I've just had a word with God and he reckons this thread has some life left in it yet
😀
It has been hammered over, but has the Agnostic view ever been fundamentally hammered home as I'm trying to do, sorry if that last post came over ranty it wasn't intended to, but I'm just trying to illustrate that to some the Atheist view is equally as boring as that of God Botherers.
It's Jews by the way that insist on circumcision not Christians.
I still see this as a well humoured discussion hence joining albeit late in the thread.
Was I referring to me being banned? No. Just that this topic has been hammered over so often it's rather dull, IMHO. I assume I am allowed to make such a comment. It's dull. You may disagree, but I wanted to state my opinion.
That's your belief 😆
😆 500!
I'm just trying to illustrate that to some the Atheist view is equally as boring as that of God Botherers.
And? People aren't atheists because they think it'll interest people. You can be as bored by it as you like, no skin off our noses.
It's Jews by the way that insist on circumcision not Christians.
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-20503660 ]And Nigerian Christians, it would seem[/url]. How very sad 🙁
Was I referring to me being banned? No. Just that this topic has been hammered over so often it's rather dull, IMHO.
It has, but rarely has it being as civilised and open a discussion as this, I think this discussion has already got further than any before. We may even get to the Gnostic Heresy with a bad God!
has the Agnostic view ever been fundamentally hammered home as I'm trying to do
I think it [i]has[/i] been discussed earlier. To add another quote:
"I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods."
Hence, Dawkins' agnostic "sliding scale" discussed earlier.
Apologies to Cougar and any others. The more vocal atheists would hold to a mechanistic view. I shouldn't have assumed all on this thread would as well. Given the dozen or so pages mostly ridiculing belief in the supernatural you'll have to forgive me for being surprised at your willingness to accept the possibility of "more."
I'm sometimes tempted to have a chat with the religious door-knockers but always think better of it and tell them that I've got my own beliefs thank you very much. Anyone ever had a proper chat with them without succumbing to insults or shoving them out of the door? I think I would struggle to hold myself together but it would be interesting. Think I'll probably just stick to reading threads like these though...
It's Jews by the way that insist on circumcision not Christians.
Oh dear. You need to do some more research. Ever wondered why genital mutilation is so widespread in the less educated parts of the US? The same parts that are deeply religious? Christianity has been promoting genital mutilation far and wide.
Well a fair bit actually. I don't support homophobia, child genital mutilation, the suppression of females, I didn't think much of Hitler, I don't agree with that bloke who's top banana of that Christian church banning contraception so leading to millions dying of AIDS...and all of these I'd be supporting if I joined up.
Oh dear, so many misconceptions here.
didn't think much of Hitler
Can you think of any religion which perhaps might not have been so keen on Hitler either? Clue: It's one of the monotheistic ones.
I don't agree with that bloke who's top banana of that Christian church banning contraception so leading to millions dying of AIDS
Are you conflating Catholicism and Christianity? Also there is no evidential link between the catholic teaching on contraception and the incidence of Aids, in Africa or anywhere else.
I also assume you must then approve of the church's teaching against adultery and sex outside of marriage which would greatly reduce the incidence of Aids in Africa, if followed?
Christianity has been promoting genital mutilation far and wide.
Show us!
Read page one, read a bit in the middle, read this page. Do we know the answer yet?
Perhaps someone could do an excel table possibly with a chart.
"I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is not a God.
But no one can prove there isn't an elephant that turns pink and flies around in circles but only when not being watched or recorded!
Being unable to prove something doesn't exists does not in any way shape or form give support for that thing.
Another question folks. I don't believe in God as described in the bible, in fact I don't believe in anything much, except that we should all be jolly nice to each other. However, I do feel slightly uncomfortable and vaguely guilty by saying that. There is part of me that feels wrong for not believing. Is this feeling what gets people going, or keeps them going with religion do you think?
Show us!
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-20503660 ]Good old missionaries[/url]
Are you conflating Catholicism and Christianity?
A quick Google shows that there are 2.1bn Christians in the world and 1.1bn Roman Catholics. So, a majority of Christians are Roman Catholics.
We're getting into the realms of "oh but not all [i]x[/i] believe this", which is part of what makes it so impossible to 'argue' religion.
Charlie, I try not to speak on a subject I know faff all about (hint).
""Jews, Muslims, and Christians all trace our spiritual heritage back to Abraham. Biblical circumcision begins with Abraham. No American government should restrict this historic tradition. Essential religious liberties are at stake."
The National Association of Evangelicals
But no one can prove there isn't an elephant that turns pink and flies around in circles but only when not being watched or recorded!Being unable to prove something doesn't exists does not in any way shape or form give support for that thing.
That's what the second part of my quote was for. It was Bertrand Russell who said it, by the way, and it's saying the same thing Dawkins says on the subject of whether he's an atheist or an agnostic.
It wasn't really aimed at you mike, just righting that wrong.
Bertrand Russel said what (do love a good quote, I save them for future use, sad or what?)?
A quick Google shows that there are 2.1bn Christians in the world and 1.1bn Roman Catholics. So, a majority of Christians are Roman Catholics.We're getting into the realms of "oh but not all x believe this", which is part of what makes it so impossible to 'argue' religion.
You still can't treat them as all the same, and further ,if you do, you (or others) cannot then use example of charisamtic and evangelical churches to argue against Christianity in general. Most more vocal christians you meet will not be Catholic. But this may be a separate thread as creationism is not part of the catholic doctrine.
That's what the second part of my quote was for. It was Bertrand Russell who said it, by the way, and it's saying the same thing Dawkins says on the subject of whether he's an atheist or an agnostic.
And this is part of my issue with Dawkins, he doesn't say anything which has not been said and refined by many others before him. Yet,there seem to be a generation who hold him in high esteem.
Bertrand Russell said: "I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods."
He said something similar in conjunction with his famous teapot: "I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely."
You still can't treat them as all the same, and further ,if you do, you (or others) cannot then use example of charisamtic and evangelical churches to argue against Christianity in general. Most more vocal christians you meet will not be Catholic. But this may be a separate thread as creationism is not part of the catholic doctrine.
The thread's rather moved on from creationism...
Perhaps when the various Christian churches have decided what is definitely true, we can start debating specifics? I'm reminded of [url= http://searchingforgrace.com/webcomic/being-a-biblical-christian/ ]this cartoon[/url] doing the rounds on Facebook at the moment.
Charlie, I try not to speak on a subject I know faff all about (hint).
Sorry, you need to be more explicit here. Are you suggesting i know faff all about religions?
""Jews, Muslims, and Christians all trace our spiritual heritage back to Abraham. Biblical circumcision begins with Abraham. No American government should restrict this historic tradition. Essential religious liberties are at stake."The National Association of Evangelicals
Once again, with the minority fringe groups which pretty much only exist in one country. Hardly, warrant to say that this represents christianity as a whole
Perhaps when the various Christian churches have decided what is definitely true, we can start debating specifics
Or we can debate the specifics, independent of religion.
Perhaps when the various Christian churches have decided what is definitely true, we can start debating specifics?
That's a bit unreasonable coming from a forum that can't even agree on whether 26" or 29" wheels are better....
Or we can debate the specifics, independent of religion.
So we can debate specifics of religions without using specific religions as examples?
Well, if the alternative is waiting for all religions to agree, or overgeneralising to the extent that it is meaningless, then that seems like our best option.
Remember, you didn't want to talk about specific religions because about half the Christians are Catholic
CFH, earlier...
Couldn't resist... 😀
CharlieMungus - Member
I also assume you must then approve of the church's teaching against adultery and sex outside of marriage which would greatly reduce the incidence of Aids in Africa, if followed?
This demonstrates one of the great tactics of organised religion:
Demonise and make people feel guilty for something that's an intrinsic part of human nature.
As to circumcision, it was extremely prevalent in the Catholic church during the first half of the last century.
Pretty much the norm in cerain areas.
This demonstrates one of the great tactics of organised religion:
Demonise and make people feel guilty for something that's an intrinsic part of human nature.
Sorry, you'll need to explain a bit more for me, you mean having multiple sexual partners is a part of humn nature?
It certainly seems to be the case that teaching abstinence doesn't stop people from having sex, regardless of the religion or culture of those involved. Educating and empowering women has been shown to work, but religion isn't too keen on that.
Sorry, you'll need to explain a bit more for me, you mean having multiple sexual partners is a part of humn nature?
Yes. Have you met people?
Evolutionarily speaking, the best way for a man's genes to continue is to knock up as many women as possible.
IANAEB
Well, i guess it's a side issue, but we aren't really driven by that imperative anymore, which is why we tend to have largely setlled into monogamous societies, for the last thousands of years. But, int the aids context,it does make a lot of sense. But the larger issue here is at Africa isn't really a Catholic place, there are lots of other religions which are more prevalent there, even within the catholics, African catholics, like most other catholics, don't really follow the teaching on contraception or many other specifics anyway. WHO data does not show particulalrly high incidence of Aids in african coutreis with large catholic populations. catholicism is uncorrelated to incidence of Aids.
we aren't really driven by that imperative anymore
Not in provincial town centres on a weekend 🙂
WHO data does not show particulalrly high incidence of Aids in african coutreis with large catholic populations. catholicism is uncorrelated to incidence of Aids.
If that's true, great.
Sorry, you'll need to explain a bit more for me, you mean having multiple sexual partners is a part of humn nature?
Well if we take history as any guide, it would certainly appear to be the case.
Polygamy has been widely practiced by many civilizations for as long as records have been kept.
And if you could point to a time in human evolution when prostitution and adultery were not practiced, I'd be very surprised indeed.
It seems not everyone thinks the Catholic church is blameless on HIV/AIDS in Africa: http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/11/bad-science-pope-anti-condom
I don't support homophobia, child genital mutilation, the suppression of females
Neither do many Christians.
You must've heard in the news recently Christians arguing about women bishops and homosexuality. That should demonstrate to you that not all Christians have the same point of view on these things and many others.
The fact that many non-christians are homophobic and sexist etc etc should also be significant.
Mike, it is true. I went to find the data specifically because it is so often used as condemnation of the CC.
polygamous societies have existed for a long time, but always notable because they were unusual
yes prostitutes have always existed too. But generally used by a minority of men. Also the idea that the demonisation of 'human nature' with regard to prostitutes is a Christian seems strange to me. In most societies regardless of religous beliefs, visiting hookers is generally frowned upon the demonisation seems societal, rather than religious or do you believe that all societies, even this one on STW is shaped by relion?
No mike, really. Easy data to find. Look for incidence of aids and plot against percentage catholic population.
polygamous societies have existed for a long time, but always notable because they were unusual
Really?
A quick look at the main Wiki article on Polygamy would suggest you're wrong:
Modern day:
According to the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, of 1,231 societies noted, 186 were monogamous. 453 had occasional polygyny, 588 had more frequent polygyny, and 4 had polyandry.
As to the historical perspective, you would also appear to be wrong - polygamy would seem to be the preferred system for the majority of humanity for the majority of recorded history.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
[i]Epicurus [341–270 B.C.][/i]
Works for me.
So, if the Roman Catholic church aren't to blame for Aids in Africa, that just leaves the child abusing, Nazi sympathising, Galileo denouncing, Spanish inquisitioning, etc.
Here's one: why did Jesus have to die for our sins? Why not a paper cut or a stubbed toe?
With whom was the deal arranged?
