Forum menu
You being a cyclist doesn't limit you to one or all or any number ... you pick and choose as you wish.
Which is kinda what I was getting at. Doing something "because it says so in the Bible" was all well and good 1,500 years ago but a lot of it is at odds with modern life, either culturally or because Science. You can pick and choose, sure, but how do you know what the important bits are and what can safely be ignored? Surely you have to infer that either it's fact or fiction in its entirety, otherwise it's Just A Book. How can you believe that the son of god really walked the Earth a couple of millennia ago when your source of reference describes the physical world in a manner we know now to be patently false? How do we know that Jesus isn't an allegory himself?
Christians do not believe that everything in the Bible is literally true.
This may be true now, but it's revisionist. When the Bible was still in short pants, it was absolutely supposed to be true. Word of God, and all that. People were murdered in droves for even suggesting otherwise. Galileo suggested the Earth orbited the Sun and spent the last ten years of his life under house arrest for Heresy because of it.
I kinda wish the Vatican / whoever had just gone "yeah, we got that bit wrong, sorry about that" rather than moving the goalposts and saying it's a metaphor. As science marches ever onward it just feels a bit... desperate I suppose.
There's no evidence to suggest that there isn't a God, and I can't see how that could be conclusively proved.
Come now Molly, you and I both know how this one ends. Burden of proof, impossible to prove a negative, Russell's Teapot and invisible pink unicorns living in my skirting board. (-:
slavery...the owning of humans by other humans as property...prepheral...right.
Peripheral. Yes. Compared to the central [i]religious[/i] questions about the nature of God as embodied in the Christian creeds, then of course peripheral.
The early Christians didn't sit down and start discussing how they understand issues that would eventually prevail upon society as being important. They sat down and talked about what actually made them Christians - that is, what they believed about God.
And then they ran away before getting arrested and used to light up Nero's garden parties.
I don't know what you thought of me before, but you can't seriously suggest that when I called moral issues (that weren't even thought of at the time as moral issues) secondary to the religious questions of a nascent religion somehow diminished my character. 😕
love, happiness, sadness are chemical changes in the brain. They are real. my happiness can be changed by taking or stopping my SSRI medication.
Is Philosophy real?
Is there a difference between a wonderful poem and a prozac wrapped in a newspaper?
Come now Molly, you and I both know how this one ends.
No, we know how you think it ends.
Burden of proof relates to someone who is trying to assert the existence or otherwise of God. My point is not *how* to prove God exists, rather that proving is impossible. So I don't need to provide proof because I don't think such a thing exists.
I had another reply I think, but it got lost somewhere in my head. In the meantime,
I do think the old saying "there are no atheists in foxholes" is very true.
I think it's wishful thinking on the part of the theists, desperately trying to convince people that atheists are really secret believers. Any priests sniffing round my death bed hoping for a last-minute conversion will be disappointed and sent on their way.
I think the trouble with that approach is there are also lots of people who never get to that stage, never question and don't think other people should either.
I agree, which is why it is important for religious leaders to teach well. Unfortunately, not all appear to do so.
This may be true now, but it's revisionist. When the Bible was still in short pants, it was absolutely supposed to be true. People were murdered in droves for even suggesting otherwise.
Cougar, I have tried in past threads to illustrate how this is not accurate. I can't deliver an entire course on the history of exegesis on STW, but I think maybe I should. Alas, you'll just have to do an online tutorial with me. 😉
That's basically the Cliff Notes, isn't it?
Secondary to the religious questions of a nascent religion somehow diminished my character.
well yeah, it sort of undermines your earlier point where you tried to argue that religions don't move with the times, and now you're saying that early Christians in their deliberations about the nature of God didn't think to include Slaves...A group of folk at the very heart of the beginning of the Christian movement, and a dangerous one at that, as the WHOLE POINT of Christianity is the fact the everyone's equal, that slaves and not masters (without some serious work) could get to Heaven easier. One of the very reasons it was so appealing and gathered momentum so quickly
So to say Slavery was peripheral...hmmm
Cougs, excuse me if I have missed your reply, Hv, earlier you suggested what you would like the RE syllabus to look like. I asked if you knew the details of the current syllabus in the hope of understanding where you felt it fell short.
Dont bother answering if you dont want to and excuse me if you have done so already.
If philosophy real
Yes, it's the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.
Oh yeah, likening god as a concept to things like love.
I'll happily concede that "god" may well be a mental / chemical construct inside us, in so far as when you're "praying to god" in reality you're giving yourself a good talking to, telling you to pull your socks up or that everything's going to be ok, or that you've done your bit for little Timmy who's in hospital. After you're done, you feel better about things, your god has helped. Similar to how meditation works I suppose, or mindfulness, or climbing up a hill to get away from it all.
Like love you can't measure it, but you can't deny that you feel different either. But going from that to a big beardy white bloke hiding behind a cloud is too big a leap for me I'm afraid.
I asked if you knew the details of the current syllabus in the hope of understanding where you felt it fell short.
Sorry, you did, and I forgot (I read a few pages sitting in a dentist's waiting room earlier, hence the splurge now).
Short answer is no, I don't. I don't have kids so the last time I looked at a syllabus is probably about 30 years ago. I was really just thinking out loud with reference to my own schooling, I didn't intend to criticise what's currently being taught as I've no idea.
Galileo suggested the Earth orbited the Sun and spent the last ten years of his life under house arrest for Heresy because of it.
Bible doesn't seem to assert geocentricism...?
where you tried to argue that religions don't move with the times
No, he said that it doesn't change to reflect popular sentiment. And then he went on to say that the central theological tenets are stable. Which isn't quite what you are talking about.
Is it really just me that understands what SaxonRider says?
"Dont bother answering if you dont want to and excuse me if you have done so already".
[img] 
[/img]
A lot of posts from a small number of posters and most of very limited relevance or usefulness;
Saxonrider, theotherjonv & ernie_lynch excepted from that with cougs and molgrips also being (generally) excepted.
For those who make the effort to visit a mosque on sunday - self included - would be good to share what impression it makes.
Right, just off to leeds cathedral for some quiet contemplation - and smell the incense......
it sort of undermines your earlier point where you tried to argue that religions don't move with the times
No. You had originally suggested that central Christian teaching (e.g. Biblical exegesis) changed to suit the time and place, and I responded by distinguishing between what I called central [i]religious[/i] teaching (that doesn't change), and secondary teaching, that most certainly develops and addresses issues as they arise.
Its moved on a lot and addresses many of your "concerns"
It is a very academic subject - as my son's teachers noted, "if you read and understand the textbooks, you will get a C. To get an A*/A, you need to work very hard and do a hell (sorry) of a lot of extra reading."
The work they did on religious texts and on philosophy/ethics was very demanding academically - one reason that it is very popular - the other being that they had brilliant teachers who refused to spoon feed or indoctrinate.
In my day, O Level Divinity was merely a matter of studying the synoptic gospels and was easy to question spot. Everyone took it a year early and got As. Times HAVE changed.
That's pretty cool actually. Presumably multi-faith studies? Is that nationally too?
Bible doesn't seem to assert geocentricism...?
Ach, you might well be right. Bad example. (Why were the Catholics so against the idea then? Might have to do some reading tonight.)
I only can compare two versions (both national although one , Pre-U is only taught in a small number of schools) - yes choice of faiths too. In my son's case their critical analysis of the gospels and the meanings was closer to English Lit than anything else. Certainly questions what taken literally means?
Studying Kant at 17 is no easy task either.
Philosophy should be mandatory in schools.
Bible doesn't seem to assert geocentricism...?
The Bible asserts a flat earth with a dome over it (the firmament) with windows to let the water in for Noah's flood.
[img] 
[/img]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_cosmology
Allegorically of course.
No. You had originally suggested...
not me Gov, that was that Cougar fella...
Like love you can't measure it, but you can't deny that you feel different either. But going from that to a big beardy white bloke hiding behind a cloud is too big a leap for me I'm afraid.
If that intangible 'feeling different' is as a result of your faith, and therefore to you is proof of a 'God' then I'm not going to tell you you're wrong. I think most advanced thinking religioners are beyond the man in the clouds construct.
@poah; The feelings you get when in love are what are driven by the chemicals in your brain, but neither they nor the feelings even are really love. They can be synthesised and put into a test tube but then they are not love, they're adrenaline, epinephrine, and norepinephrine (mainly). They could be put into the brain and create the feelings of love, but it's not love itself. Back to the Higgs boson - we can fairly certainly know its existence by measuring the effects it has on its surroundings, etc., but (up until recently) we couldn't actually measure IT.
I didn't say that scientific methods are narrow minded; i said that YOUR approach was - IMHO - narrow minded (and I'll rectify that to 'not open minded enough, if i may)
Again - i am a scientist (chemist), an ex-atheist, and now i genuinely don't know. As others have said proving a negative is broadly impossible, proving the existence of an intangible likewise. In my experience you measure intangibles by measuring the effects they have on their surroundings and to me the fact that billions of people have a faith and a belief in (a) 'god' means that as a concept at least then it / he / she does exist. Until PROVEN otherwise.
@Cougar:
The Polish parson Nicolaus Copernicus first published his idea of a heliocentric model during 1543 in The Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres in which he suggested that the earth orbited the sun. Exactly why he thought this remains a mystery and he was clearly afraid of academic ridicule. Because, like Ptolemy, he insisted on circular orbits, his heliocentric model was no more accurate than the geocentric one. It also conflicted with obvious empirical evidence such as the lack of stellar parallax (the stars do not appear to move relative to the Earth as it orbits the sun). The only advantage of his model was it seemed to be simpler.More and better observations slowly chipped away at the Ptolemaic model and Tycho Brahe suggested that the planets orbited the sun which in turn moved around the Earth. This met with much approval and was what the intellectual classes widely believed when Galileo came onto the scene. But Johannes Kepler had already improved the model further by using a Copernican system with elliptical orbits. As his writings make clear, he had been inspired by his faith to figure out a perfect system as he knew God would not tolerate the inaccuracy that still plagued the other models. It is likely that in time Kepler's model would have been accepted by the academic community after some debate and science would have moved on. But a monstrous clash of egos and the Reformation made such a peaceful transition impossible.
The greatest of the secular myths is Galileo Galilei as a martyr for science. The epic battle between the forces of reason and truth and the dark superstitions of the church has been retold hundreds of times. The truth as discovered by patient work by modern academics is a little less clear cut and not quite so kind to Galileo. Galileo was a great scientist but in astronomy he was not on as scientifically firm ground as is often believed. He supported Copernicus rather than Kepler so his model was not any better than Ptolemy's and perhaps eclipsed by Tycho Brahe's. He also wrongly insisted that the tides were proof that the Earth was revolving on its axis.
Be that as it may, he published, in 1630, with papal permission, a book called A Dialogue Concerning Two Principal Systems of the World which was more what we would term 'popular science' than an academic text. The Pope, Urban VIII, believed he was being parodied in it as a fool - an insult that no self respecting Renaissance prince could bear. Galileo already had plenty of enemies in academia who resented his fame, influence and condescending style and when abandoned by the Pope he ran out of friends. He was summoned to Rome and arrested by the Inquisition. Clearly, it was impossible to bring a man to trial for making the Pope look foolish so a trumped up charge was manufactured using a spurious undertaking that Galileo was supposed to have given not to teach Copernicus's theory. In addition, the Protestant reformers had accused Catholicism of straying too far from the Bible. The relaxed reading that had prevailed among academics in the Middle Ages was therefore unfortunately no longer in fashion in Rome.
The outcome of the trial was never in doubt and, because he refused to use Kepler's system, Galileo even lost the scientific argument. His recantation was intended to cut him down to size and he was kept in a very comfortable house arrest until he died a few years later. He never came to any physical harm at the hands of the Inquisition and neither did he mutter his famous words 'But it does move' as he was condemned.
from [url= http://www.bede.org.uk/sciencehistory.htm ]here[/url], compiled by [url= https://www.faraday.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/Biography.php?ID=199 ]this guy[/url]
yes choice of faiths too
Ah, I was thinking more like covering all faiths, compare and contrast as it were, rather than focusing on one. Or maybe all to start with and then focus on one in later years?
so anyway - who fancies a ride to the Woking Mosque on Sunday? I think we have to take our boots off at the door anyway, so it won't be much different to the after ride pub stop in that respect.
They do but IIRC at GCSE they simply ask you to compare two religions of your choice and examine how they approach certain issues - neither have to be Christian faiths nor can they be exclusively
to me the fact that billions of people have a faith and a belief in (a) 'god' means that as a concept at least then it / he / she does exist.
You're a crap scientist then - number of people that believe something doesn't equal a concept. There is no difference to one person believing in God and a billion.
Sooooooooooooooooooooo, who's going and who isn't?
Has anyone had their mind changed?
😆
I think we have to take our boots off at the door anyway, so it won't be much different to the after ride pub stop in that respect.
Yeah after taking your shoes off try asking for a pint of cider and a packet of pork scratchings.
I would like to, for sure
from here, compiled by this guy
Interesting read, thanks for that. The "trumped-up charge" is the version of the story I remembered.
captainsasquatch - MemberSooooooooooooooooooooo, who's going and who isn't?
Has anyone had their mind changed?
It would be good to get some feedback afterwards from people who do go.
I going to ask my very dear friend who voted UKIP last local elections "to send a message" (she's normally a Labour voter) to come. I think she'll probably agree - I don't recall her ever making any anti-Muslim comments.
I do think the old saying "there are no atheists in foxholes" is very true.
Old sayings are sometimes true, I agree. But sometimes they forget to write 'sometimes' 😉
This atheist/foxholes belief contributes greatly to my long-held opinion that religion is wrapped up with the fear of death. It 'answers' that fear by providing a get-out clause. What better way to deal with life's sufferings and death's inevitability than a belief that you'll be saved and delivered not only from oblivion but from pain? Not only that - but restored with your lost loved ones. The imminent certainty of losing everything is surely terrifying to most.
The ethologist and animal/human behaviourist Desmond Morris described himself as a 'non-theist'. On religion:
DM: The major selling point with religion is that you are promised a lovely time in the next life. I am now an old man rapidly approaching my death and I admit that I would feel happier about that event if I could believe in an afterlife. It is such a comforting thought. I happen to think that death is simply a dreamless sleep, but if I find myself lying on a cloud surrounded by harp-playing virgins, whoopee!
Like MR, I think "there are no atheists in foxholes" says something different to the meaning some seem to give it.
When people are absolutely desperate and scared they will reach for any comfort. Give a cynic a "magic rabbit's foot", tell them it will keep them safe if they rub it, then stick them in a foxhole with their friends dying horribly all around them.
They'll rub that magic rabbit foot, even if they know it is nonsense.
Likewise the most common dying word is "mother" (or "mummy" or "mum" etc).
Grasping in the never-ending darkness for one last maternal hug.
I still won't be going, I have been to some very fancy places of worship, I don't think the local ones will have much impact compared to the scale I have seen in other places.
I just can't get past religion being nothing more than ritual and programming, it's main use has been to combat the fear of the unknown.
If I ever, unfortunately, end up in a foxhole, (Who knows where the world is going?) I will be able to die knowing I have tried to live by the standard that I would like to be treated by. I will not be praying to any deity.
There is nothing after this miracle of life, apart from being recycled. Hopefully someone will dig a hole, chuck me in it and plant a tree on top. Done and dusted.
There is no difference to one person believing in God and a billion.
Of course there is.
God is a thing, to use the modern vernacular. Does Harry Potter exist?
Depends what you mean by 'a thing' doesn't it?
I still won't be going............I just can't get past religion being nothing more than ritual and programming
I think you have missed the point of Visit My Mosque Day. It's not about you personally accepting religion for yourself, and Islam in particular. They won't be in the least bit interested in "converting" you.
As the Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain said, [i]"This Sunday 5 February, the British public, Muslim and non-Muslim have an opportunity to come together and renew bonds of friendship."[/i]
It's about the diversity ofsociety not becoming barriers. It's about building bridges, not walls. It's about Muslims, Atheists, Christians, etc, coming together.
Fine if you're not interested, but they are offering you friendship - not their religion.
Everyone has a fundamental right to be different.
Fair comment Ernie, but can you not see, that seeking friendship with people who you feel have been programmed is in itself quite strange behavior?
And I respect every persons right to be able to choose how they live.
seeking friendship with people who you feel have been programmed is quite strange behavior?
How did you reach that conclusion? By talking to them? Or by making assumptions about them?
We are all part of our respective cultures.
If I turn up to a mosque on Sunday and start a debate about their religion, that might be seen as a bit disrespectful, don't you think so?
-You're a crap scientist then
My CV says otherwise, but anyway
number of people that believe something doesn't equal a concept. There is no difference to one person believing in God and a billion.
so please define a concept for me?
You're right in that whether one person believes it or a billion, a concept is a concept. You're also right that just because a billion people believe it, doesn't make the concept true or false on the basis of numbers. I never said it was either, I said I don't know but in the absence of conclusive proof either way I'd retain an open mind. I also said that as physical being who lives in the clouds then i don't think that version does. If being open minded to other people's view of abstract ideas makes you think I'm a crap scientist, I'll live with that.
Incidentally,
Does the Quran have anything to say about the Earth &c? What's their take on it?
If I turn up to a mosque on Sunday and start a debate about their religion, that might be seen as a bit disrespectful, don't you think so?
Um... don't do that, then?
You're also right that just because a billion people believe it, doesn't make the concept true or false on the basis of numbers.
Plenty of people like Justin Beiber. And for that matter, plenty of people voted Leave last year. Numbers is a poor metric here, I fear.
doesn't make the concept true or false
Not sure a concept can be true or false. An assertion can be true or false.