[Closed] I suppose it'll be the atheists next, then...

Has anyone ever heard of Pascal's Wager?

The flaw with Pascal's Wager is that the initial assumptions are wrong. It assumes "God" and "No God" as binary options. If you buy in to the wager and spend your life worshipping a Christian god, then shuffle off the mortal coil only to find yourself facing Odin in Valhalla, do you reckon you're going to be welcomed with open arms?

The choice therefore isn't god or no god, "god" is one of 30,000,000 options, assuming that we've actually got it right at some point in our history and it's not something we've never thought of.

So here's Cougar's Wager. Given the likelihood of picking the wrong god is monumentally high, and given that a god is more likely to be pissed off if you've chosen someone else than if you just didn't bother, surely atheism is the safest choice?

is it ok for me to not believe in god because it's stupid and dumb

Although unfortunately worded this is in some ways the crux of the matter.

I've really really tried to see belief as springing from something other than a failure of reasoning. I don't want to be converted but I would like to be able to treat religious views with respect on the grounds that there is a tangible reason for holding that view. I'd like to be able to say 'I don't agree but I can understand why you think that way'.

I want to be able to do this because I know that far far smarter people than me have believed in god and I find it hard to brush that aside by assuming I have superior critical faculties.

Unfortunately I've never seen an argument proffered by a believer that isn't (IMO!) based on flawed understanding, circular reasoning, insufficient knowledge or a personal standard of evidence.

What this conflict is largely about is 2 different standards of evidence. Athiests can't accept the standard of evidence proffered by believers and believers know (yes, you do) that belief must crumble when that standard is applied.

Whilst Stephen Jay Gould's Non-overlapping Magisteria doesn't work as the solution he intended it does explain why the discussion is often not meaningful - a fundamental lack of common ground.

Unfortunately I've never seen an argument proffered by a believer that isn't (IMO!) based on flawed understanding, circular reasoning, insufficient knowledge or a personal standard of evidence.

I used with a bloke who was one of the most intelligent, knowledgeable people I'd ever met. He was a polymath, last time I spoke to him he was teaching himself Russian for fun. He was also a Christian. A proper, church-going Christian, not someone who just ticked a box on a form to get their kids into a better school.

I asked him this question once, and we lost an afternoon to it. What it boiled down to was he'd had some sort of epiphany at some point; low point in his life, "Jesus H Christ I have seen the light" sort of thing. He rationalised it by putting it in a box separate from everything else, "this is my faith, normal rules don't apply, and that's ok." I'm paraphrasing, as this was a while ago but that was the basic idea.

I've got a strong suspicion that's how it works for many believers.

Northwind - Sounds to me like you and this guy had a pretty serious personality clash. I'd imagine you are a 'J' whereas he was a 'P'. There are plenty of people in the world who would disagree with your definition of what is 'useful'. Would you be so condemnatory of his values and passions if he had been doing another subject you consider to have no use, perhaps art or philosophy?

Besides which, the point I was making, as you well know, was that many believers of any faith do approach that faith critically and analytically. My knowledge of ancient languages, history, other religions etc enables me to be far more technically critical of Christianity than you are able to be. As I said to Cougar you cannot assume that people of faith hold that faith out of blind ignorance and stupidity.

Spin and Cougar - By nature I am a scientifically minded individual, and I'd imagine you can see from my posts and the essay of mine Cougar read that I apply a critical methodology to my faith. However, that all being said I'd be the first to admit that the basic foundation of Christianity is unreasonable and irrational - I believe in God. I believe that 2000 years ago that God came to earht as the illegitimate son of a Jewish peasant girl. As an adult he was executed by the Roman state, came back to life and that now his spirit lives inside me to guid and assist me. There is nothing rational about that at all. Many older Christians get very upset when I point this out to them!

Whether they realise it or not, Christians generally allow four things to influence their faith - scripture, tradition, reason and experience. I could recount to you several deep spiritual experiences I have had, you would think I am barking mad and I would probably have to agree.

I like you. Can we keep you?

you cannot assume that people of faith hold that faith out of blind ignorance and stupidity.

Rash generalisations are bad. Er, generally.

I don't doubt that people hold beliefs for all manner of reasons. Almost certainly "blind ignorance" plays a part for some, and just as certainly not for others.

I'm not comfortable with "stupid" as it's vague and derogatory. It's not as catchy, but "lacking in critical reasoning ability" is probably more appropriate. Again, it doesn't apply to everyone of course, but I've had plenty of discussions with people that follow this sort of logic:

[i]Why do you believe in god?[/i]

Because it says so in the Bible.

[i]Why do you believe the Bible?[/i]

Because it's the word of God.

And that's where the wheels come off, you can't debate with these people any further because not only do they lack the ability to see the flaw in that logic, but they also lack the self-perception to recognise that they do.

But I digress. I'm sure there are many reasons people turn to faith. Look at Islam; in many cases that's basically peer pressure and mob rule. If you were brought up in a strict Muslim community and found that actually, you didn't believe any of it, would you admit it?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/12/11/the-countries-where-they-kill-you-for-being-an-atheist/

You could theoretically have a community where no-one actually believed any of it, but they all carried on pretending because everyone else was. Bangladesh is not a good place to be right now if you're an atheist.

kja78 - Member

Northwind - Sounds to me like you and this guy had a pretty serious personality clash. I'd imagine you are a 'J' whereas he was a 'P'. There are plenty of people in the world who would disagree with your definition of what is 'useful'.

I don't think there's anyone in the world who doesn't think it's useful to be able to eat your lunch without hospitalising yourself!

But nah, we got on brilliantly, he was an interesting and funny guy. Second worst worker (*) I've ever had around me, which could be difficult, but he was a good person and great company. People who think just like you are dull.

(*the worst was a guy that we had working in a theatre venue, who was so incompetent at everything, we had him work as an automatic door opener)

Sorry NW, managed to miss the humour in your post! He sounds like my wife, complete nightmare in the real world and hugely frustrating at times. But utterly brilliant, intelligent and very spiritual.

kja78 - Member

My knowledge of ancient languages, history, other religions etc enables me to be far more technically critical of Christianity than you are able to be.

Does your knowledge cover religions and belief systems that predate Christianity i wonder. I'd guess not as one couldn't possibly choose the Stallone remake of Get Carter over the Michael Caine original, if you catch my drift.

Kja78 out of genuine curiosity because of your obvious knowledge of the subject what makes you believe in Jesus as a historical figure and why would he be executed by the Roman state?

Euro -

Hi, yes it’s vital to know about other religions in order to have a proper understanding of the Bible. It’s been suggested that the Genesis 1 creation story was written by Jews living in exile in Babylon. If we understand something of the Babylonian religions; their obsession with astrology for example, it give us a deeper understanding of the meaning and purpose of the story.

There’s historical evidence to suggest that whilst the Exodus may not have happened quite the way the Bible has it, there was a group of people who were expelled from Egypt by the Pharaoh at around the timescale of the Exodus in the Bible. It’s important therefore to know something of the Egyptian religions and how that might have influenced Judaism. Some of the Proverbs in the Bible appear to have been copied and pasted directly from texts which predate even Egypt.

Once we get into the New Testament a knowledge of Greco-Roman beliefs is important. For example, as I said in an earlier post, knowing the place that sex played in Greco-Roman cultic ceremonies helps us put the apparent condemnation of homosexual acts in a very different context to that which we live in today.

Being British, it’s important to understand how Christianity interacted with other European religions. As part of a module on Christianity in Europe we spent the day in Glastonbury interacting with leaders from various what you might call ‘pagan’ faiths

I’d also point out that Judaism, from which Christianity sprang, is one of the most ancient religions in the world. Some of the Bible stories, such as Noah’s flood and the story of Job predate Judaism and are probably among the most ancient stories known to humanity.

Crankboy -

Firstly, even if you don’t believe in the Bible you must ascribe it some historical value. Even if some of the stories have been embellished/elaborated they are still a valuable insight into the lifestyles and mindsets of a broad spread of people, from a broad geographic area across abroad time-span. There is archaeological evidence which supports some of the Bible stories. We have Egyptian manuscripts which describe a people group who call themselves the family of David for example.

So whilst from a purely secular perspective the Bible cannot be considered wholly reliable, it must be respected as a valid historical source, and treated the same way as any other historical document.

You may know that shortly after the time of Jesus was a Jewish-Roman historian called Josephus. Some parts of his surviving manuscripts are not considered authentic, but scholars there are authentic passages where he refers to James the brother of Jesus and to the imprisonment and execution of John the Baptist. There is a section about the Crucifixion of Jesus, but scholars question its authenticity.

We also have surviving manuscripts from very early Christian leaders, such as Clement, Polycarp and Ignatius all dating from about the same time as Josephus, 70-100AD ish.

So although as a ‘believer’ I don’t actually feel the need for historical evidence of Jesus outside the Bible, there is some there.

Why would the Romans execute Jesus? Have you read the Gospels? He was a trouble maker, his teaching and activities were hugely subversive. Under the Pax-Romanica, the Romans licensed certain religions throughout the Empire; Judaism was one of these licensed ones. By and large the Jews obeyed Rome and caused no trouble. Yet along comes Jesus, this peasant, and other peasants start following him, they start questioning the Jewish religious leaders, disobeying them. He teaches that money and wealth are nothing, that you are to give everything to God. He admits to being the son of God, God Himself. All four of the Gospels record Jesus entering the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem and ransacking the place. The Temple was such a sensitive area that the Roman barracks were next door. At his birth wise men come looking for a king, at his death his charge is that he was the King of the Jews, a charge which he would not deny. Only Caesar is King, and in fact Caesar is god also.

Although the Jews were by and large peaceful, they were a very large group of people there had been a history of rioting and any large uprising by them would be a huge challenge for Rome; better to execute one man then have a full scale rebellion on your hands. Not long after Jesus, the Jews did rebel against Rome; the great revolt lasted from AD66-AD73. It cost the Romans 20,000 dead soldiers, out of a force of 60,000 and Josephus records that 1 million Jews died. According to the Bible, Pilate was reluctant to execute Jesus, yet he was no doubt acutely aware of the volatility of the Jews. If Jesus really was as dangerous as the Gospels portray him, it’s no doubt Pilate would kill him to keep the peace.

I haven’t got a sermon to preach tomorrow, so I’m rather enjoying all this attention, any more questions?

[i]So whilst from a purely secular perspective the Bible cannot be considered wholly reliable, it must be respected as a valid historical source,[/i] Yep, agree with that view

[i]and treated the same way as any other historical document.[/i] Nope, not really.

I like you. Can we keep you?

+1

And yes, I'm here again (after a very splendid bike, rather slow, very muddy but deeply rewarding, ride 🙂 ), because every so often, someone comes along and educates me. Thanks kja78 😀

The main line of argument from athiest's on here seems to revolve purely around the New Testament and Christianity in particular.

Let's face it, mankind has invented new religions regularly for thousands of years. If we no longer think sun worship, Egyptian, Greek or Roman gods to have credence, what is so plausible about the relative new kids on the block - Christianity, Judaism, Islam, et al?

"Spiritual". What DOES that mean, exactly?

Temporal lobe epilepsy? Or just - you know - feeling nice, like....

So whilst from a purely secular perspective the Bible cannot be considered wholly reliable, it must be respected as a valid historical source, and treated the same way as any other historical document.

My understanding was that the earliest manuscripts were written some time (decades? centuries?) after the events they purport to describe. Is this correct?

Right and wrong, black and white. No uncertainty.

S****s. You really don't understand science do you. The only people who deal in absolutes are those with a belief in a deity.

The only people who deal in absolutes are those with a belief in a deity.

*cough* lots of atheists too *cough*

Some I'll grant you, after all not all atheists are rational. But science certainly doesn't.

Spin - if you're talking abou the New Testament -the Gospels & Acts, and the Epistles - then they are likley to have been written within the lifetime of those who were about whem Jesus was. There is a hypothetical source known as 'Q' which which would predate the Gospels. Mark was probably written first in the 60s, then Mattew and Luke, with John being written in stages up to about 90ish. A Christian tradition dating right back has it that John was very old, in his 90s when he died. It's very possible that there we subsequent redactions, e.g.some respected female theologians suspect Paul's epistles were tampered with, as they don't seem to reflect Jesus' attitude to women. Personally I thnk it all comes back to context.

If you're talking about the OT then dating is much harder. Probably by the time of Jesus the stories have been redacted and pretty much finalised. About 40% of the Dead Sea scrolls which date from about 400BC to 300AD are recogniseable as being from the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) and whilst there are some differences they pretty much match what we have now. As I said, we are talking about ancient ancient stories, passed down by word of mouth out many centuries befoer being written down.

Mr. W - No spiritual element at all to being a human? No ghosts? No unexplicable shivers down the spine? No deeper connection with the universe when out on a bike ride? No unexplained coincedences? Surely even the most avid atheist must admit there's something more to life than physical sensory environment we inhabit?

Surely even the most avid atheist must admit there's something more to life than physical sensory environment we inhabit?

Not this one!

Thanks for your response to the dating thing.

Mark was probably written first in the 60s, then Mattew and Luke, with John being written in stages up to about 90ish. A Christian tradition dating right back has it that John was very old, in his 90s when he died. It's very possible that there we subsequent redactions

When I teach pupils how to approach a historical source I teach them to look at when it was written, who wrote it and what it tells us but perhaps most important of all they need to ask why it was produced.

As evidence of the life and times of Jesus the gospels rather fall down on that point.

kja78 - Member

Surely even the most avid atheist must admit there's something more to life than physical sensory environment we inhabit?

Nope. Though I'm not an "avid" atheist, it's a weird thing to be avid about.

NW - Clearly avid enough to want to post on a thread on religion on the off-topic section Mountain Bike forum!

Spin - any document from that long ago surely has questions over what the motivation for writing it was?

any document from that long ago surely has questions over what the motivation for writing it was?

Yes but there's a difference between questions over the motivations and definitely produced to support a certain view point.

kja78 - Member

NW - Clearly avid enough to want to post on a thread on religion on the off-topic section Mountain Bike forum!

Look at my post history, I really don't have to be very avid to post things 😆 But besides, you don't have to be an "avid atheist" to want to correct people's misconceptions on a subject.

I have a question Kja78, if you don't mind.
Salman Rushdie once said,
"Dr. Aadam Aziz, the patriarch in my novel Midnight’s Children, loses his faith and is left with “a hole inside him, a vacancy in a vital inner chamber.” I, too, possess the same God-shaped hole. Unable to accept the unarguable absolutes of religion, I have tried to fill up the hole with literature."
When you say, "Surely even the most avid atheist must admit there's something more to life than physical sensory environment we inhabit?" are you suggesting they too may have this god shaped hole and not having a relationship with a god means their lives are not being fulfilled or they have filled the hole with something else?

I hope that makes sense, I'm writing on a very small screen.

Cheers kja78 we really must keep you you bring a whole new and very sincere level to the debate. Josephus is an interesting source. Jesus as in christ I understand only features in one of his histories and even then may not be that Jesus, he mentions a numberof different people with that name.
The king of the Jews motive is again well open to debate in the ancient world everyone and his dog claimed to be king and the Romans had thousands of kings of one sort or another as clients or subjects. Jesus is recorded as preaching peace, rendering unto Caesar and rescuing Caesar's tax collectors not exactly things the occupying Romans would object to. Pilate appears not to have given two figs for Jewish opinion or the temple and was ultimately given the boot essentially for being too insensitive to local opinion including totally trashing the temples sanctity.

My absence of belief in God has different foundations and I personally favour the idea of Jesus as a historical figure but I find it very hard to locate a historical Jesus outside of the Gospels, or to fit the christian narrative with my limited understanding of the Romans.

Kja78 in response to any more questions are you near Leeds and do you fancy a pint and an incoherent debate some time?

There are times when I'm hillwalking and I get to the top of a particularly beautiful mountain and then I know God exists.

No, there's not a shred of logic nor rationality to that statement, but that doesn't stop it being 100% true as far as I'm concerned.

And equally it doesn't stop me believing in evolution or that the Earth is billions of years old.

[i]Mr. W - No spiritual element at all to being a human?[/i] What do you MEAN by "spiritual"?

[i]No ghosts?[/i] Nope.

[i]No unexplicable shivers down the spine?[/i] Nope. Perfectly explicable.

[i]No deeper connection with the universe when out on a bike ride?[/i] What do you MEAN by "deeper"?

[i]No unexplained coincedences?[/i] Nope. They are coincidences. That's the explanation.

[i]Surely even the most avid atheist must admit there's something more to life than physical sensory environment we inhabit?[/i] What's your evidence?

Although- none of this is strictly about Atheism, of course, which is simply the opinion that there is no "god"... Even though I feel really happy on the tops of mountains too...

Just what I've suspected for some time, Woppit has absolutely no soul. Everything, to him, is mundane and ordinary.
How very, very sad.
And I'm not a follower of any 'faith', either, I just get an overwhelming sense of peace, and I must say, insignificance, when confronted with the sheer beauty of what the universe has within it. I consider that to be a 'deeper' connection with the universe, and our place within it, I just don't give it a name, or, if forced to, pantheistic humanist for the sake of argument.
A cathedral can leave me breathless with wonder, and appreciate of the skill of the artisans who built it, I don't need to give praise to some ethereal 'being' for its being built.
Oh, and kja78, your posts are hugely enjoyable to read, thank you.

Roper & Mr. W - Although I can see where they are coming from, I don't really like the arguement from some Christians and people of faith that everyone has a 'God-shaped hole' and their life will be unfulfilled unless they find God. What I see though as I minister to a broad variety of people with all sorts of issues is a hunger for more meaning to life, an explanation of evil and suffering, and a desire to be loved. I believe that the God I believe in offers that to us all. So I suppose in a way I feel we all 'need' God, but don't have a satisfactory way of explaining that.

My question about Athiests and spirituality was worded poorly, it came across as rhetorical, whereas it was genuine curiosity. I came to faith at the age of 20, I'm 35 now. Looking back at my teenage years I suppose I did have a spiritual need that went unfulfilled, I've always thought that was a fairly common part of the human experience.

crankboy - there's nothing I like more than a pint and an incoherent debate, unfortunelty I am nowhere near Leeds I'm afraid. I nearly got a church not far from there, however I was a bit to liberal for those backwards Northern Christians. If you're ever down in Dorset give me a shout.

In regards to the Christian narrative of Jesus & Rome, I suppose it depends how you start with Jesus. What I mean is you can find the subversive rebel or the prince of peace if that's way you're looking for. Turn the other cheek - humiliates the person doing the slapping, walk the extra mile - it was illegal for Roman soldiers to force civilians to do too much work. Give to Caesar what is Caesar's - He's just said money and possessions are nothing and not important.

'Do not think that I have come to bring peace, I have come to bring a sword' 'I told you before not to take anything with you, now I tell you sell your cloak and buy a sword.' etc etc.

I suppose the ultimate Christian explanation for Jesus' death was that it was part of the plan for salvation, it doesn't really matter why the Romans executed him, God had to die to destroy the power of evil. That's a whole other debate, I suppose, but for me it has a lot more to do with what the Christian church is meant to be, and what it's meant to be doing and saying, rather than we being 'saved' from some untangible source of wrath because of our ignorance.

Kennyp - I too believe in evolution and that the world is billions of years old. Not that believe is the right word here!

Just what I've suspected for some time, Woppit has absolutely no soul. Everything, to him, is mundane and ordinary.
How very, very sad.

How patronising. And ignorant. What makes you think I find things mundane? I already said I feel happy on mountain tops. I think you are a stupid person who reads into what he sees, what he expects to find, and edits out things that would disprove his prejudice. Go and stuff yourself.

On the subject of coincidences - ooh, look what I found in a random search:

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/derren-brown-the-specials/4od

I daresay Derren, being both an atheist and gay, won't be taking any holidays in Nigeria anytime soon. Or ****stan, Afghanistan, Russia. Or Ohio. Whitechapel...

PS: Having a sense of wonder (which I do, given the right circumstance, just like anybody else) and so on still does not offer any evidence of a "god".

I know it keeps getting said, but a sense of wonder is a sense of wonder. It baffles me why religious people need to describe it as anything else.

"Spiritual", for instance...

I feel small, so there's a god. I feel wonderful, so there's a god. I don't know how the universe was started, so there's a god.

Er, nope. I WONDER how this works - let's LOOK AT IT AND FIND OUT, shall we? Back to Derren, then...

You know how you can build a house on sand, or build a house on rock...

...I'd build my house on Mr Woppit because he is 100% solid on this subject, regardless of all the 'Oooh Mr Woppit, please be nice to the religious' nonsense.

...and after 6 pages, aren't you all engaged in the 'what tyres should angels use for riding on the head of pin?' debate by now?

PS: Having a sense of wonder (which I do, given the right circumstance, just like anybody else) and so on still does not offer any evidence of a "god".

It both does and doesn't. Depends on the person, their beliefs and how they see the world. Quite possibly both viewpoints are correct.

Mr W. - I will leave you this evening with my 'Testimony' and then I'm signing off til tomorrow. I had no interest in Christianity and very little exposure to it as a child. I spent a summer season as a 19 year old working it the kitchens of an Outdoor Pursuits centre where it seemed that everyone else was a Christian, they banged on and on at me about it. As you have probably gathered I am pretty articulate, intelligent and assertive, I was proud that I was able to reduce them and their arguements to nothing, even on one occasion making one of them cry.

I fancied a girl I worked with, she was a bonkers raving charismatic Christian and invited me to see a Christian comedian one evening. Not only was he totally rubbish, but I learnt that she was going out with a school friend of mine. I was very rude and offensive to people who had been nothing but kind to me over the last few months.

The next morning, Sunday, I decided to go to their church to apologise. As I shaved I looked in the mirror and wondered why I was going to the church, after all I'd see them all on Monday at work. I said 'God, if you're there, I'm ready to believe, just let me know.'

I arrived at church, none of them were there! The minister knew me and brought me in and sat me down. The service began, they all stood to sing. I stood, my left leg began to shake uncontrollably, then my right then my torso and before I knew it I was completly immersed in what I can only describe as 'Truth'. I stood there crying, knowing that my life would never be the same again.

There's a lot more that's happened since then, but for me it's not about a sense of wonder at creation, it's not 'I feel small' or 'How did the universe begin.' It's back to that moment, 15 years ago where God spoke to me, and I believe has been with me ever since. When I read the Gospels and Acts, those men and women come alive for me, and I love being a part of what they were a part of. Anyway, I'm off to wait for the men in white coats. Sleep tight, God bless.

regardless of all the 'Oooh Mr Woppit, please be nice to the religious' nonsense.

I suspect most of "the religious" would actually say that Mr Woppit is quite entitled to hold those opinions and is free to express them. Would be a dull world without a bit of lively debate.

Nope. Having a sense of wonder is evidence that in that particular circumstance, you can have a sense of wonder. Which is why it is called "a sense of wonder". It's quite nice..

You're just trying to play both ends off against the middle.

Watch the video.

Did you get the girl?

The service began, they all stood to sing. I stood, my left leg began to shake uncontrollably, then my right then my torso and before I knew it I was completly immersed in what I can only describe as 'Truth'. I stood there crying, knowing that my life would never be the same again.

You were manipulated into having an emotional reaction.

Watch the video.

Here, in case it gets lost in the thread:> http://www.channel4.com/programmes/derren-brown-the-specials/4od <

What makes you think I find things mundane? I already said I feel happy on mountain tops.

Reminds me of a quote from the late, great DNA: "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"

I daresay Derren, being both an atheist and gay,

Point of note, Derren Brown was raised as a devout Christian. He's not just an "atheist", he's consciously rejected his faith.

kja78 > I'm not ignoring you, I'm just trying to have an evening. I'm still reading with interest.

You were manipulated into having an emotional reaction.

kja78 - Member
Surely even the most avid atheist must admit there's something more to life than physical sensory environment we inhabit?

Where do you draw the line?

To me, Islam, Christianity, voodoo, astrology etc etc are all the same. All require a conscious deviation from the null argument.

I give no more credence to the word of god in a holy book to the word of Russell grant in the back of the express.

You can see why having a theist doctrine in our political system doesn't fill me with confidence if you accept this as my position. (And a lot of others)

It would be interesting to know how society will change in an ever-more secular world.
I imagine the general pointlessness of existence may become a tricky one.

Anyway, back to the sixth form studies room 😉

Surely there is far more point to existence in a secular world than a religious one. The striving for knowledge and understanding vs being part of supreme beings wind up toy bound by an opaque and self contradictory set of rules set out thousands of years ago.

The striving for knowledge and understanding

Yes, but to what end? Can't see the point really.

Josephus is an interesting source. Jesus as in christ I understand only features in one of his histories and even then may not be that Jesus, he mentions a numberof different people with that name.

IIRC, Josephus was documenting the beliefs of Christians, so he wrote about Jesus; he wrote about Jesus because Christians believed in him, not because he thought he existed. (Although, I suspect he, or a range of people, did.)

Feefoo: similarly I don't see the point of existence based on the god(s) argument. What is it please?

Yes, but to what end? Can't see the point really.

Really? Modern medicine might be one example....

The service began, they all stood to sing. I stood, my left leg began to shake uncontrollably, then my right then my torso and before I knew it I was completly immersed in what I can only describe as 'Truth'. I stood there crying, knowing that my life would never be the same again.

I was in a large marquee tent when a whole lot of people experienced this - it was about the time of the [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_Blessing ]Toronto blessings[/url] - so at a similar time to your experience. I've also watched the Derren Brown programme linked above; I believe in Derren Brown.

Feefoo: similarly I don't see the point of existence based on the god(s) argument. What is it please?

Dunno, don't believe in him/them.

Really? Modern medicine might be one example....

I understand man has and will make advances in all fields, that doesn't give it any point though.
No point to anything in this seemingly chance universe imho.

Feefoo: similarly I don't see the point of existence based on the god(s) argument. What is it please?

I suppose the point within the doctrine is that you'll get everlasting salvation in the kingdom of heaven; whatever that's meant to mean.

No point to anything

Religion revels in providing answers to difficult questions, questions that we're unable to answer with much certainty. Some people simply can't accept that it's ok that we don't know something, and to those people "yes but, god" puts their mind at rest.

Think about it. Why are we here, what happens when we die, what was here before the universe; all the difficult questions are the ones where religion has stepped in and gone "god did it, and you can't prove otherwise."

Completely agree, Cougar (conciliatory me!). 😉

It just seems that our brains are wired for the cause and effect thing. It's hard to stop asking "why?" and to just accept "because it is".

It is for me anyway.

I would suggest there is only one "point" to life - to reproduce and pass on genetic material. There is no accident to our existence. it's not a case of "ooh aren't we lucky to have this planet that suits us so well and allows us to exist". We suit it (for the time being). I would suggest that given the conditions in existence over the millennia, life was an inevitability not a coincidence.

We only try to imply some higher "reason" for life because we have the mental capacity to.

I've failed at life, then. Might as well go and find a bridge, hey.

You were manipulated into having an emotional reaction.

Sorry to disappoint you but I'm a pretty smart, intelligent person and if I was being manipulated I could spot it a mile away.

I've failed at life, then. Might as well go and find a bridge, hey.

Sorry to disappoint you but I'm a pretty smart, intelligent person and if I was being manipulated I could spot it a mile away.

I'm sure I've seen Derren Brown saying that being prone to 'manipulation'* is nothing to do with intelligence.

*I don't think all churches deliberately manipulate people, but the acts commonly carried out in churches (standing/sitting/speaking in unison, repetition, music, architecture, etc) are all very good at causing certain states/experiences.

I would suggest there is only one "point" to life - to reproduce and pass on genetic material.

I've failed at life, then.

It's not necessarily to pass on your own particular set of genes, but those close to you; i.e. those found in humans.

It's a driver for altruism - leaping onto a grenade to save the lives of those near you is clearly bad for your own genes, but good for the people standing next to you.

*I don't think all churches deliberately manipulate people, but the acts commonly carried out in churches (standing/sitting/speaking in unison, repetition, music, architecture, etc) are all very good at causing certain states/experiences.

A fair point, however the original "experience" wasn't actually in a church, and didn't even involve other people so no manipulation was possible.

A fair point, however the original "experience" wasn't actually in a church, and didn't even involve other people so no manipulation was possible.

I'd not rule out self manipulation.

*insert joke about not being allowed in Catholicism*

I wouldn't want to second guess the cause of your experience, and I don't even know what it was, but I'd hazard there's a simpler explanation than God.

I'd hazard there's a simpler explanation than God.

As explanations go, "god" is about the simplest there is. It's one of religion's more mass-appealing concepts, you don't really have to think to hard about it. It's when you rule out god that explanations start getting complicated or difficult (or unknown).

Compare the [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang ]Big Bang[/url] theory with "god did it in six days", as a random example.

Perhaps that's why I've always been an atheist; I find the big bang theory much simpler to wrap my head around that "there's an all powerful omnipotent being who made everything and who came to Earth to save us from himself by being killed but then coming back and he's going to come back one day and it must be true because it's in this book".

A friend was once told by Jehovah's Witnesses that the earth was perfectly designed to suit our every need, and we were also designed to fit it.

"Yeah", he said, "otherwise, how would our spectacles fit?"

A fair point, however the original "experience" wasn't actually in a church, and didn't even involve other people so no manipulation was possible.

You allowed your emotional reaction to manipulate you into an incorrect conclusion, based (probably) on the existing acceptance of a false premise.

As my three year old would say 'I'm back! You found me!'

Cougar - it's ok, I can handle you ignoring me *sniff*.

Crankboy, no I didn't get that particular girl, however I did that morning meet a girl with whom I subsequently became great friends and have been married to for the past 10 years.

Mr.W - You seem to be asserting that I manipulate people in order to elicit an emotional response, without me or them realising that's what I'm doing. An interesting proposition and one to which I will genuinely give some serious thought. I hope that you and miketually, as disciples of Derrin,have the same critical approach to his teaching as I do to the Bible, and have considered if and how he may be manipulating you and to what ends.

I hope that you and miketually, as disciples of Derrin,have the same critical approach to his teaching as I do to the Bible, and have considered if and how he may be manipulating you and to what ends.

I think he's pretty open about what he does:

I am often dishonest in my techniques, but always honest about my dishonesty. As I say in each show, 'I mix magic, suggestion, psychology, misdirection and showmanship'. I happily admit cheating, as it's all part of the game. I hope some of the fun for the viewer comes from not knowing what's real and what isn't. I am an entertainer first and foremost, and I am careful not to cross any moral line that would take me into manipulating people's real-life decisions or belief systems.

'I am careful not to cross any moral line that would take me into manipulating people's real-life decisions or belief systems.'

Phew, that's me reassured then.

Phew, that's me reassured then.

Whatever he does, he doesn't have automatic seats in the Lords or a huge say in how policies are implemented, so any harm he can do is limited. Religion on the other hand...

Mike - being a Baptist I believe firmly in the seperation of church and state. That being said, about 3% of the Lords are Anglican Bishops. Depending which figures you believe, somewhere between 1% and 4% of the population consider themselves Anglican,and the Anglicans claim that about 50% of the population have been baptised into the CofE so it hardly seems like disproportional representation.

As for the harm the media can do and the influence it has, I'd hardly call it limited.

That being said, about 3% of the Lords are Anglican Bishops. Depending which figures you believe, somewhere between 1% and 4% of the population consider themselves Anglican,and the Anglicans claim that about 50% of the population have been baptised into the CofE so it hardly seems like disproportional representation.

Sorry but that spectacularly misses the point being made. No-one is suggesting that those with religious beliefs should be barred from holding seats in the Lords, or any other political office for that matter. The objection is to those who hold political office for no reason other than their position in a religious orgainisation. That is what many people object to.

Yes, GF you missed my point that I also object to it, however the 3% or whatever is of the population who are Anglican probably don't.

I dare say that those concerns are covered by the other people who hold political office for a valid reason whilst also being Religious. I'd never want anyone to hold political office based solely on the fact they are an athiest.

Unfortunately I've never seen an argument proffered by a believer that isn't (IMO!) based on flawed understanding, circular reasoning, insufficient knowledge or a personal standard of evidence.

The thing that many of the atheist contributors on this thread seem to be missing is that reason and evidence might not be all that important to some people. Why not believe? If it makes you feel good then how bad can it be?*

No spiritual element at all to being a human? No ghosts? No unexplicable shivers down the spine? No deeper connection with the universe when out on a bike ride? No unexplained coincedences?

Hmm.. personally I don't need a 'spiritual' connection as you describe. The world as it is is more than wonderful enough. In fact, to me, the fact that there ISN'T a higher power is fulfilling and uplifting. The idea that we are all just cells, neurons, DNA and what not is liberating and joyous.

As for the feelings you get when out riding etc: The fact that you can induce more or less any human feeling as intensely as you like with some simple chemicals tends to remove the need for 'soul' or 'spirit' as an explanation don't you think?

Surely even the most avid atheist must admit there's something more to life than physical sensory environment we inhabit?

You make it sound like the physical sensory environment isn't much of a big thing?

Re the Lords - it's not just the bishops who are there for dodgy reasons is it? The problem isn't with relgion, it's with the Lords!

* note I am not including murdering, going to war, being homophibic etc etc when I say 'believe' here. Those things are all bad of course; belief as a personal thing is different to trying to impose it on others, as we all understand.

PS kja78 won the thread a few pages ago. Good work 🙂

The thing that many of the atheist contributors on this thread seem to be missing is that reason and evidence might not be all that important to some people. Why not believe? If it makes you feel good then how bad can it be?*

Say that to the kids that died in the US because their parents are religious nutters who don't believe in medicine, just prayer.