two you could also choose as options, but basic PE and RE were mandatory core subjects right the way through till you were 16.
But the point is that RE is not mandatory. You can chose not to have it.
The RE teacher's stance on 'fact' was that Jesus was who he said he was, or he was the greatest trickster who ever lived. Which at the time I thought was quite balanced and pragmatic, but it does imply that either way it's a fact that Jesus existed, which is a bit sneaky. I don't remember the lessons all too clearly now, but I think they were mostly Bible studies; looking at parables and interpreting them, and such. I don't recall much if any non-Xtian teachings though.
I think the existence or not of a historical but non Goddy Jesus is pretty much meaningless. So what if he existed, if he wasn't God?
well, we didn't really mean that bit, it's just an allegory."
Well that's not wholly fair, the stuff which is allegorical and the stuff which is true has stayed pretty fixed for quite along time. It does't change just when challenged.
Do you know many circumcised men? How many wish it had not been done?
I imagine you could find plenty of women who would say they are glad of FGM too. Not really the point though is it.
If there are no facts, aren't you essentially describing "making things up" here? You could say the same thing about purple unicorns and the flying spaghetti monster, both of which are equally plausible.
People seem to get upset when you say stuff like this but I'm yet to hear a convincing argument against it. Just out of interest what do the Christians on here think of the beliefs of Scientologists, for example?
Eg
Mythology of Xenu75,00,000 years ago, Xenu headed the Galactic Federation, which was an organization of 76 planets that had already existed for 20,000,000 years. The planets were suffering a tremendous problem with overpopulation. Xenu's draconian solution to the matter was to gather large numbers of people, kill them, freeze their thetans (souls), and transport the frozen thetans to Earth, which they called Teegeeack. The thetans were left in the vicinity of volcanoes, which were, in turn, destroyed in a series of nuclear explosions.
Members of the galactic Federation eventually rebelled against Xenu, fighting him for six years before he was finally captured and imprisoned on a planet that today is barren desert. Within the "mountain trap" on this unnamed world, Xenu still lives.
I suspect, being honest, most of you would probably say you thought it was ridiculous nonsense.
I imagine you could find plenty of women who would say they are glad of FGM too. Not really the point though is it.
Yeah, but we're not basing anything on what you choose to imagine. I thought his was the whole point of your argument.
People seem to get upset when you say stuff like this but I'm yet to hear a convincing argument against it. Just out of interest what do the Christians on here think of the beliefs of Scientologists, for example?
I don't think anyone here would get upset. I'm not sure what kind of answer you expect for the second part of the question. Scientologists probably think they are cool Christadelphians probably think they aren't. Not trying to,be awkward, but the questions doesn't really mean anything.
I'd say it was a bit ridiculous, yeah. But if that's what they want to believe, then, let them go knock themselves out.
how about ear piercing. How are you defining mutiliation here?
How about "Non-reversable"? Pierced ears will close up, foreskins tend not to grow back.
You could (and no doubt will) argue that ear piercing doesn't heal 100% and leaves a scar, which may be true, but I'm not really sure how getting bogged down in a discussion on the moral and ethical issues surrounding the piercing of children's ears will do anything other than derail things further. Feel free to start a new thread on it if you want to explore the topic though.
Do you know many circumcised men? How many wish it had not been done?
Well, personally, I don't generally make it my business to discuss friends' penises with them; so as to whether they're cut or uncut, and whether they're deliriously happy or utterly depressed about that, I wouldn't know. Are you positing that the only valid opinions are first-hand ones? (Didn't we already have that discussion, or was that someone else?)
There are websites dedicated to restoration, though, so clearly not everyone is happy with their lot. I'm sure your google powers are as good as mine.
Yeah, but we're not basing anything on what you choose to imagine. I thought his was the whole point of your argument.
Is this really the standard of argument you're going to pursue? 🙄
Have you conducted a survey of circumsised men then?
Try reading some of these responses:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090417045847AAmnRd7
Here's a sample:
I am not happy being circumcised. I hate it, and have always hated it.
It robbed me of my freedom of choice in the matter, as well as all the sexual sensitivity associated with the foreskin.
The was nothing, no time, no matter, nothing. Not even anything for there to be none of.then allof a sudden, for no reason at all, there was an almight boom and literally, out of nowhere, everthing there ever was and ever will be appeared.
I suspect, being honest, most of you would probably say you thought it was ridiculous nonsense.
Well, personally, I don't generally make it my business to discuss friends' penises with them
Well, can you stop tweeting me to ask for pictures of mine then for chrissakes!!
CM - how about you answer the question, honestly? No thought not.
My point is that many Christians believe (google it if you need evidence) that the stuff about Xenu is nonsense, and that Scientology is a cult etc - the point is should any belief be respected and not criticised, in case of offending the believers, however daft it might appear?
Or do you save respect for ideas that have been around for a long time and are believed by larger numbers of people?
But the point is that RE is not mandatory. You can chose not to have it.
Now, or then?
IIRC it wasn't mandatory when I did it, in so far as parents could have objected on religious grounds(*). As a kid, you couldn't opt out yourself, so it was mandatory for all practical purposes.
At my school hardly anyone ever opted out. It would mean excluding a kid from doing something everyone else was doing, and there wasn't really the infrastructure in place to deal with it. I've half a memory of one kid being excluded, I think he was only actually at our school for a few months anyway. Instead of RE, he sat on his own in the hallway outside the classroom reading a textbook from another lesson.
(* - special privilege again, hey?)
Well that's not wholly fair, the stuff which is allegorical and the stuff which is true has stayed pretty fixed for quite along time. It does't change just when challenged.
Has it? Awesome, can you tell me which bits are which? Or is there a guide or something, like Cliff Notes? Only, this seems to be a fairly big point of debate whenever there's this kind of discussion. I had no idea it had been documented now, that'll save a lot of arguments.
Grum, when your evidence is based on 'I imagine' you cannot expect it to be taken seriously. Futhermore, i did look at that link and the responses seemed pretty mixed, and there was likely to be some self-selection bias. Nevertheless the 'sample' you chose only only representedone viewpoint, why not show the other ones, or i fact look at some larger scale data.
Here for example
http://www.circlist.com/surveys/badger-01.html
Circumcision is a topic which few men feel neutral about. Only 11% answered that they didn’t care either way. Naturals were more likely to feel this way - 21% of them, in fact, as opposed to 8% of the circumcised men. Most men were happy to be the way they were - 75% of the roundheads and 67% of the cavaliers responded this way, and three-quarters ticked the "Very glad" option rather than "On balance" in each case. 18% of the circumcised men would rather not have been, while 14% of the uncircumcised men wished they had been cut. In latter case the "Very much" response was in a minority, but then, those who felt most strongly about it had already had it done! Nevertheless 13% of the remaining 'cavaliers' said that they intended to get circumcised.
Has it? Awesome, can you tell me which bits are which? Or is there a guide or something, like Cliff Notes? Only, this seems to be a fairly big point of debate whenever there's this kind of discussion. I had no idea it had been documented now, that'll save a lot of arguments.
Yes, there s a guide, the Second Vatican Council and other doctrinal statements, no there are no Cliff Notes, but as i said earlier, if you don't know anything about it, why are you arguing about it?
[b]The was nothing, no time, no matter, nothing. Not even anything for there to be none of.then allof a sudden, for no reason at all, there was an almight boom and literally, out of nowhere, everthing there ever was and ever will be appeared.[/b]I suspect, being honest, most of you would probably say you thought it was ridiculous nonsense.
Well, it is ridiculous nonsense. It's a common misunderstanding / misrepresentation of The Big Bang Theory which is often trotted out by creationist types (who bizarrely have no issue with accepting it once they've crossed out "the universe" and written "god" instead.)
Oh really? What happened then?
CM - how about you answer the question, honestly? No thought not
No grum, you first.
the 'sample' you chose only only representedone viewpoint, why not show the other ones, or i fact look at some larger scale data.
So from those stats, most people are happy, and a statistically relevant percentage aren't. The ones that aren't circumcised can go and get it done, and the ones who are can... oh.
Still not answering the question I see.
Personally I'm not happy with the idea of a single child having their body permanently altered against their will. Crazy eh?
Right, but you can see that a large percentage are happy with it. So, it argues against the idea of mutlialtion
Grum, when your evidence is based on 'I imagine' you cannot expect it to be taken seriously
You really must be trolling.
Still not answering the question I see.Personally I'm not happy with the idea of a single child having their body permanently altered against their will. Crazy eh?
Actaully, i was referring to the question about whether or not it seemed riduculous that everything all of a sudden came out of nowhere.
What was your question?
Cougar - yes, I mean the free will to choose whether to believe in God or not.
If you have "proof" there is no such thing as faith. I think that's a pretty easy thing to understand. My faith is not based on my parents' influence - they are not Orthodox, nor a priest saying "trust me". I could write a lot about how my faith developed but I'm not sure I want something so personal being derided and shot down in public, which I am afraid it would be.
By the way, I don't think "disingenuous" is the word you're after.
Yes, there s a guide, the Second Vatican Council and other doctrinal statements, no there are no Cliff Notes, but as i said earlier, if you don't know anything about it, why are you arguing about it?
Not knowing everything about it != not knowing everything about it.
Who's arguing? Don't judge everyone by your own standards, I'm having a discussion. People often learn things in discussions, you should try it sometime. I've learnt something from this one, I'd never heard of the Second Vatican Council Its scope would appear to be beyond 'a quick google' so I might have to take a rain-check on this unless you can give me a summary.
its not a great system to generally accept things which have no facts to support them. Everyone knows you cannot prove a negative hence science makes no attempt to do this but seeks evidence for a view rather than have a view and ignore the evidence.Faith would not exist if we were simply presented with facts. Just because there are no facts does not mean that God does not exist
You know what, I think that some (not all, obviously) people find it easy to reject religion because they are only comfortable in life if they have hard facts, and it's easy to say that the events describe in the Bible are not facts and therefore religion has no basis.
i was rather more interested in why a scientist would ignore the absence of facts and opt to believe without evidence - do you have faith in homeopathy then and pass it off as truth ? you can if you wish but it makes no sense.
I know the biblical definition of faith and its rather neat you need it because lets be honest, as you accept, there are no facts- which is another way of saying you have no evidence to support your view.
Similarly, science is not all about facts, actually.
if there were no facts we would still think/have faith there are only the four elements , the sun orbits us and god made everything. Unfortunately there are "facts" * and they refute religious "facts"**
* evidence to support a view
** its in a book and I believe it.
EDIT: last comment before it appears to be personal
they dpeth of your faith, the manifestation of it is and how much you believe it has no affect on whether the belief is true. No matter how much I choose to believe in the four elements or homeopathy they wont be true. The issue is not whether you have faith, I believe you and you have, it is whether that faith is accurate in explaining existence.
If you have "proof" there is no such thing as faith. I think that's a pretty easy thing to understand.
I don't think they're mutually exclusive actually. For instance, I could have faith that a proof is correct, could I not?
I'm not sure I want something so personal being derided and shot down in public, which I am afraid it would be.
Understandable. I'm afraid it would be too, but mostly on religion threads these days we just ignore Woppit and things go a lot more smoothly. (-:
I don't think "disingenuous" is the word you're after.
How do you mean?
A word about allegory in the Bible: it is not about people picking and choosing what they want to take literally. The Orthodox tradition is pretty much unchanged from how it was in the origins of Christianity and we believe that to understand the Bible you need to follow the tradition passed down from the apostles and study the Bible within that tradition.
Anyway, I'm not a theologist so probably should shut up and go to bed!
😕Not knowing everything about it != not knowing everything about it.
Ok, sorry,it gets confusing with who is discussing and who is arguing but yes, if you want to know about the doctrine of the church, then V2 is a good place to start.
Just the request for a guide or Cliff Notes, felt a bit more mocking than discussing, so i figured you weren't really discussing. Mea culpa
In these debate folks are often making statments about what 'Christian say or believe' . Often, they have not taken the time to find out what they do or donot believe.
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Cougar I think this is what Vicky means- its accepted it is not known [proven] so pointing this out has no impact on faith as they know this.
Just the request for a guide or Cliff Notes, felt a bit more mocking than discussing, so i figured you weren't really discussing. Mea culpa
's cool. I try not to write too seriously and perhaps tend to think I'm funnier than I am, I guess it's easy to take the wrong way.
As a rule of thumb, if something I write can be taken two ways, and one of those ways sounds like I'm being a complete dick(*), I probably meant the other one.
(* - ie, uncircumcised?)
Cougar I think this is what Vicky means
Ah, ok. I wasn't exactly sure when I replied (hence the question mark) and, TBH, I'm still not sure I completely understand.
's cool. I try not to write too seriously and perhaps tend to think I'm funnier than I am, 's easy to take the wrong way.
If it is any consolation, I think you are a bit funny.
I get that a lot.
If you have "proof" there is no such thing as faith. I think that's a pretty easy thing to understand.
I don't think they're mutually exclusive actually. For instance, I could have faith that a proof is correct, could I not?
If it helps, in this case the things that you have faith about and have proof for, are different things. Once it was proved to you that the proof was correct, your faith that it was correct would disappear.
Sorry, one more thing!
Just wanted to explain why I may sound a bit defensive and unwilling to go into detail. Several years ago, I was once a member of an all -female "mums" internet forum where a discussion about religion started, and it got extremely nasty within a couple of pages and I experienced really vicious religious hatred from about 3 or 4 women. I have to say, it's great that we've reached 16 pages and it's still pretty good-natured!
🙂
[i]I know the biblical definition of faith and its rather neat you need it because lets be honest, as you accept, there are no facts[/i]
Boys and girls, be careful when stating that the bible has "no facts". Don't forget that the Jewish people and the Romans kept many records which back up some of the life events written in the bible. I'm trying to choose my words carefully as I don't want to offend anyone here.
be careful when stating that the bible has "no facts".
I was quoting theviews of a person of faith
Within the context here i assume it means the central claims re being given 10 commandments, Noah and the flood, and the nature of god. There is no "fact" [proof]. I think we all know some of the people lived but it is not a hoistorical record in that sense
King Arthur lived so there is some truth in the Merlin myth but no "facts"
It's difficult isn't it, when you're in a Mosque and everyone's praying and you really enjoy leapfrog.
- Milton Jones
I was once a member of an all -female "mums" internet forum
STW is fairly familiar with that forum.
