Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Religion, better off without it?
Comments
-
-
-
Just Google Decline Religion, Christianity, I got over 4800 hits. Now I know that they aren't necessarily all good sources, and some are possibly malicious but I'm sure that even you will get the idea from the vast majority of normally reliable sources, Reuters etc.
I got 3,460,000 hits when I searched for Mary Poppins
.
We should like make this a new game, see who can get the most Google hits for random things.
However, in all seriousness, why is that people in this thread seem to think Google hits actually mean anything? The Internet is filled will all kinds of random crap. I wouldn't put much trust in the amount of hits you get in Google for a given term, because I am pretty sure the search "Britney Spears" (which gets 85,700,000 hits
) or whoever is popular these days, will beat most of them :P. 0 -
-
Jimmy Bottlehead wrote: »I honestly question the thought process of someone who can believe in something that they have never ever ever seen one SHRED of evidence of. To believe that there is a super being 'up there' above the clouds that watches over each one of us.
It depends on what you consider to be evidence. There is no absolute proof, but one can indicate for God's existence which has been done by philosophers generally, and more specifically Christian apologists. Likewise philosophers and more specifically apologists for atheism such as Richard Dawkins, have indicated why they think God does not exist. That's the best we can do if the parties involved have not had a spiritual experience themselves
Jimmy Bottlehead wrote: »Of course, he doesn't watch over animals, only humans, as we see ourselves as somehow superior to them. He listens to us whispering things to him, and likes it when we rhyme off old recitations, with most of the people who say it not knowing what it means.
Who has said that He doesn't watch over animals? God created the earth and it is under His dominion.
As for prayer. The purpose of prayer isn't to whisper things to God, it's to take time out and to receive His peace as is said of the practice in Philippians chapter 4 of the New Testament. God already knows what we are going to pray for before we pray Matthew chapter 6 explains this. That's the theology behind it anywayJimmy Bottlehead wrote: »It really is people avoiding reality. We don't like to admit that when we die, we simply cease to exist. Its a harsh and unpleasant though. As is full responsibility for our actions and reactions.
Funny, the texts of Christianity and Judaism, and of course the adherents themselves would say that you are trying to avoid the reality of God's power and judgement, and that by making humanity gods you are avoiding reality!
If any ideology encourages responsibility for your actions, it urges you to repent and put them right, to not be angry at your neighbour, and if you are, even if you are going to the Temple, or the modern day equivalent your church, put yourself right with them before doing so. Interesting idea?Jimmy Bottlehead wrote: »Simply put there is not some magic old gent in the sky with a beard and a toga (Heaven clearly doesn't sell razors or suits). When you die, you die. You stop. You cease. You are gone. And wishing and praying will not change events, so cop on and stop fighting the inevitable and the obvious.
Woah. Stop a minute please. You're just demonstrating how little you actually know. God is not depicted as an old man in the sky in Christianity, and there are no beards or togas involved. These are artistic depictions of how Christians have related to God. You're probably thinking of Michaelangelos famous depiction of God on the Nicene Chapel?
The Biblical text on the other hand puts forward God as non-corporal (without a body). Please, please, please, research first before misrepresenting people. 0 -
-
It depends on what you consider to be evidence. There is no absolute proof, but one can indicate for God's existence which has been done by philosophers generally, and more specifically Christian apologists. Likewise philosophers and more specifically apologists for atheism such as Richard Dawkins, have indicated why they think God does not exist. That's the best we can do if the parties involved have not had a spiritual experience themselves
What I consider evidence... well lets take the very definition, shall we?
something that furnishes proof. Now in over 2000 years, none of the major religions have been able to prove the existance of a God or Gods. If they had, they'd have made it very very clear to all. But sadly for them, you cannot prove what is not there.
Dawkins and other atheists use common sense and intelligence, but it is impossible to battle a persons blind (and IMO unwarrented) faith. It is literally like talking to a wall. Where religions lack answers and proof, they rely on fear (and no, you cannot argue this, Jakkass - all religion is based on the fear that if you do not follow OUR way of life/thinking, you will miss out on paradise) and a huge reliance on 'mystery', 'miracles', and 'faith, none of which stand up to scrutiny.Who has said that He doesn't watch over animals? God created the earth and it is under His dominion.
Then why do we eat and farm animals? Surely, God would not wish us to harm these creatures, yet millions are slaughtered every day. Also, you asked Who has said that He doesn't watch over animals?. The answer? A MAN has said that. A human being. A guy who ate, drank, sh!t, and in all likelyhood, fúcked, just like the rest of us. A man believed he was the channel of a divine message.
During that time, such things were commonplace. Superstition and mystery was everywhere. Gods were channeled, and this was believed. Today, if this happens? The person is (and should rightfully be) questioned as to whether they are mentally sound.As for prayer. The purpose of prayer isn't to whisper things to God, it's to take time out and to receive His peace as is said of the practice in Philippians chapter 4 of the New Testament. God already knows what we are going to pray for before we pray Matthew chapter 6 explains this. That's the theology behind it anyway
Again, you quote the ramblings of men from about two milennia ago. Need I point out again that it wasn't GOD who wrote this, but a man. A Homo Sapien, with all of our faults, flaws, and succeptiblity to mental illness and / or attention-seeking? How exactly could he know what God thought???Funny, the texts of Christianity and Judaism, and of course the adherents themselves would say that you are trying to avoid the reality of God's power and judgement, and that by making humanity gods you are avoiding reality!
Wrong. I never once made humanty a God or deity of any sort. I guess this is what people mean when they tell you that you don't read what is there, you read what you want to WANT to be there.
And of course these adherents would say this - their business (whether they are aware or not) is to sell religion. If they said "sure, people are powers onto themselves", their 'flock' would turn away from them. It makes perfect sense for them to try to convince people that following God is the only way.
And to say I'm avoiding reality? I am LIVING in reality. I live and interact with things I can see (leaving aside things on a microscopic scale, as even though I have not seen many of them, they have BEEN PROVEN). Religious people on the other hand, deal with an unreality. They look for things that are not there.
There are no gods, only beings - animal, plant, and so on.If any ideology encourages responsibility for your actions, it urges you to repent and put them right, to not be angry at your neighbour, and if you are, even if you are going to the Temple, or the modern day equivalent your church, put yourself right with them before doing so. Interesting idea?
No. It is a simple matter of right and wrong. I would prefer to do something wrong, and learn from it, than to do something right under the fear of repercussion from a God.
Moral choice and religion are seperate. Being religious does not mean you act like a good person (extreme example being church sex abuse) and being a good person does not mean you have to be religious. People do not need religion in order to make good choices in the interests of others.Woah. Stop a minute please. You're just demonstrating how little you actually know. God is not depicted as an old man in the sky in Christianity, and there are no beards or togas involved. These are artistic depictions of how Christians have related to God. You're probably thinking of Michaelangelos famous depiction of God on the Nicene Chapel?
Actually I'm not. I am giving the old, time-honoured, traditional image that is still fully in use in good ol' Catholic Ireland. You and I both know that Jesus Christ (if he existed - in all likelyhood, he did, but not as a God. He was a man, no more.) was coloured, did not have the long flowing hair, and so on. But for centuries people have been preached to using these misconceptions. People still do have them.The Biblical text on the other hand puts forward God as non-corporal (without a body). Please, please, please, research first before misrepresenting people.
Oh I have, my dear gentleman. As a lapsed Roman Catholic and now a proud atheist, I have looked into my previous religion a lot. Again, I would ask how God got across this message that he is non-corperal? Did Peter pop up for a wee look when he assumed responsibility of the Roman Catholic church? Did Satan let the secret slip? Or maybe someone overheard a few of the Saints having a gossip?
Your beliefs can be bestowed upon anybody. I can start talking to God tonight, and tell you tomorrow that he wants to retire so he can relax in his non-corperal house in the spiritual country... and he wants me to take over.
Similarly, you could just give up and accept the Flying Spaghetti Monster as your supreme ruler. There's just as much evidence for him as there is for any God.
Or you could take come responsibilty, look at the world around you, realise that you only have a limited time to enjoy this life, and you may as well do it without pandering to magical fairies who you think rule your life.0 -
Jimmy Bottlehead wrote: »What I consider evidence... well lets take the very definition, shall we?
I don't think that definition is adequate. Suggestive evidence is also considered to be evidence. For example if police find an item of someone elses clothing beside a corpse in a murder investigation. They would regard that as evidence, but not as proof.Jimmy Bottlehead wrote: »something that furnishes proof. Now in over 2000 years, none of the major religions have been able to prove the existance of a God or Gods. If they had, they'd have made it very very clear to all. But sadly for them, you cannot prove what is not there.
This is mere sophistry. You don't know that God is not there, therefore it might be useful to stop stating that you do. This is just as much a faith statement as believing that God does exist. The only objective stance that we can come to is:
"God may exist, or God may not exist".
You are able to indicate for God's non-existence however. "x indicates to me that God probably doesn't exist", or "x indicates to me that God probably exists". That's the best we can get. I'm appealing to you to be reasonable.Jimmy Bottlehead wrote: »Dawkins and other atheists use common sense and intelligence, but it is impossible to battle a persons blind (and IMO unwarrented) faith.
Is it blind? I think all people should question their beliefs and see the underlying reasons behind them.
I also don't think I should be answerable to you or anyone else if I am to continue being Christian. I could argue that your atheism is unwarranted because you have seen the wonders of the Lord's creation, and that you are without excuse (Romans 1:20)
Now my question to you. Do we really want to sling meaningless snide remarks at eachother, or do we want to actually share our opinions in a respectful manner?Jimmy Bottlehead wrote: »It is literally like talking to a wall.
Indeed, it can be if you are not willing to respect your opposition as a human being. Both sides are guilty. Look, just knock down the tone and the rhethoric, and let's have a normal human conversation with eachother. I'm not going to mount myself upon a high horse, I'm just as bad as you or anyone else before God.Jimmy Bottlehead wrote: »Where religions lack answers and proof, they rely on fear (and no, you cannot argue this, Jakkass - all religion is based on the fear that if you do not follow OUR way of life/thinking, you will miss out on paradise) and a huge reliance on 'mystery', 'miracles', and 'faith, none of which stand up to scrutiny.
Let's deal with this:
Religions lack answers? - Let me ask you a question Jimmy. Do you think that religions really lack answers, or is it that you don't like the answers that religions give you? Sometimes the truth isn't exactly what we expect.
Rely on fear? - In my faith I love God for who He is. There is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus according to the Bible, hence I have nothing to fear. I don't see the Bible as a rule book entirely, sure it promotes a certain way of life. However, I like the Bible for this reason, you get to see how God worked through the lives of mere fallible men so that they could live fulfilling lives. That's what I want God to do for me, to be a better person to all I engage with in my daily life, and to help people see what God has done through me. Is that really all that bad?Jimmy Bottlehead wrote: »Then why do we eat and farm animals? Surely, God would not wish us to harm these creatures, yet millions are slaughtered every day. Also, you asked Who has said that He doesn't watch over animals?
God has given us dominion over the animals and has permitted us to eat them, but also to manage His creation effectively in Christian belief. God also proscribed the Jews with a way to kill animals with the least pain as possible for consumption. This is known as kosher slaughter, Muslims refer to it as halal slaughter. In the Western world other forms of killing are used for animals. It's a good point though. According to us anyway, there isn't anything unethical with eating animals, however, there is something unethical about mismanaging the world that God gave us, and that would include killing too many animals. Interesting question, and not really something I think about too oftenJimmy Bottlehead wrote: »The answer? A MAN has said that. A human being. A guy who ate, drank, sh!t, and in all likelyhood, fúcked, just like the rest of us. A man believed he was the channel of a divine message.
Calm down. Christians don't dispute that the Bible came through prophets. Christians do however claim that all Scripture is inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16). So no we aren't saying that God Himself with His very hand wrote the Bible. Although it is generally believed that God dictated the Torah to Moses, and that Jesus as a part of the Holy Trinity spoke the direct word of God, infact that He was even the word of God Himself (John chapter 1). So yes, I would agree with you that prophets, men sanctified by God received a divine message, but that it was inspired by GodJimmy Bottlehead wrote: »During that time, such things were commonplace. Superstition and mystery was everywhere. Gods were channeled, and this was believed. Today, if this happens? The person is (and should rightfully be) questioned as to whether they are mentally sound.
There is still mystery in the world. I don't see a real relationship with God as a sign of mental insanity. Infact one could argue that belief in God is a rather normal part of behaviour. Scientific research on the brain suggests that people may have a biological propensity to belief. That would indicate that it is rather normal, as opposed to strange or in anyway indicatory of insanity.Jimmy Bottlehead wrote: »Again, you quote the ramblings of men from about two milennia ago. Need I point out again that it wasn't GOD who wrote this, but a man. A Homo Sapien, with all of our faults, flaws, and succeptiblity to mental illness and / or attention-seeking? How exactly could he know what God thought???
You can point out all you want that it wasn't God who wrote this. I can agree with a caveat, God didn't write the Bible, but the Bible was divinely inspired, often directly quoting God in speech. Now that we have this sorted out (see above for mental insanity), let's move on to the rest of your post. How could they have known what God thought, well... there is always that notion that you won't consider. God could have revealed it to them :eek:.Jimmy Bottlehead wrote: »Wrong. I never once made humanty a God or deity of any sort. I guess this is what people mean when they tell you that you don't read what is there, you read what you want to WANT to be there.
I never said that you said it. It's a common trend within society though. If you are to say that humanity is the very best that one can get, you are effectively saying that there is nothing better than humanity. It mightn't be deifying humanity exactly but it certainly is rather close.Jimmy Bottlehead wrote: »And of course these adherents would say this - their business (whether they are aware or not) is to sell religion. If they said "sure, people are powers onto themselves", their 'flock' would turn away from them. It makes perfect sense for them to try to convince people that following God is the only way.
Thanks for this especially. You say that adherents have a business of selling religion. One could retort and say that you have a business of peddling atheism? Would I be wrong to say this given the reasoning you have just applied to adherents?
You wanted to know what I meant by people turning mankind into gods. Your quotation "sure, people are powers onto themselves", is exactly that. It's almost deifying humanity. It's what I was referring to when I was thinking of what to reply to your post.
As for God being the only way, I think if God exists, it's rather reasonable to suggest that God is the only being with ultimate authority over our lives.Jimmy Bottlehead wrote: »And to say I'm avoiding reality? I am LIVING in reality. I live and interact with things I can see (leaving aside things on a microscopic scale, as even though I have not seen many of them, they have BEEN PROVEN). Religious people on the other hand, deal with an unreality. They look for things that are not there.
This is merely rhethoric. I think that you are avoiding reality yes, because I believe that God is reality, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Way the Truth and the Life. This is what Christians believe concerning those who reject it.
However, this isn't an effective form of discussion as it ends up in "I'm living in reality and you're not", and "NO, I'm living in reality and YOU'RE not". I personally think that is a dead end argument. Are you sure you don't want a discussion where either of us have to bang our heads against the wall, as the way you are commenting here it seems that you want just that
If you want me to believe that God isn't real, you might want to start giving me some good reasons instead of saying I don't live in reality.Jimmy Bottlehead wrote: »There are no gods, only beings - animal, plant, and so on.
Again, this is wonderful, but you might want to convince me of that instead of stating itJimmy Bottlehead wrote: »No. It is a simple matter of right and wrong. I would prefer to do something wrong, and learn from it, than to do something right under the fear of repercussion from a God.
I don't want to follow God because of fear. If I am to show you my reasoning it involves assuming that God exists. However this is the way I'd think it through:
1) God created the world, the universe and all things.
2) God is omniscient, and omnipotent.
3) If God is all knowing about the creation He has created, therefore He knows best about how to live in it.
4) Given this, I feel that God is more qualified to assess what is truly good, and what is truly bad to do in this world than I am.
As for doing wrong and learning from it. That's a lot of how we get over our sins. We transgress against God, we see that our deeds are wrong, and in the face of this, we repent and aim not to do the same again.
Are atheists and theists really all that different when we use a bit of common sense?Jimmy Bottlehead wrote: »Moral choice and religion are seperate. Being religious does not mean you act like a good person (extreme example being church sex abuse) and being a good person does not mean you have to be religious. People do not need religion in order to make good choices in the interests of others.
No, being religious does not mean that you act like a good person. You could be justified on the outside and unclean on the inside. However, I don't believe there is a single person good by their own merit. Christians believe all have sinned and all have done as bad as eachother (Romans 3:23). Hence why I can type away here, and be totally honest with you and say, I'm no better than anyone else. The only way we can be truly justified according to Christianity is through faith in Jesus Christ and accepting His saving death for our lives.
I think with my faith, I am a better person than without. However that doesn't necessarily mean that Christians are always any better than anyone else. It just means that we have the inspiration of the Gospel, and if we do fail we should be trying harderJimmy Bottlehead wrote: »Actually I'm not. I am giving the old, time-honoured, traditional image that is still fully in use in good ol' Catholic Ireland. You and I both know that Jesus Christ (if he existed - in all likelyhood, he did, but not as a God. He was a man, no more.) was coloured, did not have the long flowing hair, and so on. But for centuries people have been preached to using these misconceptions. People still do have them.
Hm, I'm not a Roman Catholic, but you're going to have to help me out here. I got two questions for you.
1) What document of Catholic dogma says that God the Father has a body?
2) If you are basing this on word of mouth, is it possible that the word of mouth you heard it from mightn't be as reliable as actually dealing with the source text, or the Bible.
Anyhow, I believe that Jesus Christ was both human and divine. So, the Son was flesh for 30 years of His life so as to witness to mankind on earth. (Philippians 2, John 1). It's common Christian belief that Jesus Christ was a part of the Holy Trinity who became flesh.Jimmy Bottlehead wrote: »Oh I have, my dear gentleman. As a lapsed Roman Catholic and now a proud atheist, I have looked into my previous religion a lot. Again, I would ask how God got across this message that he is non-corperal? Did Peter pop up for a wee look when he assumed responsibility of the Roman Catholic church? Did Satan let the secret slip? Or maybe someone overheard a few of the Saints having a gossip?
I'm not trying to be rude here, but if you have extensively looked into it, you're not showing much evidence of it if you think that Christians believe that God was bodily. There is quite a weight of Scripture against that notion. I would say that God has got across the message that He is non-corporeal throug the Bible.
As for Peter assuming responsibility of the Catholic Church, there isn't actually any certainty that Peter was ever Bishop of Rome. In the Acts of the Apostles Peter was a minister to the circumcised, or to the Jewish Christians. Paul was the minister to the non-Jews, commonly referred to as Gentiles. Paul was the only one out of the 2 who arrived in Rome according to the Bible.Jimmy Bottlehead wrote: »Your beliefs can be bestowed upon anybody. I can start talking to God tonight, and tell you tomorrow that he wants to retire so he can relax in his non-corperal house in the spiritual country... and he wants me to take over.
What are you talking about? You can start talking about God tonight, but I can assess you by certain means to tell if you are a false prophet or if you indeed are a wolf in sheeps clothingJimmy Bottlehead wrote: »Similarly, you could just give up and accept the Flying Spaghetti Monster as your supreme ruler. There's just as much evidence for him as there is for any God.
I wouldn't be giving up or accepting the FSM because the case is weaker than in the case of God as depicted in Christianity. That's at least what I can assess of this. This is the most common atheist argument used on Boards, have a wee chat with Sam Vimes over there, he'll fill you inJimmy Bottlehead wrote: »Or you could take come responsibilty, look at the world around you, realise that you only have a limited time to enjoy this life, and you may as well do it without pandering to magical fairies who you think rule your life.
I've taken responsibility. I'm a sinner, I've screwed up, I'm going to put it right however. That's real responsibility
Oh the "enjoy your life" line. Ever thought that I am enjoying my life already by being a Christian? You can resort to all kinds of material things, but true satisfaction and happiness for me comes from God.
Just want to say, thanks for the response and for a bit of food to think about. If some of the answers have been lacking I probably need to give them a bit more thought.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Advertisement