Creationist religious nutjob on R4 "One to One 9.30am"

Atheism is specifically not about belief or faith, it is specifically about evidence based facts.

I’d have to disagree with that point. Just because someone is athiest it doesn’t stop them believing in nonsense like homeopathey, accupuncutre, or eyewatering expensive hifi cables making a system sound better. Evidence based facts is better described as rationalism and the two things are not the same.

Atheism is specifically not about belief or faith, it is specifically about evidence based facts.

I’m not sure those two bits necessarily go together

Unfortunately, Atheist is a term given to religious non-believers by religious groups, that fail to acknowledge the link between religious non-belief and sceptical enquiry, the latter being the cause of the former, not the other way around.

Atheism is to take the position of not believing in a god.

That’s it…

seems to me they might be thinking about their religion, not just blindly accepting, that’s a good thing right?

double edged sword innit. Is the bible the word of god? If it is and it’s all 100% accurate then you may end up a slightly loopy fundamentalist. If you consider it allegorical and you interpret what god really meant to say then you might end up with views more acceptable to modern society but you’ve just diluted/cheapened your faith/religion.

@Woppit

I’m with Sam Harris on this.

Atheism is a “non” word. We dont have words for not being racist or for not believing in astrology. By using the term we legitimise religion to some extent and give it special status.
We have seen examples of this above when believers focus on the word itself.

Is the bible the word of god?

No, I think most mainstream Christian religions would say No. I think in Islam, the Koran is the word of God, but I don’t think there is such a claim in Christianity. I’m not sure though

not believing in astrology

surely that would be Strology

No, I think most mainstream Christian religions would say No.

dunno but I seem to recall quite a few bible readings ending with “this is the word of the lord” (thanks be to god) mantras from my church days

edit might have only been gospel readings, not sure

No, I think most mainstream Christian religions would say No. I

They’d say ‘yes’. If they don’t then they’re not Christian.

Then you would probably know better than I, but I’ve not heard others claiming the bible was God’s words

surfer – Member

@Woppit

I’m with Sam Harris on this.

Atheism is a “non” word. We dont have words for not being racist or for not believing in astrology.

That other, sadly-missed non-horseman of the non-apocalypse The Hitch, preferred “Anti-Theist”.

He always was a combative tyke, though. 🙂

Is the bible the word of god?

I think most mainstream Christian religions would say No

😆

I love these STW threads where people argue stuff without having a basic understanding of the subject.

I love these STW threads where people argue stuff without having a basic understanding of the subject.

I hate these STW threads where people try to find and argument when there isn’t one. I’m not arguing. But nice try.

Is the bible the word of god?

The correct answer of course, is “no”.

Wiki suggests

Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Providentissimus Deus . . . reaffirmed the decisions of the Council of Trent and emphasized that the Bible in all its parts was inspired and that a stated fact must be accepted as falling under inspiration, down to the most insignificant item; that is, the whole Bible is the Word of God

no idea what you’d get if you asked for a show of hands down at your local house of worship with

direct word of god vs inspired by god but open to interpretation

But “word of god” does seem a popular line amongst various christians

As with all groups, there’s a range of opinion on the bible. Some Christians believe it is the literal word of God and is all true. Others believe parts are allegorical or poetic, while other parts are literal truth. Some believe that the historical context in which the bible was written must be taken into account.

This leads to lots of problems. Recently, Steve Chalke wrote about how he interprets the bible to say mean that same sex marriages are fine with God – he’s an evangelical Anglican and so wouldn’t be expected to be ok with teh gayz. It’s fair to say that some other Christians don’t agree with him[/url].

That is a selective quotation D0nk, it certainly seems more complex than that. I think Leo XII was before second vatican council which chznged a lot of things, dunno about view on Word of God though

A Theory is just someone’s idea ((belief based on calculation or supposition)…

That’s wholly incorrect in scientific terms. A theory is way way way more than ‘just someone’s idea’. I suggest you look it up (in something like Chamber’s dictionary, not bloody wiki(i can’t spell)pedia!)

That is a selective quotation D0nk

yep, was just outlining it’s a popular view I never said it was the current official line or majority view

it certainly seems more complex than that

how true

An example:

Matthew 19:4-6 is used as a way of saying God disapproves of homosexuality, and as a model of marriage being one man and one woman. Jesus is reported as saying:

at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh.

To me, that’s pretty clear and anyone saying they’re a Christian would have to agree that gay marriage is against God’s law. So, the church is absolutely correct to be against equal marriage.

But, Jesus was actually talking about remarriage after divorce. Matthew 19:3-9:

Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

“Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

To me, that’s pretty clear and anyone saying they’re a Christian would have to agree that remarriage after divorce is against God’s law. So, the church would be absolutely correct to be against remarriage after divorce. The Anglican church is not against remarriage after divorce.

Surely, something in a gospel which is directly attributed to Christ himself can’t be open to interpretation? Of course, he is referring to Genesis verse 2, which is now considered by most mainstream Christians to be allegorical…

To me, the fact that mainstream Christians are able to accept this contradictory approach says something about the nature of belief and believers.

direct word of god vs inspired by god but open to interpretation

But “word of god” does seem a popular line amongst various christians

Yes, if we’re being pedantic (and I know STW has a great affection for being pedantic), then the Bible is more the inspired word of God rather than actually literally having been written by God

But this is an irrelevant point seeing as everybody on here has already decided that God doesn’t exist anyway 😀

Yes, if we’re being pedantic (and I know STW has a great affection for being pedantic), then the Bible is more the inspired word of God rather than actually literally having been written by God

But this is an irrelevant point seeing as everybody on here has already decided that God doesn’t exist anyway

It’s entirely relevant, as interpretation of the bible has an effect on which laws are or are not passed in this (and other) countries.

the fact that mainstream Christians are able to accept this contradictory approach says something about the nature of belief and believers

It says more about how people have (wrongly?) interpreted the word of God to come to different (the wrong?) conclusions in some instances.

Like CofE with their practice of baptising babies – it’s not biblical, but it’s a key CofE practice. A lot of ‘mainstream Christians’ go along with this despite it being incorrect biblical teaching.

(Biblical baptism is about an individual choosing to be baptised, babies are obviously unable to make that choice).

It says more about how people have (wrongly?) interpreted the word of God to come to different (the wrong?) conclusions in some instances.

excellent! SO who decides which are the right interpretations and does he have his own line in amusing hats and dresses?

Biblical baptism is about an individual choosing to be baptised, babies are obviously unable to make that choice

wasn’t that to combat the lovely notion of orignal sin where if your little ‘un dies before they are old enough to decide it’s off to the firey pit for them? (I’m pretty hazy on OS, wasn’t on the curriculum)

But this is an irrelevant point seeing as everybody on here has already decided that God doesn’t exist anyway

LOL, I think those people that have ‘already decided that God doesn’t exist anyway’ have actually discounted any and all gods, so that’s 3,700 according to this site http://www.godchecker.com/.

It says more about how people have (wrongly?) interpreted the word of God to come to different (the wrong?) conclusions in some instances.

So, you think remarriage after divorce is adultery?

wasn’t that to combat the lovely notion of orignal sin where if your little ‘un dies before they are old enough to decide it’s off to the firey pit for them?

In Catholic dogma, unbaptised babies go to purgatory. or they did until the Pope said it didn’t actually exist after all.

Original sin is an interesting one. As I understand it, it related to Adam and Eve but they’re now considered allegorical. So, does original Sin no longer exist?

babies are obviously unable to make that choice

Fortunately, if you find in later life that you’ve been forced into something before you were old enough to make up your own mind as to whether you wanted it or not, there’s:

http://www.skepdic.com/debaptism.html

You don’t have to believe that the bible is the word of God to be a Christian, do you?

no don’t think so, tangential issue that came about from ruminating does changing your religion as time goes by improve or devalue it?

The Anglican church is not against remarriage after divorce.

This is an oversimplification, remarriage is allowed in exceptional circumstances – it is up to the parish priest to determine whether to allow remarriage so I imagine there is quite a wide range of views on who should be allowed to remarry.

wasn’t that to combat the lovely notion of orignal sin where if your little ‘un dies before they are old enough to decide it’s off to the firey pit for them?

I think the Christian belief around heaven/hell is that babies are not aware of or able to make the choice of accepting/rejecting the gospel of Jesus Christ (& therefore God), therefore by default they will be off to heaven.

The ‘fiery pit’ is reserved for those who consciously make a choice not to accept it.

Purgatory does not exist, it’s another misinterpretation/fallacy of some ‘Christian’ teaching.

You don’t have to believe that the bible is the word of God to be a Christian, do you?

I believe the Bible (as the Spirit-inspired Word of God) is pretty fundamental to real Christians, those do say not I would suggest have missed something pretty important somewhere.

It depends a bit on whether you are cathlolic or protestant. The whole point of the reformation was that you should be able to decide what God and religion means to you, not have someone else (ie the Pope) decide and enforce it on you.

This thread has become a debate about reformation ideas.

Is the bible the word of god?

Good one, this. If the Bible is the word of god, then we’re all disobeying him with our modern-day views and values. If it’s not the word of god, then why are we still revering it as though it was? Why are we paying any attention to it at all?

It’s another great bit of circular logic too. Why do you believe the Bible? Because it’s the word of god. How do you know it’s the word of god? Because it says so in the Bible.

the Bible (as the Spirit-inspired Word of God)

Sorry, what does that mean?

If it’s not the word of god, then why are we still revering it as though it was?

Not all Christians are. Again thanks to Mr Luther it is now considered ok to figure this stuff out for yourself.

It’s just occurred to me that any discussion with a religious believer is perhaps THE prime example of the ‘Dunning-Kruger effect’. Dunnig and Kruger’s research concluded that ‘The skills needed to produce logically sound arguments, for instance, are the same skills that are necessary to recognize when a logically sound argument has been made. Thus, if people lack the skills to produce correct answers, they are also cursed with an inability to know when their answers, or anyone else’s, are right or wrong. They cannot recognize their responses as mistaken, or other people’s responses as superior to their own.’

the Bible (as the Spirit-inspired Word of God)

Sorry, what does that mean?

Something along the lines of God not literally writing the Bible himself, it was written by numerous people who got their inspiration through God’s Holy Spirit (you’ve heard of the holy trinity thingy I expect). The human spirit can and does ‘hear’ and respond to the holy spirit. Is what Christians believe.

In the same way as a non-believer reading the Bible might not understand what it all means, or can easily take things out of context or misinterpret things, the holy spirit reveals things in the Bible that are not bullet-pointed in black and white.

you should be able to decide what God and religion means to you

If God is who he says he his, you can’t just pick and choose and make him to be what suits you. This is just inventing your own religion.

Although I suppose if someone decides God is not who he says he is, then it’s their choice to make of it what they will.

I wouldn’t put it in terms of lacking skills, Tucker.

It’s more a case of circular logic. If I believe in God, then I see evidence for him everywhere, which reinforces my belief. If I do not, then the whole thing seems so improbable that I am unlikely to change my mind.

People do jump tracks, of course, but I think it’s a low percentage of the devout. People who don’t much care either way will drift into a somewhat central position due to not really thinking about it.

If God is who he says he his, you can’t just pick and choose and make him to be what suits you. This is just inventing your own religion.

What’s wrong with inventing your own religion? All varieties of Christianity were invented at some point.

They pretty much all believe in God and Jesus though, so it’s just a question of interpretation, which is my point. You can’t logically insist one doctrine is truth when there are so many others.

This thread has become a debate about reformation ideas.

I thought we’d established it’s bunkum (until proved otherwise), that they can make for good social clubs but a bad basis for influencing law makers so we moved on to other stuff.

If God is who he says he his, you can’t just pick and choose and make him to be what suits you. This is just inventing your own religion.

chances are whichever religion you follow has had some editing done in it’s time, of course if the head of your religion at the time was working on instructions from god whilst doing the editing, that may make it ok, of course it may not.

Logical. Would it be logical for me to go back to be an athesist, like I once was?

I could go back to “having it all”… good job, nice house, lovely wife, great kids, no wants … but still with that sense of imcompeteness… restlessness….like I’m missing out on something…. like…

There’s more to life.

There is

I’ve got involved and am loving it.

But then again… not sure love is logical either, aye ?

Given that the god you now believe in was presumably always in your life before you believed it to be in your life, how do you account for your feeling of relentlessness and missing out beforehand? – because that god would still have been there?