[Closed] christian baiting

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.