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
Question for Athiests and church bashers
Options
Comments
-
Join Date:Posts: 30476
philologos wrote: »I think it goes beyond empathy in many respects. Christianity doesn't just say if you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. Christianity encourages people to love and respect those who hate them. That's hard. It also encourages people to do good not only to those who do good to them, but also who do profound evil. It encourages people to forgive those who do what is evil to them, irrespective as to what that evil happens to be. It demands humility rather than boasting.
I can't honestly say that I've seen the Christian message entirely paralleled in a secular context.
I also can honestly say that many Christians (myself included) have failed to live by this example that they are given Biblically. It is something definitely to strive for.
That's because for the most part being nice to people who are not nice to you goes against human nature imho.0 -
True, however you can't argue that that opinion is in anyway exclusive to Christianity. There are countless religions that promote self-sacrifice, hell there is even evolutionary theories to explain why we accept self-sacrifice as a good thing.
I don't know any faith that promotes self-sacrifice to the same level as Christianity does. I'm happy to be shown that I am wrong though.Christianity does not promote good behaviour any more than any of the other major religions or humanist philosophies, nor does being a Christian make you a good person in and of itself.
I do believe that Christian ethics provides a much more robust ethical framework than any other I've come across. During the course of my time at university I studied a lot of ethical systems in depth such as utilitarianism, virtue ethics and so on, but I haven't found anything comparable to Christianity in terms of the example that Christ gives.
Of course, it doesn't guarantee that any given person who claims to be Christian will act in a moral manner, much as secular ethics doesn't ensure that any given atheist will act in a moral manner.What you view as a Christian message Muslims view as an Islamic message, Jews view as a Jewish message and biologists view as instinctive behaviour. Christianity does not hold a moral high ground.
I would argue that the Christian message is distinct to the Jewish message, or the Islamic message, although sharing some elements in common.0 -
philologos wrote: »It depends on your views of the purpose of justice. Is prison just for the sake of punishment, or is it also for the rehabilitation of criminals? I honestly believe that people, even if they have carried out the most grievous acts can turn their lives around they should be given a second chance.
Of course I'm sure my position would be put under considerable strain if I was put under a situation as you describe.
Forget all that. What matters is if you believe that telling children to love and respect an abuser is morally sound.
I say it's anything but. It's a disgusting notion.0 -
philologos wrote: »Who says that it means non-resistance to evil? Jesus encouraged to face justice if they are guilty of a crime, to put things right with others before going to perform religious rituals, and indeed if you are a guilty of a crime to pay your fine in full. Forgiveness doesn't have to do with forgoing justice, but rather in not dwelling on wrongdoing. I think that's a liberating idea, but a profoundly difficult one at the same time.
Turning the other cheek sounds like non-resistence to me. I dont want to bring up goodwins law, but its a good thing the British didnt follow that rule.That doesn't really sound arrogant to me if one considers that God created all things in creation.
Thats your belief. It has no basis in fact.I don't consider myself better or worse than any individual on the face of the earth. Ultimately I have very little to boast of, but I have a lot to give thanks for, particularly if we believe that the earth is His and everything in it.
Yet you believe that the creator of the universe has a specific plan for you. And your plan involves you living in a fairly wealthy country while children die of starvation every day. Thats anything but humility.Explain this more?
e.g Matthew 5:16 & 6:1-40 -
philologos wrote: »I don't know any faith that promotes self-sacrifice to the same level as Christianity does. I'm happy to be shown that I am wrong though.
Again, so what? This does not mean.... even if it were true.... that anything about Christianity is more true. Telling lies about the nature of the universe, and claiming the existence of deities despite those claims being entirely unsubstantiated.... is not a moral thing to do. Lies are lies.
Simply doing a few good things and harping on about them does not excuse the rest. We can just as easily promote self sacrifice, non violence and love without having to tack on a series of lies and harmful ideas at the same time.
This idea that doing wrong is ok if you do good at the same time is laughable. You may as well start defending hamas because at least they provide some social services, or louis farrakan because at least he helps get black men off drugs..... ignoring all the while that one is a militarised terrorist organisation and the other heads a racist cult.
No one, least of all you, has been able to explain to me why we can not just promote the "good" things you so desperately cling to and divest ourselves of the metaphysical and baseless nonsense you insist on wrapping it up in.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Chuck Stone wrote: »Forget all that. What matters is if you believe that telling children to love and respect an abuser is morally sound.
I say it's anything but. It's a disgusting notion.
Forget the actual point? - I don't consider it disgusting for people to be able to say to someone that may have screwed up to the tallest order that at the very least we believe they are human, and we believe that they can do significantly better.
As for prison, I believe that they should spend whatever time is given to them by the court, and pay the full price. This is largely what Jesus promoted in the New Testament.
pragmatic1: "Turn the other cheek" is in terms of personal ethics. In the Sermon of the Mount where that term features Jesus goes on to lay out he discusses the legal system. He encourages accountability and responsibility.Matthew 5:25-26 wrote:Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still together on the way, or your adversary may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. Truly I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.pragmatic1 wrote: »e.g Matthew 5:16 & 6:1-4
Matthew 5:16 is discussing the deeds of Christians.
Matthew 6:1-4 is discussing boasting about giving and praying.
Where's the contradiction?
Edit: Actually, it's striking. In the first case Jesus is talking about bringing glory to God in what we do in our actions. In the second case Jesus is talking about people who aim to bring glory only to themselves by their so called "piety". If you want to read a man who was as critical of the religious system of thinking that he lived with look no further than Jesus.0 -
Well here is a Muslim explaining that without any reservation or hesitation whatsoever that we can point to the religion of Islam for the most perfect, sincere and comprehensive expression of altruism.philologos wrote: »I don't know any faith that promotes self-sacrifice to the same level as Christianity does. I'm happy to be shown that I am wrong though.
How robust can an ethical framework be if it's core truths can't be proven?I do believe that Christian ethics provides a much more robust ethical framework than any other I've come across.
The example of Christ dying on the cross? But he didn't die on the cross, he's immortal, where's the sacrifice? And didn't he ultimately set that scenario up (being the all knowing and controlling god that he, or his father, is)?but I haven't found anything comparable to Christianity in terms of the example that Christ gives.0 -
philologos wrote: »I don't consider it disgusting for people to be able to say to someone that may have screwed up to the tallest order that at the very least we believe they are human, and we believe that they can do significantly better.
You're avoiding the question. I'm asking you if you think that what you say below...philologos wrote: »Christianity encourages people to love and respect those who hate them. It also encourages people to do good not only to those who do good to them, but also who do profound evil.
...should be applied in the example I have given.Chuck Stone wrote: »Do you believe that children should be encouraged to love and respect an abuser?0 -
He can argue his position and I'll argue for mine, and you'll argue for yours.How robust can a religious framework be if it's core truths can't be proven?
Proof lies in the realm of mathematics. There are many things that can't be proven, even things that many of us commonly take for certain, such as the material being all that there is, or our reliance on the senses. Both of these are taken to task by scores of philosophers.
I come to the conclusion that even if I can't absolutely prove the senses reliable, they are the best that I have.
I come to the conclusion that even if I can't absolutely prove that God exists, it is nonetheless sensible to believe that He does.The example of Christ dying on the cross? But he didn't die on the cross, he's immortal, where's the sacrifice? And didn't he ultimately set that scenario up (being the all knowing and controlling god that he, or his father, is)?
He did but He rose again. This builds a huge part of Christian thinking in relation to sin. Paul the Apostle picks it up both in Romans from chapters 1 through 6, 1 Corinthians 15, 2 Corinthians 5. As Jesus died, our old lives (under the slavery of sin) died with Him. As He rose again He gave us new life.
By taking on the penalty that we deserved, He paid the price for our sin so that we might ultimately be free from it.
How isn't that self-sacrifice?
Chuck Stone: I've told you my answer already, but you said to "forget it" despite it being the main point for it.0 -
Advertisement
-
philologos wrote: »There are many things that can't be proven
Of course, but you theists seem to think that means you have warrant to literally make up anything at all... and act like the fact that "there are things that can't be proven" somehow means the stuff you just entirely made up is therefore more credible.
You cling to this "there are things that can't be proven" claims with such gusto... that it is always comical to realise that it literally adds nothing to the fairy tales you are on here "witnessing" as true.
However once again I must point out that it is not just proof you do not have. You do not even have the first scrap of even an iota of evidence, argument, data OR reasons to lend your claims even a modicum of credence. Let alone "proof".0 -
philologos wrote: »He did but He rose again.....
How isn't that self-sacrifice?
You answer your own question here.
In your fairy tale the character died knowing he would go on to a life eternal. That is no sacrifice on ANY level. At best it is a joke. At worst... an insult to our intelligence.
Now had your fairy tale claimed that this Jesus hippy knew he was going to be killed and resurrected, but he chose to forgo the latter in sacrifice then THAT would have been a story worth telling. Had your fairy tales main character given up not just human life, but also eternal life, I would find the story somewhat worth telling.0 -
philologos wrote: »Chuck Stone: I've told you my answer already, but you said to "forget it" despite it being the main point for it.
When I said 'forget all that' what I was referring to was you referring to the justice system and criminals.
I would like you to tackle my question as I have laid it out in the post before this one (#220).
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73488378&postcount=2200 -
That's exactly the understanding that would be behind it. The idea that people can be rehabilitated, and that people can be transformed. If people can be completely changed, then yes I believe that murderers, rapists or whatever should have a second chance. That's a hugely controversial opinion, but I stand by it. I believe if someone in such a situation seriously and truly repents of their sin, they will be forgiven by God. It is often easier for the most grievous sinner to accept forgiveness than the person who sincerely believes they haven't sinned at all. It's hugely difficult, but I believe that ultimately we need to consider forgiving such people too.
The thing is I've answered your question very clearly already, but you said "Forget that". If you don't like my answer, you don't like my answer, it doesn't mean I haven't answered your question.0 -
Chuck Stone wrote: »I would like you to tackle my question as I have laid it out in the post before this one (#220).
Good luck with that. Avoiding questions is sort of a forte of his as you will see here and here and in this as yet unreplied to post here.
Even more comical is he will pretend to have you on ignore but despite that is somehow able to read AND reply to posts such as this mere minutes after it was made like this while knowing exactly who he is replying to and what the content of the post he was replying to is.
A good trick when someone is on ignore I am sure you will agree :-)
Do not expect either answers OR honesty from this user. Ever.0 -
But neither he nor you will concede because neither he nor you will admit you could be wrong. Ye both have faith.philologos wrote: »He can argue his position and I'll argue for mine, and you'll argue for yours.
Absolutely, but there in lies the problem. I'm colour blind, I'm unable to differentiate between some like colours and so I know when I see something as black it may very well be navy and as a result I do not have unshakable faith in my sense of sight. You, presumably, have an unshakable faith in God, correct?Proof lies in the realm of mathematics. There are many things that can't be proven, even things that many of us commonly take for certain, such as the material being all that there is, or our reliance on the senses. Both of these are taken to task by scores of philosophers.
I come to the conclusion that even if I can't absolutely prove the senses reliable, they are the best that I have.
I come to the conclusion that even if I can't absolutely prove that God exists, it is nonetheless sensible to believe that He does.
And for future reference when I say "prove" I mean the most logically probable position on which to conclude.He did but He rose again. This builds a huge part of Christian thinking in relation to sin. Paul the Apostle picks it up both in Romans from chapters 1 through 6, 1 Corinthians 15, 2 Corinthians 5. As Jesus died, our old lives (under the slavery of sin) died with Him. As He rose again He gave us new life.
By taking on the penalty that we deserved, He paid the price for our sin so that we might ultimately be free from it.
How isn't that self-sacrifice?
God created sin, God created penalty for sin, God allowed man to sin, God sent his immortal son to die for that sin thus taking on the penalty that he states that we deserve.
That's self-righteous, even sadistic, but it ain't sacrifice.0 -
-
My grandfather didn't think there was any use in learning different languages or advanced science. I don't judge him for these things.
In fact, I try my best, as an atheist, not to judge people because of their beliefs.
i wouldn't jusdge his intelligence - just not educated fully and years of religious indoctrination and brainwashing are bound to leave mark on someone.0 -
If you believe the church is corrupt + power hungry and that god isn't real.
What does that say about your judgment on the intelligence of your parents, grandparents and other relatives who more than likely devoted so much of their lives to these causes? As a huge part of our society wouldn't it imply you believed they were gullible and naive people to live the way they did? Perhaps weak-willed to stand out from the crowd and question accepted truths?
(p.s. I am an athiest and pondering this question myself. Not looking to start some sort of shame parade or anything)
Parents, and grandparents were all atheists.0 -
philologos wrote: »As far as I'm concerned you've revoked your right to call raah's post condescending if you yourself hold this equally condescending view about Christians. It was something I took incredibly seriously, and I came to the conclusion that it was significantly more reasonable to me than unbelief in any of its forms was.
It wasn't meant to be condescending.It's what I honestly think though, that to read the bible and find all it contains 'reasonable' is baffling to me unless you perform alot of mental gymnastics to justify such a stance. Jesus did say some good things, but the bible as a whole is a disconnected, illogical mish-mash of superstition and myth, and you'd have a hell of a job trying to demonstrate otherwise. (and that's just the New Testament, I won't even start on the OT).philologos wrote: »I think it goes beyond empathy in many respects. Christianity doesn't just say if you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. Christianity encourages people to love and respect those who hate them. That's hard.
It's hard yes and you know what? It's also stupid. Of all the good things Jesus tried to teach this was not one of them.
Giving love to those who hate you is counter-productive. If someone might do me evil then I'd be wise to stay the hell away from him if I want to stay alive and unharmed. Loving those who hate you is a complete waste and achieves nothing.0 -
Advertisement
-
philologos wrote: »Matthew 5:16 is discussing the deeds of Christians.
Matthew 6:1-4 is discussing boasting about giving and praying.
Where's the contradiction?
The first half is in relation to boasting. The second part clearly states :"But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your alms may be done in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you".If you want to read a man who was as critical of the religious system of thinking that he lived with look no further than Jesus.
Thats not what Jesus said in Matthew 5:170 -
But neither he nor you will concede because neither he nor you will admit you could be wrong. Ye both have faith.
Absolutely, but there in lies the problem. I'm colour blind, I'm unable to differentiate between some like colours and so I know when I see something as black it may very well be navy and as a result I do not have unshakable faith in my sense of sight. You, presumably, have an unshakable faith in God, correct?
I don't see there as being a good enough reason to concede. If there were it would no doubt be subject to my consideration. Likewise I'm sure that would be the case for you in terms of your unbelief. It would take a lot, because ultimately God is what makes sense of a lot of reality as far as I see it.And for future reference when I say "prove" I mean the most logically probable position on which to conclude.
I think the term "prove" is unhelpful and will leave many people to make assumptions. How probable something is, how reasonable something is, and how sensible something is seem to be the primarily criterion that I would use in determining what is more likely to be true than to be false. I'd hazard a guess that most people use the same criterion.God created sin, God created penalty for sin, God allowed man to sin, God sent his immortal son to die for that sin thus taking on the penalty that he states that we deserve.
God created sin? Hm. Interesting take. God gave us the liberty of will, we decided to use it in a way which glorified ourselves rather than God. This isn't deterministic by any means. God only allowed man to sin insofar as God gave man the liberty to decide how to live. It's kind of like how I wouldn't expect my parents to follow me everywhere to make sure I wasn't taking drugs. Ultimately God gives us the room to decide whether or not we desire to honour Him. The reason that Christ came into the world was to give the world a tangible example of His love and to show the world that there was a different way to live, and indeed give people a clear example of that behaviour.
I don't see how God created sin though ultimately.That's self-righteous, even sadistic, but it ain't sacrifice.
I don't see how it is sadistic, or how it isn't sacrifice for Christ to have paid the penalty that we deserved. Self-righteous is negligible in this case because one can only be self-righteous if we are comparing what is alike. If it makes Christ self-righteous to be anything more than a man, then He is.0 -
pragmatic1 wrote: »The first half is in relation to boasting. The second part clearly states :"But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your alms may be done in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you".
Both are in relation to boasting. The reason that Jesus says to give alms in secret is so one can't make pomp and circumstance about it. I don't agree with people boasting about how much they gave to charity X or Y. That defeats the purpose of why they are doing it.
If we quote a little more from the passage you are quoting:Matthew 6:2-4 wrote:“So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honoured by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.pragmatic1 wrote: »Thats not what Jesus said in Matthew 5:17
It'd be nice if you could quote the text when you're using the Bible. It makes it easier to follow what you're trying to say.“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
I never said that Jesus came to abolish the law or the prophets? - I'm saying that Jesus was highly critical of the Pharasaic religious class. Take a look at Matthew 23 for example. Jesus challenged religious orthodoxy more than anything else during His time on earth. I can't imagine it will be much difference when He returns.0 -
Fair enough.philologos wrote: »I don't see there as being a good enough reason to concede. If there were it would no doubt be subject to my consideration. Likewise I'm sure that would be the case for you in terms of your unbelief. It would take a lot, because ultimately God is what makes sense of a lot of reality as far as I see it.
Some people use it to mean something is most probable beyond reasonable doubt, others use it to mean an absolute truth. The difference there is rarely worth consideration, it's not in this discussion..I think the term "prove" is unhelpful and will leave many people to make assumptions. How probable something is, how reasonable something is, and how sensible something is seem to be the primarily criterion that I would use in determining what is more likely to be true than to be false. I'd hazard a guess that most people use the same criterion.
God created the parameters of the universe, life, etc. which includes sinning. Either directly or indirectly he created sin. He could easily have removed it, I'm sure that's not beyond his ability.God created sin? Hm. Interesting take. God gave us the liberty of will, we decided to use it in a way which glorified ourselves rather than God. This isn't deterministic by any means. God only allowed man to sin insofar as God gave man the liberty to decide how to live. It's kind of like how I wouldn't expect my parents to follow me everywhere to make sure I wasn't taking drugs. Ultimately God gives us the room to decide whether or not we desire to honour Him. The reason that Christ came into the world was to give the world a tangible example of His love and to show the world that there was a different way to live, and indeed give people a clear example of that behaviour.
I don't see how God created sin though ultimately.
He created a penalty that he then removed in an extravagant way.I don't see how it is sadistic, or how it isn't sacrifice for Christ to have paid the penalty that we deserved. Self-righteous is negligible in this case because one can only be self-righteous if we are comparing what is alike. If it makes Christ self-righteous to be anything more than a man, then He is.
If I put a snake in a box with a mouse knowing the snake will try to eat the mouse and then take out the snake knowing I will be bitten I have not self-sacrificed because I created the scenario, I'm just playing games with the mouse.
If God wants us to be good, with freewill, he chose a really roundabout path.0 -
Fair enough.
Some people use it to mean something is most probable beyond reasonable doubt, others use it to mean an absolute truth. The difference there is rarely worth consideration, it's not in this discussion..
God created the parameters of the universe, life, etc. which includes sinning. Either directly or indirectly he created sin. He could easily have removed it, I'm sure that's not beyond his ability.
I still think you're making a mistake of trying to pin God up as a scapegoat for what humans decide to do. It's the antithesis of taking responsibility for your actions. He could have made us automatons, but he made us free beings, and with that we have responsibility for our actions. If humans were automated machines taken from a biological assembly line with a particular determined function I would get your point. It would be like if I wrote some dodgy software for a company and it didn't function as expected. It would be my fault as the software developer for not doing this. However, in the case of creation and moral action, it isn't determined for man to act in one way or another as much as God guides and helps them to consider it.He created a penalty that he then removed in an extravagant way.
God is in a sense a legislator over His own creation in the Christian sense. In His love He saw how far removed we were from Him and offered to forgive the penalty of sin. God while remaining truly just still took a penalty for the sin, to show how costly our disobedience was towards Him. That being the death of Christ.
You say its extravagant, but really had God done this in any other way would your opinion be any other than what you hold right now? Of course not.
I guess one thing that God's plan achieved was to make Christ's name and reputation well known. That He would be the name above all other names. Indeed, I can scarcely think of a man who changed the world as much as Him.
There are two choices really. One we can give God the rightful thanks that He deserves for essentially rescuing us from ourselves, or we can reject it.If I put a snake in a box with a mouse knowing the snake will try to eat the mouse and then take out the snake knowing I will be bitten I have not self-sacrificed because I created the scenario, I'm just playing games with the mouse.
Not really comparable in the light of free will. You are taking this in the light of determined action.0 -
You're assuming God could only create us in two ways, freewill or sinless. He's God, his abilities are limitless. And that's not mentioning the urges and temptations we have that he explicitly gave us, as a test no doubt.philologos wrote: »I still think you're making a mistake of trying to pin God up as a scapegoat for what humans decide to do. It's the antithesis of taking responsibility for your actions. He could have made us automatons, but he made us free beings, and with that we have responsibility for our actions. If humans were automated machines taken from a biological assembly line with a particular determined function I would get your point. It would be like if I wrote some dodgy software for a company and it didn't function as expected. It would be my fault as the software developer for not doing this. However, in the case of creation and moral action, it isn't determined for man to act in one way or another as much as God guides and helps them to consider it.
So the crucifixion was to make a point and remove the penalty, both which could've been done without the smoke and mirrors?God while remaining truly just still took a penalty for the sin, to show how costly our disobedience was towards Him. That being the death of Christ.
Absolutely, if he had just removed the penalty and told us directly to cop on (remove all the mystery he seems to enjoy) I'd not only agree with you but I'd probably be at mass right now. There are literally an infinite number of ways that would've been a better way to get his point across.You say its extravagant, but really had God done this in any other way would your opinion be any other than what you hold right now? Of course not.
He needed to create a celebrity to make his point? Again a roundabout way of doing things.I guess one thing that God's plan achieved was to make Christ's name and reputation well known. That He would be the name above all other names. Indeed, I can scarcely think of a man who changed the world as much as Him.
Rescuing us from ourselves or rescuing us from his inevitable punishment for breaking an unnecessary rule?There are two choices really. One we can give God the rightful thanks that He deserves for essentially rescuing us from ourselves, or we can reject it.
But God knew what would happen from before the universe even existed, and allowed it to happen, even if he didn't directly influence. Deterministic or not he could predict what would happen and allowed for it to happen, and then expects reward for stopping it at the last moment when he could have avoided the whole thing altogether.Not really comparable in the light of free will. You are taking this in the light of determined action.0 -
If Jesus died for our sins what about all the other people who died the same way or worse. They died just as painful a way yet people bleat on about how he did it for us. AS he would know he wouldn't die then he had less to worry about than all the other people.
It doesn't seem like much of a sacrifice. A hollow gesture really. While God has already been able to kill entire armies in a single gesture along with plagues and the like. Plus Jesus ain't the only person to be resurrected. It general feasts don't seem that impressive.
The whole loaves/fishes thing I always took that more people had food and as they saw what little was being shared they shared their food too. Flowery talk has existed for a long time the most likely cause of descriptions rather than actual miracles.
Ignore Philogos we all know who he really is and how he claims he has seen miracles but doesn't discuss them.0 -
My Dad is an atheist and my Mam has her own set of beliefs that are not specifically Roman Catholic or anything else really. When I was very young we were all still religious but with education we grew out of it together. Even if they had remained strictly theist I would not have looked down on them or believed them to be naive or easily led.
I don't believe that about people who continue to hold on to their religious beliefs now. I do however, worry about the people who still believe the church is infallible. I don't think less of them, I just worry about them, that they might be vulnerable.0 -
philologos wrote: »I don't see how God created sin though ultimately.
If he created beings capable of sin, he created sin.I don't see how it is sadistic, or how it isn't sacrifice for Christ to have paid the penalty that we deserved.
So God created beings with the capacity to sin and do evil acts, but should then punish those beings for merely doing things he gave them the ability to do in the first place?
Yes I kinda see how your 'reasoning' works now :rolleyes:0 -
Advertisement
-
I'm an atheist. I don't pass judgments on someone's intelligence based on their beliefs. The most intelligent man I personally know is also the most religious man I personally know.
I would consider my father very intelligent, due to the amount of books and newspapers he reads/ has read. Between my parents, they can answer most questions on a tv quiz, (usually fighting to answer first).
But, they are both religious. My mother doesn't go to mass, but prays every single night (for her family). My father goes to Pro Cathedral in Dublin city every Sunday.
One thing I have learned is to NEVER EVER try to make them see the church as a large steaming pile of pooh. It will never work. And religious people always take it very personally.
BTW, my father once screamed and shouted at me for about 20 mins, just because I wanted to record 'The Life of Brian'. And the silly thing is, he loves the Python humour. Needless to say I had to watch in a friends house.
It was this anger from my father, which I had never really seen, which turned me right of Catholicism.0
Advertisement