[Closed] christian baiting

Martyrs were from a different time

Well that's not true! I'm told that there are Muslim martyrs....

Anyway, certainly there are people who truly believe thought hard for an outsider to prove. Perhaps those people that give up their comfortable lives to become missionaries are showing true belief? I think a large number of those that call themselves followers of whatever faith do seem to blindly follow with little real understanding. This might be more obvious with those that are born into a religion in the sense that Catholics, Jews and Muslims are.

You can be Christian but not believe the Bible.

Well I think that's a bit of a dodgy view but I can imagine there are people who call themselves Christian but more or less ignore the bible. More mainstream Christians might say they are not Christians if they don't believe it but as long as they believe the key aspects of the bible then that's all that matters I think. Possible Molgrips is saying that Christians don't need to believe the entire bible in a literal sense.

Who is it that does the custom head tube badges? One of those Darwin Fish would look great on a headtube.

Anyway, here's an interesting take on religion vs evolution by [url=

Minchin[/url]

Its absolute rubbish to say the bible provides with any moral framework in fact the opposite is the case.
People who do good because they believe they are going to heaven are morally nferior to those that do good but believe they only have one life. In effect in this instance one could argue those who dont believe in god have the high moral ground.

Perhaps you should have a read of it sometime. You seem to be stuck in an Old Testament time warp with some obscure examples. Not sure how you arrive at the opposite point either.

I also think you will find that Christians do not do good becasue they believe they are going to heaven but rather because they believe it to be the right thing to do even if it is a cost to themselves. Christians / religious people do not claim to have exclusive access to "doing good". No good act is morally better or worse than another. Religious people though are driven through a combination of their own personal moral compass and the lens of the faith that they subscribe to. Where the two differ, they will endeavour to do the thing that their faith suggests is the right thing to do - which is not killing babies or lynching homosexuals.

So, we play with semantics a little with the big bang. But even so, surely a reasonably intelligent person would struggle to believe that the entire universe was compressed into a singularity?

I have a background in Physics and Cosmology and I would say I was reasonably intelligent and I have a hard time imagining the entire universe in a single point. What matters is that the observational data supports the theory that is was all at one point a long time back and did expand violently. Star life cycles are widely observed and the heavy elements scattered by the super novas all goes to make nice Shimano gears, hard to believe but there you are 🙂

So as I don't believe the bible but do believe that killing people is wrong does that make me a christian? Surely not coverting a neighbours ox is the supression of desire and thus a Buddhist idea and so all christians are buddhists.

Glad we sorted that one out.

SSP

It's always quite amusing on threads like this to watch the God-botherer-botherers getting all worked up about religion, quite desperate for someone who is Christian to post something denouncing stories like the Daily Mash thing as evil. I'm afraid though that about 99.9% of Christians would simply regard it as a reasonably witty, but harmless, spoof newspaper story, and would likely have a good chuckle over it.

There does almost seem to be a competition along the lines of "Look at me, I'm the most anti-Christian person on here". Well sorry guys, but no-one really cares. None of the religious people I know get bothered how worked up you get.

Oh, and I know it kind of suits your view of things to believe all Christians believe literally in the story of Adam and Eve, the world being created in 6 days etc. Well I'm afraid they don't. They see it as an allegory, and actually believe in evolution as well.

It's only when we'll die that we'll find out what the truth is (unless the aetheists are correct of course, and they may well be), but until then it would be nice if some folk on here could accept that the vast, vast majority of Christians (and other religions too) are not extreme bigots. If you're going to argue either for or against religion, do try and do it in an intelligent way.

Along with his noodlyness "well **** me those are gonna come in useful" have made my day

The CERN particle accelerator thingy was made by secular scientists to search for, as I understand it, the higgs-boson, the existence of which is theoretically essential because if it does not exist then it is hard to see that there can be enough mass in the universe. Is that roughly right? I suppose it is possible to imagine a world in which the Vatican perhaps had decided that the way to go was to "prove" seriously the existence of phenomena pointing to the existence of god.

Imagine, if you will, a thing the size and budget of the particle accelerator, staffed by hundreds of highly trained Investigative Theologians, cardinals and bishops with degrees in Spiritual Measurement and Applied Divinity conductiong gigantic experiments to demonstrate that, for example, there is a measurable surge of energy produced by a soul leaving the body when someone is killed, or that it is possible to re-arrange the molecular structure of water so that it becomes wine when prayed at hard enough. I suppose it is not an original thought, and the experiments that Philip Pullman describes in His Dark Materials are most of the way there.

Point is, that christianity has mostly accomodated itself with scientific progress (by belieiving that god pulled the lever to start the big bang) or by outright pig-ignorant rejection of the sort evident in that "quarter of an eye" leaflet. If things had worked out differently, it is not beyond imagining that the most sophisticated science in the world would today be being conducted to support a an explicitly religious world-view, that people mostly accepted the incredibly rarefied scientific methods that produce the search for the higgs-bison but were completely convinced that god existed and that it was part of his divine plan for his creation that mankind should come to know him through scientific endeavour. Presumably, an experiment of the grandeur and sophistication required to proves the existence of the higgs-bison [i]could[/i] also be couched in such a way that a less secular population and/or more fervently religious scientists would regard it as supporting the existence of god. I guess the psychology of it would be that we would assume they must be correct because what they were doing had moved substantially beyond our understanding and was having so much spent on it that it simply couldn't be nonsense and had to be both important and correct. 🙂

I find both science:

Dresden
Hiroshima
Nagasaki

and Religion

(all faiths)

as equally both dangerous and misguided but also both very capable of doing a great deal of good.

the problem is with power, not religion or science.

Most Christians would subscribe to the fact that God made man and gives him wisdom.

It's only when we'll die that we'll find out what the truth is

not necessarily - you might just be reincarnated as a maggot or mountain - or shift into some other mode of existence, with or without knowledge of what went before...

as for seeking the 'truth', that maybe a meaningless chimera if all there is is subjectivity

Could all the christians on here please do me a favour and write to their leaders (*the real ones, here on earth, with real postal addresses please) and suggest that the minimum age of christening should be set at 18. Then the person being christened could make a much more informed choice on whether they want to or not.

gusamc - or join a Baptist church instead of C of E?

I am all for testing the power of prayer in a scientifically stringent, double blind test with a large sample size.

Triple blind, surely? 🙂

So how are you a christian with out following the will of god? And how do you know the will of god?* Is there a separate "Even Newer Testement...no, this is really the real one, Honest" that has come to light?

A lot of Christians believe the bible is exactly true, and a lot believe it's allegory as kennyp says. The rabid anti-religious people on here should wipe the spume from their lips and speak to some Christians.

To me the incredible pirouettes that people can go through to surround belief in a fog of pseudo intellectualism in the name of religion is staggering.

What's pseudo about it? One's interpretation of reality depends on a great many things, and is hence subjective. A very long debate though and too much for STW 🙂

I have a background in Physics and Cosmology and I would say I was reasonably intelligent and I have a hard time imagining the entire universe in a single point.

I have a background in Physics too. You don't have to imagine it, you just have to look at the evidence and draw your conclusions from it. I'm not particularly well informed in the area, but I understand there are problems with the theory. Still, it's the best one we have 🙂

I would say that Mr. Nutt has said the most sensible thing on this post.

Oh, and kennyp makes some good points as well. I always find the aetheistic zealots particularly amusing with their own pecualiar brand of extremism.

Its absolute rubbish to say the bible provides with any moral framework in fact the opposite is the case.
People who do good because they believe they are going to heaven are morally nferior to those that do good but believe they only have one life. In effect in this instance one could argue those who dont believe in god have the high moral ground.

Perhaps you should have a read of it sometime. You seem to be stuck in an Old Testament time warp with some obscure examples. Not sure how you arrive at the opposite point either.

I also think you will find that Christians do not do good becasue they believe they are going to heaven but rather because they believe it to be the right thing to do even if it is a cost to themselves. Christians / religious people do not claim to have exclusive access to "doing good". No good act is morally better or worse than another. Religious people though are driven through a combination of their own personal moral compass and the lens of the faith that they subscribe to. Where the two differ, they will endeavour to do the thing that their faith suggests is the right thing to do - which is not killing babies or lynching homosexuals.

I've read lots of it my point is that we use our own modern moral compass (to use your phrase) not that of the bible. We have thrown out both the old and the new testament, (both of which advocated the keeping of slaves by the way) because we have derived a modern ethical framework that tells us this is morally wrong. The bible in any of its revisions doesnt provide us with this guidance so where does our decision to not treat other races as farm equipment come from? Society has developed it all on its own, in spite of the bible not because of it.
Of course the bible says lost of good things as well, which believers will focus on whilst ignoring the spiteful and nasty. However it would have been more useful for an all seeing and all knowing god to provide us with a cure for cancer. Now that would be a reason for believing.
People can do good without resorting to evangelising and telling lies about contraception but these re seldom religious groups but "doctors without frontiers" who provide medical support and help without any religiou conditions.

Possible Molgrips is saying that Christians don't need to believe the entire bible in a literal sense.

Which bits? A pick and mix approach? The miracles? Water into wine?

regarding prayer...Richard Dawkin outlines an experiment where three groups of very ill people are split up so that one group was being prayed for and didn't know it, one group was being prayed for and did know it, while the third group were not being prayed for atall. The group being prayed for who knew it fared the worst out of the three (pressure to perform?) Prayer doen't work, might make the person doing the praying feel better but thats it.

That really annoys me - bad science. In fact by metioning it Dawkins weakens his position as mixes science with bllx.

This was a scientific experiment. Religion doesnt like science for obvious reasons however I seem to recall the scramble to adopt scientific method when the shroud of Turin was discovered. The church tripped over itself in its haste for carbon dating. Once it didnt say what the church wanted it to say reverted back to its previous approach.

Hey surfer, where do morals come from? Animals don't have them.

Hey surfer, where do morals come from? Animals don't have them.

I understand our closest relatives monkeys dislike certain behaviour that we find distasteful such as sexual deviance and disloyalty. Sam Harris discusses this in his book "the end of faith"

Its a moot point however we do have them the debate is where do they come from. We are an advanced specied and as Dawkins points out they come from a developing social zeitgeist which is conatantly evolving. The question is do we get them from the bible? I would argue we dont. The fact that the bible says lots of nice things is neither here nor there. We throw out the bad bits and accept the good bits if we use the bible as our guide how do we determine which are good and bad?
We decide because we have a more highly developed sense of right and wrong.

Okay then, where does the 'highly developed' sense of right and wrong come from?

What do you mean by highly developed?

Reading this topic - there's a lot of bikes not getting ridden 🙂

2nd Mr Nutt's statement. I won't even attempt to be as succinct.

(Note to self; don't go out, EVER. Stay in front of computer at all times, so that when a thread starts, you can read it as it progresses, at a leisurely pace, rather than spend ages reading through FIVE PAGES of posts...)

Fascinating, as always.

As an 'agnostic', I spose, I believe that there is some sort of creative force, beyond my pathetic, insignificant comprehension, that has created 'all this'. The Universe, life, thought, energy, those little plastic Weeble toys from the Seventies; the lot.

To imagine that all this just existed without any reason, is just preposterous, to me.

I don't see God as a bloke with a white beard, or a strange outlandish creature with several arms, or a happy, smiling fat bloke.

I don't see 'God' as any one thing, or any definable concept. In fact, I can't actually explain 'God'; it's beyond my powers of language, thought or even imagination. The more I try to conceptualise or reify 'God', the more impossible the task becomes.

How can I 'prove' the existence of such a God?

Now that's a tricky one...

But I'll give it a go, however pathetic and ridiculous it may seem.

I remember looking at a little yellow flower, that was actually growing out of some dirt, in a crack at the bottom of a concrete wall. I was suddenly just dumbstruck by how amazingly, indescribably beautiful this little flower appeared to me. How incongruous it looked, in it's setting.

Now, I know that flowers have particular colours for various reasons; to warn off creatures that may want to eat them, and to attract bees, etc.

But why was it [i]beautiful[/i]?

I was sober and drug-free, at the time. It just stopped me in my tracks. This tiny, ordinary, insignificant little flower. Me mate who was with me, thought I'd lost me marbles. 'Come on, what are you doing?'

[b]Why[/b] was it so beautiful? The more I thought about it, the more it freaked me out. The thought process became increasingly complex, to the point where it became even terrifying. I just couldn't find an answer.

And then, it struck me, that the answer was there all along. It's kind of like it was on the tip of me mind; something I just coon't quite put me finger on. The desire to understand 'why' screamed at me, louder and louder, until, suddenly, it just came. 'Oh, [i]that's[/i] 'God'.

Now, this may sound quite ridiculous, and far-fetched, and to be honest, I am well aware that many people would simply consider me deluded and a bit touched. A bit airy-fairy and fantastical.

But, that's how it was. I'm a pretty skeptical, cynical person, and I do want proof of stuff, if I am to believe in it. So, I was a bit disturbed by this moment of revelation. Coon't really talk about it to anyone at the time, lest they thought me mad. I'd certainly raise an eyebrow, if anyone else spoke of such a thing.

I spose I'd always known this, really; I just needed confirmation. I was brought up in a religious home, and had rejected it as a teen, as it din't fit in with how I perceived myself. Had an aetheist 'phase' as a young adult.

I'm not asking anyone to believe me, or even understand. But I would ask, let me believe; it's not doing anyone else any harm. I'm not going to preach. I've found my reason for being, let others find theirs.

Why do I Love? Why do I enjoy art, music, food, mountain biking? Why are some physical sensations so wonderful? Why do I get turned on?

I enjoy the science bit, as it answers a load of questions. But for that place beyond all human comprehension and explanation, I have my 'God'.

I was quoting you surfer 🙂

Rudeboy, maybe, just maybe God looks at you and thinks you're 'beautiful' too. Not taking the micky but just a thought.

I see, the lack of quotes threw me.

We do have a highly developed sense of right and wrong and behaviour acceptable 10 years ago we know consider unnaceptable. The bible doesnt change in the literal sense so what makes our beahaviour change and how does the bible offer any guidance?
We dont keep slaves yet this had to be spread by the barrel of a gun in parts of America which are and were amongst the most pious and god fearing (Harris again)

Rudeboy, that's one of the most sensible postings I've read on this forum in a long time.

Is that all a bit much? Bit too subjective? Shall I take the post down?

I will, if people find it offensive.

But for that place beyond all human comprehension and explanation, I have my 'God'.

following your argument, this thing may not be an entity at all, but an indifferent collection of the unknown and the unknowable. The last time we were on this topic I asked (amongst other things) if god(s) believed in us... but one might as well ask if gods believe in gods. Perhaps we are gods too, in fact, I think we are, we create our own realities.

Is that all a bit much? Bit too subjective? Shall I take the post down?

I don't see why...

The Bible is just another historical book unless you are willing to have a little faith - mustard seed size if you like - to realise that it is something more.
Think of it like containing the 'why' we are as opposed to the 'what' we are.

Now I'm going to be careful here because I don't want to be labled as preaching ok!

We do have a highly developed sense of right and wrong

but tend to apply it more rigorously to others than ourselves 🙁 Moreover, everyone's idea of these concepts is (sometimes subtly) different

The Bible is just another historical book

and I always found it very [b]boring[/b], though I like the parables 🙂

"I always found it very [b]boring"

Yeah me too - like looking at those 3D pictures trying to find out why everyone was saying how marvelous it was - until suddenly you see it for yourself and the wow! 😀

Re the Bible being boring. Leaving aside whether you think it's the word of God or just an ancient book, surely there's something fascinating about reading a book (or books rather) written thousands of years ago? With no other form of recordable media in those days, books are about the only real insight we have to people from ancient times.

books are about the only real insight we have to people from ancient times

hmmm, you may be right, it's about 40 years since I tried... but people long dead are inherently less interesting than ones you can talk with (and of course god has the same problem)

highly developed sense of right and wrong is easy from an evolutionary point of view

its an obvious extension of our nuturing instincts, something easily seen in our close relatives and not so close eg monkeys sea horses etc

a society without a strong moral code could easily lead to anarchy and collapse,

populations that do not posess the genes that tend towards these traits, would be less likely to reproduce because they would be too busy descending toward anarchy

a society without a strong moral code could easily lead to anarchy and collapse

what, you mean like [b]now[/b]?

would be less likely to reproduce because they would be too busy descending toward anarchy

I think you underestimate the built-in instinct to reproduce - for a fact, this is only suppressed in affluent societies

We do have a highly developed sense of right and wrong

but tend to apply it more rigorously to others than ourselves [:-(] Moreover, everyone's idea of these concepts is (sometimes subtly) different

Subtly yes. nationwide and even regional discrepancies exist, we may even call these "manners" however many animals have these to such a lesser extent that they may attack or kill each other however we get incensed when French people push into the chairlift queue which indicates that our sense of right and wrong is so highly developed we concern ourselves with such trivial matters.

In reality 80% of Americans believe in Creationism and the fact that it should be taught alongside evolution theory in schools.

While I agree with the general direction of your argument, I'm not sure where you get your figures from- heres some from 2004:

Sam Harris, The end of Faith.

He goes on to outline some disturbing statistics with regard to the number of Americans that look forward to the rapture.

I am not very convinced by the idea that a majority of ordinary, gentle believers are in the wrong because they somehow "provide cover" for insane extremists. The idea that moderates legitimise extremists, if applied to virtually any area of opinion leaves you with very little room to move.

Do vegetarians provide cover for Animal Liberation Front corpse-exhumers?
Do anti-immigration Conservatives legitimise Combat 18?
Do sufis legitimise wahhabist suicide bombers?

No they dont because they are seperate bodies.
The vegetarian movement is not "led" by the animal liberation front!

What you are choosing to ignore is that the millions of Roman Catholics give tacit support to what the Pope does, after all he is the leader of that branch of the church. To remain a catholic in most peoples eyes means you actually support the teachings and interpretations of the person at its head. Saying one agrees or disagrees in minor areas of interpretation is one thing but on something as huge as I mentioned earlier (condom use in Africa) being a member of the church lends tacit (even wholehearted) support to this disgrace.

Your image of bicycling Vicars and cucumber sandwiches is off the mark and whilst its motherhood and apple pie for us all to have our beliefs accepted the liberal picture you paint does nobody any favours.

Eh? Wtf did I mention the bicycling vicar myth? I'm talking about the validity of holding beliefs. I have said several times that I'm against many things done in the name of religion. I think you are really not understanding what I am trying to say. I am making a philosophical point (not even a theological one). The discussion about the influence of politics in religion is another argument entirely. We can have that discussion if you like, I'm happy to join in - and I suspect I agree with you mostly.

I am struggling a bit when you make assertions such as "truth being subjective" This is an interesting abstract concept but we shouldnt stoop to this when what we all agree as quantifiable facts dont say what we want them to.
The Vicar analogy was my own and the point being that religion even in a non secular country like the UK should not be viewed as passive and harmless.
Religion has real world implications and we should not resort to hypothetical theorising to avoid what most of us would agree are tangible negatives to belief, I mentioned one above and we could talk about centuries of the inquisition without being sidelined into our intepretation of what is "truth", the truth is all to tangible for those affected both then and now.
Politics and religion are intractably joined. I am not interested in the influence of politics on religion but the influence of religion on politics.

I think that a few people are confusing 'belief' with 'religion'.
I was brought up (indoctrinated?) CofE but have since grown up and cast aside such fairy tale nonsense, in part assisted by my experiences in Bosnia cleaning up the damage 'good Christians' did to other members of the human race, apparently in my name. But not believing in some tosh dreamed up as a way to control simple people and encourage them not to think too much for themselves doesn't mean I don't have belief at all. I believe in my friends and family, without the need of some medieval instruction manual to tell me why or how.
Belief is good, religion is bad.

Oookay. Good morning debaters.

my point is that we use our own modern moral compass (to use your phrase) not that of the bible.

Your moral compass almost certainly comes from Western European or even British societal values, which are heavily based up on Christain teaching. So no valid point there 🙂

Which bits? A pick and mix approach? The miracles? Water into wine?

Sure - why not? The Bible as I see it is a bunch of stories and writings ABOUT God and Jesus, written many years ago without the standards of journalistic integrity we take for granted today. It contains a lot of interesting history and social history. The stories contained within it are viewed as parables by a lot of people. So yeah, take your pick. This isn't a Bible study class, but if you are interested you should attend one (I never have btw - if there were secular Bible study classes I quite possibly would).

Okay then, where does the 'highly developed' sense of right and wrong come from?

Well that's a good one. Animals have been shown in many experiments to have a sense of fair play - they are reported on the BBC regularly.

But why was it beautiful?

Good question mate, just about the best post on this thread. I don't have a good answer for that. When I think of things as beautiful, I believe that it's just my brain having been wired up that way. Something about plants, skies, open spaces and so on that reminds us of our past in the wilderness... I don't know.

surely there's something fascinating about reading a book (or books rather) written thousands of years ago?

Absolutely. I love reading ABOUT the Bible, if not the Bible itself 🙂

I am struggling a bit when you make assertions such as "truth being subjective" This is an interesting abstract concept but we shouldnt stoop to this when what we all agree as quantifiable facts dont say what we want them to.

Douglas Adams describes intelligence as the ability to hold and reconcile two mutually contradictory points of view at the same time. I like this definition 🙂 As for the subjectivity of truth being an abstract concept - I don't think it is. If you accept that it underlies all of our pitiful human efforts at 'finding meaning to everything' then it all begins to make sense.

As for resorting to it when the facts don't say what we want them to - that makes no sense. I don't want the facts to say anything, that's the point! They are what they are, I am what I am and anyone else is free to be or think what they want AS LONG as they don't impune on others rights in the process. However the concept of what people's rights should be varies a lot around the world, which further illustrates my point about the subjectivity of truth, doesn't it?

Just to remind you surfer - I am not Christian, nor am I religious in any way.

Douglas Adams describes intelligence as the ability to hold and reconcile two mutually contradictory points of view at the same time. I like this definition

I prefer the writings of scientists over Adams who was a science fiction writer.
However he also said
"I find the business of religion profoundly interesting. But it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously"

Or the Adams quote used by Dawkins.
"isnt it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too"

without the standards of journalistic integrity we take for granted today.

hollow laughter

are taco's mexican?

Guilt and empathy are curious things. If I see you get run over I feel empathy, if I did it I feel guilt! But apparently care less and even would enjoy causing you the pain - e.g. psycopaths. My chickens, as with many animals, wouldn't care if another chicken was killed and might even tuck into the free meal. Other animals seem to care - such as our old family dog who semeed to want to console my Mother when she was upset one time.

Why should anyone care about anyone else? I suppose it helps with life as we bond with others and life is improved in various ways; but some seems to be truly altruistic. It's all a bit strange, perhaps, but I don't think religion is behind any of it.

Your moral compass almost certainly comes from Western European or even British societal values, which are heavily based up on Christain teaching. So no valid point there

Morals are morals it is a pointless argument to claim that religion gives moral guidance as we have two choices here
1. Morals are right for a reason and anyone can see the reason eg do not kill or do not steal for example ... I doubt you need faith to realise the reason why these are good values to live by
OR
2. God chose morals on a whim (sucha s those above) and there is no reason so you just blindly follow them becasue god said so

Which do you think is true. this is not even really seriously debated in theology/philosophy anymore as it is obvious which is true.

if a catholic exploded right next to a psychopath is it possible that the psychopath would feel a flash of guilt?

"I find the business of religion profoundly interesting. But it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously"

The obvious answer would seem to be that there's something in it!

Just to continue with the theme of quotations for a little longer. I particularly like this one which I had to look up to get it right.

"Science has been accused of undermining morals, but wrongly. The ethical behavior of man is better based on sympathy, education and social relationships, and requires no support from religion. Mans plight would indeed be sad if he had to be kept in order through fear of punishment and hope of rewards after death"

Albert Einstein.

im not sure Junkyard.
i think morals are greatly affected by society values.
i felt empath for the rat i saw splattered in the road the yesterday, but sometimes wonder, if it was a few hundred years ago, when people traded in other people (slaves) would i feel empathy?
would i feel sad knowing that in a ship full of slaves, a good number died on the trip.
ignoring whether its right or wrong, but because its defined by social acceptance.

in the same way, do you feel empathy for the cow you eat for dinner (assuming lack of veginess)?

i recognise its died so i can eat it, i bet it wouldnt choose to if it had the option, but im not on a mission to save it and let it choose for itself.
its social definitions that allow you to kill one species and eat it (cows) but not another (cats for instance)

ide have no problem shooting a sheep or wringing a chicken
i couldnt shoot a dog for food i dont think (and i dont paticularly like dogs)

The obvious answer would seem to be that there's something in it!

it's more obvious to me that even clever people can be delusional :o)

it's more obvious to me that even clever people can be delusional :o)

Well maybe but would they should delusion in other areas? Would they be deemed 'clever'? Well I dunno, but I know some very bright Christians and I struggle with what's really going on there.

1. Morals are right for a reason and anyone can see the reason eg do not kill or do not steal for example ... I doubt you need faith to realise the reason why these are good values to live by

If you kill someone, that's one less bit of competition in passing on your genes. Stealing something might put you in a better position to procreate.

it's more obvious to me that even clever people can be delusional :o)

Well maybe but would they should delusion in other areas? Would they be deemed 'clever'? Well I dunno, but I know some very bright Christians and I struggle with what's really going on there.

Professor Robert Winston is a good example of this. Nobody would refute his oustanding intellect but he is a practising Jew.
He has been confronted by Dawkins in this, I understand they are friends. Winston was very vague and it bordered on the embarrassing as Dawkins questioned the ability to be a scientist on Friday and a Jew on Saturday etc. Dawkins didnt go too far but Winston evaded the question and refered to some abstract parts of his faith. Winston was also critical of Dawkins and I think called him confrontational etc.

i still maintain that in 2000 years scientology or something similar will be the dominant global religion

and christianity, hinduism, islam, judaism, whateva will have fallen by the wayside like so many other ancient religions, eg egyptian, roman, greek, aztec, mayan

i think some humans have a genetic tendency toward religion
[url= http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7147 ]new scientist[/url]
it seems pretty obvious that a sense of wellbeing, the endorphin release that has been assosciated with praying etc ritualistic behaviour from altruism to sacrificing your enemies to not eating pork in desert regions
could have helped our primitive ancestors survive in a scary hostile prehistoric environment, especially at times of extreme stress or during times of population bottlenecks, which may have left as few as 2000 humans alive at one time [url= http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/17/1/2 ]poulation bottlenecks[/url]
these few humans would leave a huge mark on our genetic makeup
as would extremely successful males, eg [url= http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0214_030214_genghis.html ]genghis kahn theory[/url]

my point is that we use our own modern moral compass (to use your phrase) not that of the bible.

Your moral compass almost certainly comes from Western European or even British societal values, which are heavily based up on Christain teaching. So no valid point there [:)]

I think you will find that there is.

I prefer the writings of scientists over Adams who was a science fiction writer.

Mmm, yeah, I was quoting it as an interesting point for discussion. I take most authors, scientists or otherwise, as such. You give the impresssion of reading books and then treating them as righteous facts because they were in a book.... and then discounting those that are popular fiction writers in favour of scientists, despite what insights they could be giving to the thoughtful reader... that's just an impression tho 😉

1. Morals are right for a reason and anyone can see the reason eg do not kill or do not steal for example ... I doubt you need faith to realise the reason why these are good values to live by

As Olly says. Morals vary hugely from country to country even in the present day. In some countries it's morally right to treat Women as chattels, and not in others. This is very difficult for us Brits to swallow, but there you go. A more ambiguous example would be democracy. Some folk in the West think it's morally wrong to use any other system, however in other countries it's perfectly acceptable not to use it.

We have three choices, not two anyway. The third option you don't list, Junky, is probably closer to the truth. The "morals" our society adopts have come from Christian teaching which in turn are derived from the Bible. Of course, the Bible was written by human beings who were in turn influenced by the Jewish society in which they lived. So on deeper analysis, morals come from society but they are heavily influenced by the religious writers through the ages. And of course other philosophical and theological thinking that's evolved along the way. In any case our societal values are considered Christian or Judao-Christian, and they are not the same as those around the world. Are you going to maintain that those in the Middle or Far East are just WRONG WRONG WRONG even though they would say the exact same about you? Are you sure of your own race's absolute correctness? You can't really divorce yourself entirely from your own social upbringing, can you?

it's more obvious to me that even clever people can be delusional :o)

Just like Simon is convinced he's always right. He comes up with creative reasons to justify this in the face of intelligent and reasoned opposition. Remind you of any Christians? 🙂

It is rather ironic that the science-is-king types are in many ways treating science as their religion and behaving just like the religious types.

i still maintain that in 2000 years scientology or something similar will be the dominant global religion

and christianity, hinduism, islam, judaism, whateva will have fallen by the wayside like so many other ancient religions

But Judaism is pretty old isn't it? Christianity stemmed from that so they've lasted pretty well so far.

I used to have one of those darwin stickers on my car, but someone nicked it, I cant but hope it was a disgruntled christian breaking his commandmants.

Just like Simon is convinced he's always right

had you read what I've written, you would know that I question [b]everything[/b]. It's just that I see no reason to invent spurious 3rd parties not actually accessible to perception. We have enough trouble with those we CAN sense without bothering with anything else.

I've previously said I'm content to accept any number of gods between zero and infinity - I just don't care.

It is rather ironic that the science-is-king types are in many ways treating science as their religion and behaving just like the religious types.

I've said this before. The God Delusion is their bible and Richard Dawkins their messiah.

(It really winds them up too, just wait 😉 )

I prefer the writings of scientists over Adams who was a science fiction writer.

Mmm, yeah, I was quoting it as an interesting point for discussion. I take most authors, scientists or otherwise, as such. You give the impresssion of reading books and then treating them as righteous facts because they were in a book.... and then discounting those that are popular fiction writers in favour of scientists, despite what insights they could be giving to the thoughtful reader... that's just an impression tho [;)]

No not at all my reading is very broad. The point ref Adams was that his reference to holding alternative viewpoints at the same time may have been related to science fiction as I certainly struggle to find logic in what he says. I may be simplistic but if one person tells me the earth is round and another that it is flat. I couldn't believe both of them.

I find it ironic given your viewpoint that you are criticizing me for a literal interpretations of books!

I've said this before. The God Delusion is their bible and Richard Dawkins their messiah.

(It really winds them up too, just wait [;)] )

Your right there!

Viewpoint 1: You consist mostly of nothing. You are atoms bound by various forces into a body that requires sustenance through chemical reactions. Stimulus causes electrical signals to cause reactions. Upon dying, the matter will pass into other forms. Your purpose is to pass on DNA to your descendants.

Viewpoint 2: That sunset is beautiful. I like beer. I love my wife and kids. Bikes are ace. Freedom is good, oppression is bad.

The point ref Adams was that his reference to holding alternative viewpoints at the same time may have been related to science fiction as I certainly struggle to find logic in what he says. I may be simplistic but if one person tells me the earth is round and another that it is flat. I couldn't believe both of them.

Okay.. if you like 🙂

Btw, there doesn't have to be logic in everything. Or rather, there can be, but not necessarily the same logic you are expecting!

I find it ironic given your viewpoint that you are criticizing me for a literal interpretations of books!

Yeah? Go on.. (interested)

Btw I'm not criticising you that way - I just said that was the impression that you were giving off to me in that post.. I honestly don't know you from my next door neighbour (you could be my next door neighbour for all I know). I'm happy to accept that the medium of STW is as obstructive as any other when it comes to carrying points of view across :0

If you like to speak science, then have a look at Quantum Physics. It's full of "illogical" things that aren't "common sense". How can particles be waves at the same time? What exists depends on how you look at it.. not just what you see but what is actually there. It's a lovely world of uncertainty and certainty at once. I certainly found it all very profound when I was studying it. Not profound enough to do well in the exams mind 🙂

I am he
As you are he
As you are me

I am the Walrus, goo goo gajoo

If you like to speak science, then have a look at Quantum Physics.

I gots me a first in that module at uni. It is, as you say, well weird.

I formulated a concept of Quantum Philosophy at the time - shortly afterwards I saw a book with that exact title in a shop.. which took the wind out of my sails a bit 🙂

I may be simplistic but if one person tells me the earth is round and another that it is flat. I couldn't believe both of them.

Sorry to jump in here, but to me there's a simple answer here - go find out for yourself. In my experience even if someone believes they are telling you 100% truth, whatever they say always has their own slant on it - it's a human trait:-)

If you like to speak science, then have a look at Quantum Physics. It's full of "illogical" things that aren't "common sense". How can particles be waves at the same time? What exists depends on how you look at it.. not just what you see but what is actually there. It's a lovely world of uncertainty and certainty at once. I certainly found it all very profound when I was studying it.

Thanks for that I'll give it a look.

I would also recommend (as well as the obvious Dawkins!) Sam Harris "The end of faith" also "Letter to a Christian nation" Both good reads.
Then Christopher Hitchins, "God is not great" written in his own style! Daniels Dennets work, "Breaking the spell" is also very accesible.

Enjoy!

Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchins and Daniels Dennets are the lesser prophets.

Can't recommend a specific book about Quantum Physics, but maybe something by John Gribbin. He usually write about Astrophysics but I think there's something about the smaller side of things too.

I have a copy of the God Delusion at home waiting to be read - I thought I'd better read it so that I could properly comment. I am not really looking forward to it though as from what I can tell it's a bit of a savage attack on selected parts of religion. The book may have a use as a weapon against ignorance, but I feel it's never going to be read by anyone religious as it's too easily dismissed. In these kind of arguments, you don't win anyone over by attacking them ruthlessly over something that's really personal.

But I will read it (and have a look for those others too) and change my mind if necessary - he does make some excellent and pithy points in the quotes that've been used in arguments against so-called Christian "Science".

but to me there's a simple answer here - go find out for yourself.

Along with everything else on this thread, it's a bit more complicated. You can't always find things out for yourself. There was this programme on telly a while ago about these two scientists that were debating about something to do with Venus. Let's say they were trying to work out if there was any recent volcanism - I can't remember exactly what it was. They argued and argued over the evidence, and they agreed they would have to wait for this probe to go there and map the surface. Well the probe went there and sent back the data, and they both concluded that the data supported their theories. They were totally adamant that they were right.

Both scientists, both looking for truth in a simple logical way, and both very much in the same philosophical camp. What they each saw in the evidence told them different things.

Now of course, in their case there was only really one answer. But then what if you have this cat, in a box...

The book may have a use as a weapon against ignorance, but I feel it's never going to be read by anyone religious as it's too easily dismissed.

There's a whole raft of Christian books about the God Delusion. It's a mini industry. Here's one: http://www.amazon.com/Dawkins-Delusion-Atheist-Fundamentalism-Denial/dp/083083446X/ref=pd_bbs_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1236175319&sr=8-8

but I feel it's never going to be read by anyone religious as it's too easily dismissed.

Well religious people do read it but Dawkins seems to aim it at agnostics as a way of pushing them into atheism - failed with me. I found it lacked the academic feel I hoped and seemed more 'bloke down pub' level at times. I suppose he was just trying to get a best seller and get lots of commited atheists to buy it so they can agree with him....

[i]I have a copy of the God Delusion at home waiting to be read - I thought I'd better read it so that I could properly comment. I am not really looking forward to it though as from what I can tell it's a bit of a savage attack on selected parts of religion. The book may have a use as a weapon against ignorance, but I feel it's never going to be read by anyone religious as it's too easily dismissed. In these kind of arguments, you don't win anyone over by attacking them ruthlessly over something that's really personal.[/i]

It's not a personal attack, it's just a reasoned debate on the topic of religion, yes it concentrates mostly on Christianity but applies to most religion, it's also got some fascinating insights into the human psyche, the "need" for religion and various arguments for and against the existance of 'God(s)'
BUT - it's not an easy read, none of Dawkins stuff really is. The only way I could read it was to dip into it in an almost random fashion, for me at least trying to read it cover to cover just didn't work. I've just finished Richard Dawkins book Climbing Mount Improbable which is about evolution and how it happens, again good read but tough going at times.

Asking them for money, you mean? Wow, atheism [i]is[/i] just like a religion!

I challenge you to read or listen to anything by McGrath. Dawkins did him a huge favour and increased his profile no end.
McGraths book has been grasped by believers all over as they hope for a reasoned response to Dawkins. It pales in comparions but thats hardly important when your pushing on an open door!

Along with everything else on this thread, it's a bit more complicated. You can't always find things out for yourself.

I know, but it illustrates some of the reasons for faith/belief/religion/other working so well. If you can't find out something for yourself you have to form your own opinion based on what others tell you or believe what one source tells you is the truth. The problem I think a lot of people have is that they blindly believe what others say, rather than agreeing but leaving their mind open to other opinions.

I almost said "other facts" there, but then facts are invariably opinion too because scientific fact is invariably tweaked or just shown to be utterly incorrect over the course of time.

If you think about it, it's pretty cool that almost every aspect of our existence is constantly changing and very little is ever entirely certain.....

The problem I think a lot of people have is that they blindly believe what others say, rather than agreeing but leaving their mind open to other opinions

Absolutely, and that goes for both sides too. Sciencies and Goddies.

If you think about it, it's pretty cool that almost every aspect of our existence is constantly changing and very little is ever entirely certain.....

Agreed 🙂

Along with everything else on this thread, it's a bit more complicated. You can't always find things out for yourself.

Can you not? I've been firing peas into each other, to try to split them. (I kept losing quarks under the fridge, so had to use something bigger.)