The MI6 Community Religion and Faith Discussion Space (for members of all faiths - and none!)

14748505253108

Comments

  • Posts: 15,028
    If their holy text, the holy text they consider perfectly moral and good coming from a moral and good God is not perfect by their own moral standards... Maybe they should question the validity of their faith. "Oh but it's not as bad as Islam". Congratulations you're the lesser evil! I don't think that's a moot point. As for their influence in society, I think they have far more than they should: bishops still sit in the House of Lords, there's still compulsory prayers at the assemblies in public schools. etc. And when we question their legitimacy and relevance, Christians feel butt hurt like Tim Farron and whine about big bad secularists.
  • Posts: 4,602
    "Maybe they should question"

    Religion does not do questioning. It would last 24 hours if it did. It leaves the questioning to science.
  • Posts: 15,028
    patb wrote: »
    "Maybe they should question"

    Religion does not do questioning. It would last 24 hours if it did. It leaves the questioning to science.

    Hence religion is intrinsically intellectually dishonest.
  • Posts: 4,602
    Oh yes
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,210
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away...."

    Can anyone prove it didn't happen?

    You can't handle the truth.

    We're still waiting on some 'evidence' you promised about 2 months back aren't we?

    It's there for all to see.

    We're a bit thick here. Can you point us in the general direction at all?

    Sadly it seems to have been lost in that forum glitch of 30 January.

    So you finally admit you've got no actual evidence then?

    It would be a right kerfuffle having to type it all out again.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away...."

    Can anyone prove it didn't happen?

    You can't handle the truth.

    We're still waiting on some 'evidence' you promised about 2 months back aren't we?

    It's there for all to see.

    We're a bit thick here. Can you point us in the general direction at all?

    Sadly it seems to have been lost in that forum glitch of 30 January.

    So you finally admit you've got no actual evidence then?

    It would be a right kerfuffle having to type it all out again.

    I wasn't aware you had typed it out in the first place? Could you refer me to the date and time when you posted said evidence or are you saying that it was lost due to the apparent 'glitch'?

    If it's a case of the latter sorry to be a pain but maybe we could implore you to type it out again kerfuffle notwithstanding? You're implying you've got a whole sheaf of evidence proving the existence of God so kerfuffle or not it's kind of a biggie to share it with the world don't you think?
  • Posts: 15,028
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away...."

    Can anyone prove it didn't happen?

    You can't handle the truth.

    We're still waiting on some 'evidence' you promised about 2 months back aren't we?

    It's there for all to see.

    We're a bit thick here. Can you point us in the general direction at all?

    Sadly it seems to have been lost in that forum glitch of 30 January.

    So you finally admit you've got no actual evidence then?

    It would be a right kerfuffle having to type it all out again.

    Copy/paste surely? But no it didn't happen. You did not type any evidence. Even using strictly the Bible as reference you did not exactly gave us evidence that Jesus is the Messiah mentioned or that what's in the NT is internally consistent with the OT.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited February 2018 Posts: 18,210
    What I wrote was so wonderful and indeed eloquent that I could never again write anything like it. It was the result of months of in-depth research and I could only hope to do a tribute to that post. I could never recall it in all its glory. It was my Kubla Khan moment, if you will, with the forum glitch acting as a modern day version of "a person from Porlock" that so threw another genius, Coleridge, off his stride.
  • Posts: 15,028
    Ok so you had no evidence then you have no evidence now.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    What I wrote was so wonderful and indeed eloquent that I could never again write anything like it. It was the result of months of in-depth research and I could only hope to do a tribute to that post. I could never recall it in all its glory. It was my Kubla Khan moment, if you will, with the forum glitch acting as a modern day version of "a person from Porlock" that so threw another genius, Coleridge, off his stride.

    ???

    Oh right I see you've just been having a wind up the whole time and don't actually believe in this bollocks!

    For a minute there I thought you actually believed in talking snakes - hands up you got me there old son.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,210
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Ok so you had no evidence then you have no evidence now.

    I have faith and personal experience, that is evidence enough for me.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2018 Posts: 23,883
    Recent award winning research has shown that humans are predominantly irrational. Our behaviour and motivations are irrational. Go back and try to recall childhood memories. What do you remember the most? Chances are it's those moments that were 'moving' or that touched you 'emotionally'.

    We can see the emotionality in daily discussions on this forum as well. It's just humans being human.

    So ultimately using the rational or intellectual hammer to beat religious folk about the head with isn't going to solve anything. That's really not what drives the belief in the first place. I see it as a means for comfort and structure in an uncertain and sometimes difficult existence. One of just many avenues open to us of course, but also one that has become institutionalized to a degree and therefore easier to grasp.

    At the end of the day whether this becomes dangerous or not comes down to how strongly one believes in anything (whether it be religion, doctrines, philosophies or anything else). Is there a degree of rigidity to one's opinion, or is it pliable? Open to conflicting input? I suppose some of that comes down to what kind of person and how emotionally (and intellectually) mature one is. That's why certain things aren't taught to kids at an early age after all - because they aren't able to make sense or grasp the nuances - to accept reality from fiction.

    I think I've said this before, but to me religion is like love. It really can't be explained, but it serves to comfort the soul. If one tries to analyze love, one is in for a world of hurt, and the same applies to religion. Love, when obsessive, can become dangerous too. Can one live without either? Absolutely, but there is an argument to be made that both offer a richer existence, within reason.

    Just don't get too fundamental about it and everything will be fine. At the end of the day at least try to be rational when you can.
  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    Posts: 1,533
    bondjames wrote: »
    Recent award winning research has shown that humans are predominantly irrational. Our behaviour and motivations are irrational. Go back and try to recall childhood memories. What do you remember the most? Chances are it's those moments that were 'moving' or that touched you 'emotionally'.

    We can see the emotionality in daily discussions on this forum as well. It's just humans being human.

    So ultimately using the rational or intellectual hammer to beat religious folk about the head with isn't going to solve anything. That's really not what drives the belief in the first place. I see it as a means for comfort and structure in an uncertain and sometimes difficult existence. One of just many avenues open to us of course, but also one that has become institutionalized to a degree and therefore easier to grasp.

    At the end of the day whether this becomes dangerous or not comes down to how strongly one believes in anything (whether it be religion, doctrines, philosophies or anything else). Is there a degree of rigidity to one's opinion, or is it pliable? Open to conflicting input? I suppose some of that comes down to what kind of person and how emotionally (and intellectually) mature one is. That's why certain things aren't taught to kids at an early age after all - because they aren't able to make sense or grasp the nuances - to accept reality from fiction.

    I think I've said this before, but to me religion is like love. It really can't be explained, but it serves to comfort the soul. If one tries to analyze love, one is in for a world of hurt, and the same applies to religion. Love, when obsessive, can become dangerous too. Can one live without either? Absolutely, but there is an argument to be made that both offer a richer existence, within reason.

    Just don't get too fundamental about it and everything will be fine. At the end of the day at least try to be rational when you can.

    I think we'd get along very well.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582

    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Ok so you had no evidence then you have no evidence now.

    I have faith and personal experience, that is evidence enough for me.

    It’s true! I was there when Draggers had his vision. A thing of beauty
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited February 2018 Posts: 9,117
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Ok so you had no evidence then you have no evidence now.

    I have faith and personal experience, that is evidence enough for me.

    Well faith is there very opposite of evidence so we're all ears for your personal experience. Are we to presume a St Bernadette style visitation? I'm guessing there were no witnesses?

    bondjames wrote: »
    So ultimately using the rational or intellectual hammer to beat religious folk about the head with isn't going to solve anything. That's really not what drives the belief in the first place. I see it as a means for comfort and structure in an uncertain and sometimes difficult existence. One of just many avenues open to us of course, but also one that has become institutionalized to a degree and therefore easier to grasp.

    Comfort blankets are fine in the err comfort of your own home. It's when they start dictating government policy that it's unacceptable.
    bondjames wrote: »
    That's why certain things aren't taught to kids at an early age after all - because they aren't able to make sense or grasp the nuances - to accept reality from fiction.
    I agree.

    It's just a shame society is happy to alllow kids to be indoctrinated by certain institutions from the moment the cord is cut.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,210
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Ok so you had no evidence then you have no evidence now.

    I have faith and personal experience, that is evidence enough for me.

    Well faith is there very opposite of evidence so we're all ears for your personal experience. Are we to presume a St Bernadette style visitation? I'm guessing there were no witnesses?

    You seem to forget that I'm a Presbyterian, old cock. We don't go in for that sort of thing. In fact, we believe that anyone can potentially be a saint. The saints on Earth and the saints in heaven. Sainthood does not need to be approved by the Pope. That is our belief. It's consistent with the Bible in fact.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,098
    If something is consistent with the Bible, is it then true? Is it even ethical? I can think of a few things that would be consistent with the Bible but would make me end up in jail. ;)
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    NicNac wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    The thing is, while most Christians would never ever want to be in a legal system akin to sharia law they forget that: 1)their own belief system if applied correctly and completely in society would actually mean imposing something nearly as oppressive and 2) Christianity opposes pretty much everything Islam opposes: equal rights, freedom of conscience, progresses of science, etc. I daresay that fundamentalist Christians have a penis envy regarding radical Islam. Look at the way they fought against the abolition of blasphemy law in the UK for instance.

    But the fact 1) and 2) do not apply in our society makes the point moot?

    And I would suggest that fundamental Christians, like anyone in society can oppose anything they like (I oppose a lot of things as is my right, but I don't always get my way). But, if they don't get their way it tells me that they have less sway over law and society than you may think.
    So, isn't that a good thing?
    @NicNac, if there's one thing anybody could learn from the discourse in this thread, it's that religion does have too much control. My latest post after a break from the thread was in tribute to that very ridiculousness. We've had popes able to act as kings without the title, bible-based attacks on human rights like same sex marriage, attempts to erode decided Supreme Court laws over abortion, fights to remove the teaching of science and evolution in schools in exchange for that of creation and religious science (surely the most hilarious oxymoron ever, no?) and all the other ways that the religious have used their right to practice their faith to blockade the happiness or rights of those their precious book lays claims against.

    And they always think they're on the winning side, because they've deluded themselves into believing that their overlord agrees with them. That's the amazing trap of God for everyone who isn't willing to believe the story: the religious can justify anything as being what their God wants, and their egos can be so high that they feel compelled to act as they do in tribute to their creator for that fast pass to heaven. What a great tool of fear and guilt it is. Absolutely genius how the bible taps into the pitfalls of human psychology and our inherent neurological vulnerabilities to manipulate and control us. But as with every prolonged abuser/victim relationship, the victim must hold blame for not escaping the whipping and succumbing to the torture.
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    What I wrote was so wonderful and indeed eloquent that I could never again write anything like it. It was the result of months of in-depth research and I could only hope to do a tribute to that post. I could never recall it in all its glory. It was my Kubla Khan moment, if you will, with the forum glitch acting as a modern day version of "a person from Porlock" that so threw another genius, Coleridge, off his stride.
    I love you, Draggers, but trolling will not help your case in this thread. You've given people reason to think you were employing mental gymnastics before, and this is just another variation of distraction and avoidance.
    bondjames wrote: »
    I think I've said this before, but to me religion is like love. It really can't be explained, but it serves to comfort the soul. If one tries to analyze love, one is in for a world of hurt, and the same applies to religion. Love, when obsessive, can become dangerous too. Can one live without either? Absolutely, but there is an argument to be made that both offer a richer existence, within reason.
    The metaphor would be quite profound if certain things were true. But love, no matter how irrational it may sometimes be, at least has a tangibleness that doesn't demand faith to believe in. You have a partner you can see and you love them for who they are to you in your life, you don't need to believe in them or have faith that they're there. Additionally, people in love are willing to enjoy what they have and don't care to interfere with the love of others, a claim religion cannot make so easily. People in love can't make laws telling others who they can love, they don't try to argue that you're not a moral or sane and healthy person for loving who you do, and they don't spout hate speech at you for loving someone.

    I also enjoy the irony of how religion can actually often be the biggest wrench in people's attempts to practice their love. It's the bible that has waged the male/female coupling and anti-gay rhetoric the most throughout history and spurred it on even into this modern period no matter how inherently immoral and imbecilic such a viewpoint is when the religious are also sanctimoniously claiming moral superiority while pounding that tome of theirs. Love is fair game for you to practice....unless you're gay. Then your love isn't recognized as being worthy. A crock.

    (None of this is aimed at you, by the way, @bondjames, I'm just ranting from the viewpoint of how the religious take this issue and distort it for their own agendas)
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Ok so you had no evidence then you have no evidence now.

    I have faith and personal experience, that is evidence enough for me.

    Well faith is there very opposite of evidence so we're all ears for your personal experience. Are we to presume a St Bernadette style visitation? I'm guessing there were no witnesses?

    You seem to forget that I'm a Presbyterian, old cock. We don't go in for that sort of thing. In fact, we believe that anyone can potentially be a saint. The saints on Earth and the saints in heaven. Sainthood does not need to be approved by the Pope. That is our belief. It's consistent with the Bible in fact.
    Oh, you're just saying that because you are hoping to end up with a sainthood yourself, @Dragonpol. If you want a holy portrait painted of you that badly I'll happily indulge you. And you'd even be alive to see it, an added bonus!

    It must be a pretty sweet deal to be a saint though, because even violating kids or helping to cover it up while you were alive doesn't seem to disqualify you from the title or void your sainthood. What a holy free for all!
  • Posts: 15,028
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Ok so you had no evidence then you have no evidence now.

    I have faith and personal experience, that is evidence enough for me.

    We know that's good enough for you, but that's neither what we asked nor enough evidence for anyone. It's not what you claimed either.

    @bondjames you're making a false analogy. And we can explain love and what brings people to believe in a deity. At least to a degree.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited February 2018 Posts: 28,694
    Yes, both love and religion are some of the more explainable things there are in life, and both represent some of the most human urges we possess (programmed biology, companionship and a war against loneliness on one side, comfort, guidance and meaning on the other). The former is much clearer and transparent than the corny or mushy Hallmark romances or soap operas would have one believe, and the religious wear their psychology on their sleeves.
  • Posts: 4,602
    It's bonkers to imply that atheists do not have faith, emotion, love etc. Obviously, they are humans, not robots. But they can focus their emotions on things that actually exist. Partners, family, friends, pets and even a teddy bear.

    But an invisible sky fairy crosses the boundary IMHO
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T.
    Posts: 7,000
    I think if the existence of a god is ever demonstrated, proof will have to come in the form of a philosophical, epistemological argument. Presently, there is no evidence to claim there is a god (believers will differ of course), but I will acknowledge that studying the possibility is not an outrageous thing-- it's an intuitive idea that stems from our intrinsic way of analyzing the causality of things. It's not like pondering the existence of unicorns. Even so, science might one day manage to explain the universe and its causality without resorting to the idea of a god.

    This is all separate from organized religions and their bibles, by the way. I happen to suscribe to the idea that it's paradoxical that the members of each religion, no matter how different their beliefs might be, are all convinced they're right. They can't all be right. In fact, maybe none of them are. But that has nothing to do with whether a god exists or not.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    mattjoes wrote: »
    I think if the existence of a god is ever demonstrated, proof will have to come in the form of a philosophical, epistemological argument. Presently, there is no evidence to claim there is a god (believers will differ of course), but I will acknowledge that studying the possibility is not an outrageous thing-- it's an intuitive idea that stems from our intrinsic way of analyzing the causality of things. It's not like pondering the existence of unicorns. Even so, science might one day manage to explain the universe and its causality without resorting to the idea of a god.

    This is all separate from organized religions and their bibles, by the way. I happen to suscribe to the idea that it's paradoxical that the members of each religion, no matter how different their beliefs might be, are all convinced they're right. They can't all be right. In fact, maybe none of them are. But that has nothing to do with whether a god exists or not.

    You're wrong there mate! Draggers has it but alas it's too much 'kerfuffle' for him to tell us and thus end the whole debate.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited February 2018 Posts: 28,694
    @patb, precisely. I have seen some religious people, not all, make the case that not only do atheists not believe in anything (like we're barbarians), they have no sense of meaning or purpose in their life. To them, the only source of meaning is a sky god and without that you're wasting your life.

    I think the case could easily be made that for us life is even more special, because we don't tell ourselves that this is only the first leg in a journey to paradise and that grand afterlife. This life if our only life, and with that lucid and hard knowledge we use our time with investment in each second. Compare this lifestyle to those who forget to live at all because of their dogma and confidence that the afterlife is theirs, losing so much precious time and expending useful energy spent on better, healthier things while just expecting things to go as the bible says without a hitch. With certain religious people I've listened to I've actually sensed a sort of contempt for our life on earth, like it is nothing compared to the glory of our time in heaven and something to be moved on from instead of enjoyed for each and every little moment. They want to die and get to the next step, so blind is their faith that what awaits them is exactly as promised by the priest waving a donation plate in their face. They don't see the game being played on them.

    I genuinely feel pity for some of the religious because I have little reason to believe that their deep and aggressive relationship spent shackled to religion will have any actual payoff, and nothing at all like they've been promised. In the end, I think we all end this ride decaying under thick slabs of soil. Just make sure you use all the time you have until you get there.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    @patb, precisely. I have seen some religious people, not all, make the case that not only do atheists not believe in anything (like we're barbarians), they have no sense of meaning or purpose in their life. To them, the only source of meaning is a sky god and without that you're wasting your life.

    I think the case could easily be made that for us life is even more special, because we don't tell ourselves that this is only the first leg in a journey to paradise and that grand afterlife. This life if our only life, and with that lucid and hard knowledge we use our time with investment in each second. Compare this lifestyle to those who forget to live at all because of their dogma and confidence that the afterlife is theirs, losing so much precious time and expending useful energy spent on better, healthier things while just expecting things to go as the bible says without a hitch. With certain religious people I've listened to I've actually sensed a sort of contempt for our life on earth, like it is nothing compared to the glory of our time in heaven and something to be moved on from instead of enjoyed for each and every little moment. They want to die and get to the next step, so blind is their faith that what awaits them is exactly as promised by the priest waving a donation plate in their face. They don't see the game being played on them.

    I genuinely feel pity for some of the religious because I have little reason to believe that their deep and aggressive relationship spent shackled to religion will have any actual payoff, and nothing at all like they've been promised. In the end, I think we all end this ride decaying under thick slabs of soil. Just make sure you use all the time you have until you get there.

    Absolutely.

    If the afterlife is so much better I often wonder why these sort of people don't just top themselves and release themselves from this miserable trailer and get straight to the glorious main feature?

    Particularly when the vast majority of believers live in poverty and terrible conditions.

    If I was an African villager why would I spend 40 years tramping 10 miles with a pot on my head to get water that would probably give me cholera anyway and then shag a bird (no johnny of course - the Vatican not keen) who would probably give me HIV whilst struggling day in day out to survive on land that can barely sustain farming? Because a Christian evangelist told me the good news about the all loving God and paradise when we die why wouldn't I go straight off and slit my wrists so I could end my grim existence and go and live the life of Riley in heaven?
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    @TheWizardOfIce, ah, but the genius crafters of the bible thought of that loophole already. They made suicide a sin, in case believers did as you said and fast tracked it to heaven, so that they could force them to live long lives and throw donation money at them through those years while also having kids that they could indoctrinate with the same views, creating an endless line of devout followers without end. I'm as disgusted as I am impressed by the methodical nature of it all.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    @TheWizardOfIce, ah, but the genius crafters of the bible thought of that loophole already. They made suicide a sin, in case believers did as you said and fast tracked it to heaven, so that they could force them to live long lives and throw donation money at them through those years while also having kids that they could indoctrinate with the same views, creating an endless line of devout followers without end. I'm as disgusted as I am impressed by the methodical nature of it all.

    Not to mention suffering is a test and the more you suffer the greater your reward in heaven. So if the all loving God you worship let's you be born blind, deaf and with no arms and legs and then let's your kids all die of cancer before they can walk you can relax that he's just testing your faith and if you stick with it you'll hit the jackpot when you die.

    The whole scam really does put the Mafia, Bernie Madoff and FIFA to shame. It's perfect.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2018 Posts: 23,883
    Regarding my comparison between love and religion, I just would like to point out that I'm merely saying that both concepts exhibit a certain irrationality, emotionality and 'faith'. Moreover in both cases, when taken to extremes, both can be quite unhealthy, both for those who believe in it and also for those around them. It's quite true that there are differences between the two, and I'm not suggesting otherwise.

    Additionally, to believe in and call oneself religious doesn't imply that one is taking everything in religious texts literally. Those who do may find it difficult to reconcile such notions with scientific fact.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    @bondjames, I get that, and I was just doing a little leg pulling a bit there. A very interesting thought though, not entirely untrue.

    As for those that don't take the bible literally, they are by far the best of the religious crowd and the ones that I would want to talk with most because I would be able to conclude that, at the very least, they were capable of thinking critically and had the ability to reconcile what's in the bible with accepted and proven fact. I wish more people were able to see that the bible is at best a collection of stories/parables and not a genuine historical record of the earth's development and creation, but I don't feel that in America, unfortunately. A lot of people really think it's God's word, that the earth is just 6,000 years old, that Noah carried people and animals to safety, and that it all started with Adam and Eve's sin. I see polls released all the time asking people in the states if they believe in parts of the bible or the content in it, and it always depresses me to see the numbers way, way above 0%.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2018 Posts: 23,883
    @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 , I understand and I didn't take anything different from your earlier comments.

    RE: those who take any religious texts literally rather than just absorbing the valuable messages and lessons inherent within them - they are the ones (imho) who are more likely to be led astray and be a cause of harm in society (not physical harm necessarily). Back to my point about fundamentalism and being rigid in one's views and thoughts. That applies to everything.
This discussion has been closed.