It's not MY concept! I'm just reporting what I've read/seen/heard.

I've never come across such a description before

This idea seems like a cop-out to me. Or proof that God is a woman…

I was just stating the obvious. Faith is belief without proof.

Hubble Deep Field Experiment – answers it all really, end of global debate on what's a pre-scientific story book.

What I do find intriguing is that molgrips appears to be christian and hates people suggesting that religious folk are a bit simple.

But at the same time he's on the "bump in the night" thread slagging folk off for believing in ghosts.

How do you seperate the two, molgrips?

If you're christian then presumably you find the idea of souls fairly sensible, and you may (depending on your particular sub-brand) worship a big ghost, his zombie son, and believe in demons, possession etc

Hubble Deep Field Experiment – answers it all
really, end of global debate on what's a pre-
scientific story book.

Hmmm I don't think many modern christians believe that you'd see God if you had a big enough lens.

Hubble Deep Field Experiment

I've never seen it, for all I know someone made it up…

What I do find intriguing is that molgrips appears to be christian and hates people suggesting that religious folk are a bit simple.

But at the same time he's on the "bump in the night" thread slagging folk off for believing in ghosts.

Ooh, lovely 🙂

I'm an atheist, but I argue here for several reasons.

1) I absolutely hate the ignorant 'look at the thickies' attitude that gets rolled out whenever the subject gets raised. Just cos you don't understand why someone else believes something, doesn't mean they are stupid. Absolutley disgraceful, repugnant and morally and intellectually feeble to a shameful degree.

2) A lot of folk on here get the concept of faith mixed up with doctrine, and that annoys me cos it's just ignorance.

3) The existence of God can be neither proven or disproven, so it makes an interesting academic debate.

4) I like yanking people's chains when they think they are being so bloody clever but really are being closed minded and stupid.

Plus, ghosts have nothing to do with religion.

Well, got to applaud Molgrips for that one.

Plus, ghosts have nothing to do with religion.

I suspect the Anglicans would have a point of view about that…

The existence of God can be neither proven or disproven

only partially true. A god could do it but it/they (if any) seem to choose not to and I can think of good reasons

Maybe theres nothing wrong with Religion; mans perception of Religion and how we interpret is perhaps messed up.

Or, they might have given us all sorts of proof but some of us decide not to see it. As many would maintain. Look at the trees, the mountains.. such beauty can only be proof…?

Oh I should've added:

5) I like thinking about things from other people's points of view.

Maybe theres nothing wrong with Religion; mans perception of Religion and how we interpret is perhaps messed up

+1

mans perception of Religion and how we interpret is perhaps messed up.

so it could exist without us ?

Just cos you don't
understand why someone else believes
something, doesn't mean they are stupid.
Absolutley disgraceful, repugnant and morally and intellectually feeble to a shameful degree.

And yet on the ghost thread…

The souls of the dead walking the world? Or a
dodgy switch? You decide!

…{dodgy switch} seems VASTLY more plausible (and physically possible) than the echoes of dead people turning on your cooker hood (ffs!)

Or, they might have given us all sorts of proof but some of us decide not to see it. As many would maintain. Look at the trees, the mountains

I believe trees prove the existence of trees

Maybe "religion" just "is". How do you explain the unexplainable?

Mind you, I am extremely partial to little country churches and certain hymns.

Maybe "religion" just "is". How do you explain the unexplainable?

so as well as god(s) we have to believe in religion too ? Or can religion be instead ? Or is religion a god ?

Or, they might have given us all sorts of proof but some of us decide not to see it. As many would maintain. Look at the trees, the mountains.. such beauty can only be proof…?

Yeah, I like that.

also, although trees and mountains might be evidence for some creationist agency, they lack substance as a guide to action or morality

so as well as god(s) we have to believe in religion too ? Or can religion be instead ? Or is religion a god ?

whoops! I meant maybe god just "is".
Is there more than one god?
Mans interpretation of Religion (which we read about in the historical books ie the bible, koran etc.) would have us believe there are many different gods. Maybe one god with many different facets?

trees and mountains

And I have felt
A presence that disturbs me with the joy
Of elevated thoughts; a sense sublime
Of something far more deeply interfused,
Whose dwelling is the light of setting suns,
And the round ocean and the living air,
And the blue sky, and in the mind of man;
A motion and a spirit, that impels
All thinking things, all objects of all thought,
And rolls through all things. Therefore am I still
A lover of the meadows and the woods,
And mountains; and of all that we behold
From this green earth

I'm down with Wordsworth and his, uuhh, vague pantheism – so, what tyres for rolling "through all things"? I've been searching for years!

anyone on this thread looked into Joseph Cambell?

i used to be athiest, i still am, but i no longer get angry at the religous.

Just cos you don't understand why someone else believes something, doesn't mean they are stupid.

I take your point, but I'd perhaps disagree with the assumption that we "don't understand" why someone believes. Be it family / peer pressure, upbringing, feebleness, culture, desperation, fear… it's often readily apparent why someone believes.

Maybe "religion" just "is". How do you explain the unexplainable?

The thing with the unexplainable is, just because something is unexplainable doesn't mean we get to make things up.

A god could do it but it/they (if any) seem to choose not to and I can think of good reasons

I can't…

Given than not believing in god condemns me to hell (or equivalent) in many religions, why would a supposedly benevolent god wish hell on me? I mean it's almost like some religions are filled with hypocrisy and contradictions…or something.

Maybe one god with many different facets?

one might get lonely 🙁 It seems to me if there were any it's arbitrary to restrict the number to one, and even if you only believe in one, that might have no impact on the real figure.

(sorry btw, I've been lurking on this thread for a bit but reading with interest; Molgrips, you're a magnificent Devil's Advocate…!)

When you understand the existence of trees and mountains in a way that boils down to the action of forces that you see with your own eyes everyday, the picture is made far more beautiful.
The idea of some God making the gullies isn't much good to me. The beauty lies in all the intricate processes that came together over 13.75 ±0.17 billion years.

the picture is made far more beautiful.

Exactly. "To see a world in a grain of sand…" is a pretty good motto for Geology.

Sammy – To paraphrase Douglas Adams, "isn't it enough to say that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are faries at the bottom of it?"

I can think of good reasons

I can't…

god(s) might conclude that if their existence were established fact, there would be no room for faith and people would not exercise free will in their behaviour

Given than not believing in god condemns me to hell (or equivalent) in many religions, why would a supposedly benevolent god wish hell on me? I mean it's almost like some religions are filled with hypocrisy and contradictions…or something.

except that god(s) might not be constrained by religious dogma and instead act to a higher morality. Though of course a corollory of that is that god(s) might actually be evil 🙁

John lydon made a good tune many years ago, Religion, to be found on Public Image first LP.
At this point i want to put something cryptic about riding my soul, but i can't think of anything relatively apt. I will just try and flow with my soul? (On the next singletrack i ride).

simonfbarnes

Then why did god write the bible/koran/etc (it's all the actual word of god, you know). In those books 'he' claims to be good. Many people would say that god wrote the religious dogma and so is constrained by it.

If you follow your free will argument, then having faith at all (even in the absence of 'proof') removes free will, as your actions are controlled or influenced by the presence of a god, and the rules laid down by that god. So if free will is the ultimate aim then god would rather we didn't have faith. But then we all go to hell. Hmm.

If you follow your free will argument, then having faith at all (even in the absence of 'proof') removes free will

first of all you choose to believe, then you chose to act on those beliefs

In those books 'he' claims to be good

He's hardly going to write an autobiography going "I'm a right barsteward, I am" now is he?

first of all you choose to believe, then you chose to act on those beliefs

'proof' of the existence of god would still leave it up to you whether you did anything differently. By offering a reward (heaven) for good behaviour and a punishment (hell) for bad behaviour, I'd say that god is influencing a lot of people to act a certain way (and for the wrong reasons – i.e. rather than being good because it's nice, being good for a reward).

Not sure my argument really makes sense, but since when did that matter 😉

He's hardly going to write an autobiography going "I'm a right barsteward, I am" now is he?

So either god is a liar, or religious texts are not the word of god.

Both possible. Most christians (for example) wouldn't entertain either possibility.

Problem is god didn't write any books. We chose to interpret his actions and record them.
Free will is bound by karmic law…….?

By offering a reward (heaven) for good behaviour and a punishment (hell) for bad behaviour, I'd say that god is influencing a lot of people to act a certain way

except we have no proof of god(s)'s approval of religion.

He's hardly going to write an autobiography going "I'm a right barsteward, I am" now is he?

most autobiographies are about the author, not Abraham and Noah etc…

He's hardly going to write an autobiography going "I'm a right barsteward, I am" now is he?

Maybe he had a (Holy) Ghost Writer?

Problem is god didn't write any books. We chose to interpret his actions and record them

Mohammed apparently took direct dictation when he wrote the Qur’an. Also:

"…regard both the New and Old Testament as the undiluted Word of God, spoken by God and written down in its perfect form by humans. Still others hold the Biblical infallibility perspective, that the Bible is free from error…"

From here. Obviously I'm generalising, lots more people have a more sensible view on religious texts. My point is some [religious] people have an uncanny ability to ignore obvious inconsistencies and avoid logical arguments.