No one said it was black and white, nothing is, Christianity is a massive religion that has different branches, we all believe in one God, one Son and One Holy Ghost, the rest of it varies from person to person from church to church and branch to branch, there are more similarities than not with catholic and Protestant, but the values and upheld traditions vary.
For Mr Dawkins: Atheism is a bit like having a penis. If you are proud of it, that's fine. But if you keep getting it out and waving it in my face, then we'll have problems
That has to me the most ridiculous post I have ever read on CL and that takes some doing. That saying can only go for organised religion not atheists.
Why? Mr Dawkins is clearly trying convert people to his faith by promoting it at every possible opportunity (why else pay for banner advertising on the side of London buses?). The way he acts is remarkably similar to every other fundamentalist bore preacher who does just the same thing - except that he earns more monet out of doing it than most.
Just for accuracy sake (not necessary in religion, I know) Richard Dawkins contributed £5,500 out of £153,523.51.
If God is real, I very much doubt he'd only create life on one planet out of the trillions that he's also created.
The idea that genocides, natural disasters, wars, famines, diseases are all 'part of God's plan' is ridiculous. Unless he really hates Africans for some reason, why punish those people far more harshly than everyone else from birth?
Surprised paulie hasn't told us to stop discussing this yet? ;o)
Seriously though
Free will... 'God's' biggest favour/failure towards man.
Is it free will that let's Israel bomb Palestine, killing innocents every day? It may be Israel's will but certainly is not Palestine's.
Was it free will for all the jews and non aryan race people to be led to concentration camps? Maybe Hitler's and his soldiers, certainly not those that were to have their lives extinguished.
Is it free will that countless people are murdered daily, fully against their own will?
This 'God' you all claim protects you solely as you have faith that it exists, has in fact if itdoes exist let countless people die throughout history against their wills.
I cannot believe in something so cruel to teach you right from wrong but not protect those that try to follow it's path only to be hurt or killed by those that chose not to follow it's way.
You may answer those that follow his way go to 'Heaven'... faith once again is required to get there.
You may answer those that don't follow his way or have faith will go to 'Hell' surely you have to have faith that 'Hell' exists to go there? If you have faith that 'Hell' exists you will potentially repent for your sins and be forgiven!
More crelty from this 'God' there...
Believe in me whilst living a good/honourable life - go to heaven. If you pass go collect £200.
Believe in me whilst living a bad/dishonourable life but repent - go to heaven. If you pass go collect £200.
Live your life in a truly harmless way to another soul but don't believe in me? You're going to Hell. Do not pass go, do not collect £200. Suffer an eternity, rolling double's won't help you here.
I'm not even saying I don't believe, though I am not saying I do either.
I am just saying I find it hard to believe this 'God' exists in such a black and white way. I doubt a book written by scaremongers however many years ago can contain the full truth of this 'God'.
Maybe this 'God' is merely one of many Gods. All with different views and opinions. They most likely have their own God, who follow other Gods etc..
It's the non believers who are painting God in terms of black and white.
The believers have all said that God is intangible, personal and based on faith. The strength of that faith can fluctuate too based on experience regardless of who you are. The Bishop of Durham for example , David Jenkins, publicly cast doubt on the resurrection a few years back.
As regards Algarve's pink cat one has a choice whether or not to believe. Thomas doubted the resurrection and, in simple terms, Jesus made an exception for him and showed his wounds but stated that following him would be an article of faith for everyone else. In other words a choice.
My choice is to let Mimbo buy his own whiskas with Algarve's money but I might change my mind if he can prove he exists :-)
Those lucky enough to have a rewarding spiritual relationship have an instinct to share that with others and some get carried away in trying to persuade just as occurs in other walks of life.
As I've said above ultimately it's a personal thing. I class myself as a believer and I regularly attend Church (and I don't mean Simon). I have my own doubts from time to time and make no claim to have all the answers.
My main reasons for being on this thread are firstly to attempt to even up the numbers a bit and secondly to assert that underneath all the froth non believers really have no more proof that God does not exist than believers do that he does.
How can you 'prove' God doesnt exist? Maybe I can pray that no children die this month from cancer. If one does, is that proof he doesnt exist - no, just like if none die this month it proves he exists.
It is like proving that today I did not think about marshmallows - you cannot do it.
OK, but is that not precisely saying that atheism must be a faith, because you could never prove that God does not exist?
Surprised paulie hasn't told us to stop discussing this yet? ;o)
Seriously though
Free will... 'God's' biggest favour/failure towards man.
Is it free will that let's Israel bomb Palestine, killing innocents every day? It may be Israel's will but certainly is not Palestine's.
Was it free will for all the jews and non aryan race people to be led to concentration camps? Maybe Hitler's and his soldiers, certainly not those that were to have their lives extinguished.
Is it free will that countless people are murdered daily, fully against their own will?
This 'God' you all claim protects you solely as you have faith that it exists, has in fact if itdoes exist let countless people die throughout history against their wills.
I cannot believe in something so cruel to teach you right from wrong but not protect those that try to follow it's path only to be hurt or killed by those that chose not to follow it's way.
You may answer those that follow his way go to 'Heaven'... faith once again is required to get there.
You may answer those that don't follow his way or have faith will go to 'Hell' surely you have to have faith that 'Hell' exists to go there? If you have faith that 'Hell' exists you will potentially repent for your sins and be forgiven!
More crelty from this 'God' there...
Believe in me whilst living a good/honourable life - go to heaven. If you pass go collect £200.
Believe in me whilst living a bad/dishonourable life but repent - go to heaven. If you pass go collect £200.
Live your life in a truly harmless way to another soul but don't believe in me? You're going to Hell. Do not pass go, do not collect £200. Suffer an eternity, rolling double's won't help you here.
I'm not even saying I don't believe, though I am not saying I do either.
I am just saying I find it hard to believe this 'God' exists in such a black and white way. I doubt a book written by scaremongers however many years ago can contain the full truth of this 'God'.
Maybe this 'God' is merely one of many Gods. All with different views and opinions. They most likely have their own God, who follow other Gods etc..
It's the non believers who are painting God in terms of black and white.
The believers have all said that God is intangible, personal and based on faith. The strength of that faith can fluctuate too based on experience regardless of who you are. The Bishop of Durham for example , David Jenkins, publicly cast doubt on the resurrection a few years back.
As regards Algarve's pink cat one has a choice whether or not to believe. Thomas doubted the resurrection and, in simple terms, Jesus made an exception for him and showed his wounds but stated that following him would be an article of faith for everyone else. In other words a choice.
My choice is to let Mimbo buy her own whiskas with Algarve's money but I might change my mind if he can prove she exists :-)
Those lucky enough to have a rewarding spiritual relationship have an instinct to share that with others and some get carried away in trying to persuade just as occurs in other walks of life.
As I've said above ultimately it's a personal thing. I class myself as a believer and I regularly attend Church (and I don't mean Simon). I have my own doubts from time to time and make no claim to have all the answers.
My main reasons for being on this thread are firstly to attempt to even up the numbers a bit and secondly to assert that underneath all the froth non believers really have no more proof that God does not exist than believers do that he does.
Pascal probably had it right.
But thats the point Len. For all the aggro religion has caused and the amount of people that seem to be under its control, shouldn't it be down to them to prove god DOES exist rather than those who aren't convinced to prove it doesn't. Its almost impossible to prove something doesn't exist, thats why they've been getting away with it for so long.
Science has provided more evidence in regards to our past and origin in the last 10 years than Christianity has in the last 1500.
I don't think there is anything wrong with starting a thread asking what people believe in, as long as everyone respects other peoples beliefs and opinions without saying their way is the right way, diversity is one of the things I love about our country and it should be embraced. I am a Christian and proud of it, the church community is a great one to be part of with some of the nicest selfless people I've ever met. Most of my other friends are atheists, I have some Muslim friends too and a Sikh, none of us shove our beliefs down each other's throats but can talk about them freely, same should go here.
I used to be athiest myself, I always joked that if I walked into a church I'd burn, but I found myself involved with church people when I started my charity work and then I started attending church myself and (this will sound cliche) my life started getting better and I was much happier. That is me though, everyone has their own way.
I think thats great Sadie, the community and charity side is brilliant.
However, the actual beliefs (God/Jesus/The Bible), to me, seem absolutely mental.
You could say the same about all sorts of things though... purely hypothetically, take money for example. There is no way a thin bit of paper will ever be physically worth £10,000. But if you sign that cheque, apparently it is. Why? Because we believe it to be, that's the only reason.
Evolution is pretty much a scientific fact nowadays but there are wholes in the theory - for example bats that have echolocation abilities. What are the odds that a bat would spontaneously mutate to have the capacity to generate the echoes, the ears to hear them with, and the brain to process it... then that bat would have to survive, and breed, and all those genes would have to be dominant, or every lady bat our example gets it on with would have to be carrying those exact same genes - all the while other non-echolocating bats of the same species somehow end up living in circumstances where suddenly echolocation is the big difference, and dying out.
You could also look at the dinosaurs - hundreds of millions of years of evolution, and they get wiped out in a freak incident that mammals just so happen to be better suited to surviving, and thus end up top of the evolutionary scale. Pure chance, that's all it is.
This doesn't prove that evolution does not exist, simply that our understanding of it is very, very basic. I do not believe in an omniscient creator being watching us in every moment - but I firmly believe that there is some sort of higher force that human brains will never be able to comprehend in entirety.
Totally get this point of view. There's a long-billed hummingbird in South America that's totally dependent on a trumpet-flowered plant for its survival. Equally the plant is solely dependent on the hummingbird for its pollination and ability to survive. Science goes some way to explain that, creation does too. I think too often there's a competition between creation and science that's so unnecessary. As a Christian I love the explanation that science offers, notwithstanding that it seems to change its mind every 5 minutes. Prefer the balance to the competition.
That'll be because of a thing called "learning", rather than being stuck with the teachings of a book written 600 years after the events, by people with a vested interest in controlling the masses, and never progressing from there. I only recently found out about the books that were left out of the bible, because the editors didn't like what they said...
Religion and religious teachings are all about control.
It has certainly been used that way - but Christianity for one was a rebellious movement when it began, going against the accepted religion and state of the day. I find this thinking a little lazy to be honest - you've got religion in a box so no need to give it any more thought.
Of course science is learning, but your comment about being stuck with the teachings of the bible understates what the bible is to Christians, what the Koran is to Muslems, and so on. I'm quite sure that some people of faith would suggest to you that they hope one day that science would catch up with their God's inspired writing... ;-)
I have no idea what most of that means to be honest, particularly the last paragraph. I have considered religion for a very, very long time, looked at how it has held back men of science by fear, kept the masses in poverty by promising them something after their shit lives are over, telling them that they shouldn't worry because that rich bloke you slave away for isn't going to get the reward you are. At the same time selling religious favours to rich people to buy their way into heaven, making up stories of miracles and relics to draw money out of the poorest pilgrims. It is and always has been about control.
Like I say, it's certainly been used that way. The core of Christianity certainly is the opposite though, it's about freedom (although that might be hard to believe judging by the way some churches and states behave).
What I meant by my opening sentence was that Christianity arose from a guy who went against the religious rulers of the day, and indeed counter to the prevailing religion. That people have used 'religion' to control people is no less criminal in my book than you clearly feel about it. The faith isn't the same as the 'religion'.
Books left out of the bible because the editors didn't like what they said is a little inaccurate. Much of the New Testament is made up of letters. You wouldn't expect a letter from the current Archbishop to automatically qualify in, and likewise it is both an art and a science to agree what's known as the 'canon of scripture'. The Catholic faith does include some of those books that didn't make it into the mainstream bible, commonly known as the 'apocrypha'. Some useful stuff, but not necessarily consistent with the other writings. There are 4 eye witness accounts at the start though.
Someone else said that science is great for the 'what's but rubbish at the 'whys'. This is perhaps what I meant by my last paragraph - that those of faith believe there are truths in the bible that science has yet to catch up with, just as much as those who believe the bible is out of date (typically those who haven't read it, mind).
Can I just continue to clarify that I am agnostic. I am not ready to say God/Gods exist or do not exist.
I know this is more of a rhetorrical question but i'll ask it anyway. Is there a different god for each planet? or maybe each galaxy?
Another question: What happened to all the Gods that existed before the Catholic religion arrived?
A final question: What happen's when a new religion comes in and overwrites all Catholic history and it is accepted by most. Does God become the next Zeus? or maybe Awonawilona?
'Belief' in the scientific (and atheistic) sense is about probabilities. For example 'I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow', means it is very probable given the evidence from past events. All science is about probabilities. Atheists are saying that they think it is probable, given the evidence we have, that God does not exist.
'Belief' in the religious sense means faith - believing in something regardless of the physical evidence and intellectual arguments. I know some religious people try to make their case on quasi scientific grounds, but those are pretty weak arguments and in the end religion, probably by definition, has to be about the supernatural, i.e. about things not subject to cause and effect and therefore not open to scientific scrutiny.
Two different meanings of belief, you can't treat them as the same.
I think a problem for many religions is that we now understand a lot more about the physical nature of the world, even if that knowledge remains far from complete and inevitably throws up other questions and mystery. What we do know and can prove from the scientific criteria for evidence does conflict markedly with the some of the key concepts and beliefs about the world previously passed down by religions. At some point this will need to be addressed and properly debated in society at large because whilst I have complete respect for personal faith and belief as expressed by Sadiejane and others on here, I have a difficulty with schools being made to teach RE by law, particularly at Primary level where faith and fact can easily be blurred. It all too easily spirals into dogma, or the subject is paid lip service. That is not satisfactory in itself. None of us really know what this life is about, and IMO each to his/her own way of finding some meaning on our respective journeys through this existence, whatever that means, but on a wider platform I think there is increasingly a need for a look at religion's position in our society because a lot of things have changed. Have to say I cannot see this happening it will take a brave politician to lift their head over the parapet or indeed the pulpit, on this one.
Pink cat was to illustrate the ludicrous notion of having to prove god does not exist, just because someone says "he" does, Len.
Riko, do the original letters you refer to exist in their original form (can I go and look at "Paul's letter to the Corinthians")? How much of the stuff incorporated in the bible was written at the time of the events? My understanding is none, but I am prepared to be corrected.
Are the eyewitness accounts you talk of contemporary?
"Art and science", "cannon of scripture" - sorry we are back in mumbo-jumbo land again from where I am sitting old bean...
"Catholic" is not a religion in itself as such but a branch of Christianity albeit the oldest one in that the disciple Simon Peter was the first Pope. Other Christian churches evolved much later. The Church of England during the reign of Henry V111 for example.
As regards your other questions again it's a matter of faith and personal belief.
The other Gods remained and remain for those that believed and believe in them but Christians choose to believe in God as portrayed by Jesus Christ.
Christians believe that God (the mechanics of how it was done are open to debate) created the universe which renders your first and third questions irrelevant as far as they are concerned.
Science does not disprove the existence of (a) god/God necessarily, they are not as mutually exclusive as some would have us believe. I mentioned that evolution is a theory that still needs a lot more study, and the same can be said of the Big Bang. Scientists now pretty universally believe that originally there was one molecule or atom of some kind that suddenly blew up and expanded, and is still expanding. Okay, fair enough, there's plenty of evidence something of this kind must have occurred. What no scientist has satisfactorily proven is where this molecule came from, where it expanded into, and if it was the only one in existence, what made it suddenly and spontaneously blow up if there was nothing to react to?
Obviously there must be answers to these questions as otherwise nothing would exist, but I don't think anyone can come up with an unarguable scientific theory as to what those answers are. I repeat that I do not believe in an omniscient, omnipresent Creator but that there is something beyond humans - and beyond human comprehension.
Gods/religion was just a way to control people in a age when they thought giants lived in the sky and would punish you for doing wrong. Evolution has far more proof than an imaginary man and an outdated book with talking snakes.
"Catholic" is not a religion in itself as such but a branch of Christianity albeit the oldest one in that the disciple Simon Peter was the first Pope. Other Christian churches evolved much later. The Church of England during the reign of Henry V111 for example.
As regards your other questions again it's a matter of faith and personal belief.
The other Gods remained and remain for those that believed and believe in them but Christians choose to believe in God as portrayed by Jesus Christ.
Christians believe that God (the mechanics of how it was done are open to debate) created the universe which renders your first and third questions irrelevant as far as they are concerned.
Cheers Len
Catholicism and Christianity have confused me for years.
I'll remain agnostic I think for now, not a decision just a place I find myself in!
I posted earlier to explain my position in that I do not rule out the possibility of a creator but refute all revealed and organised religions.
My view - the Torah, Bible and Koran are at best descriptions of morals and ethics, written by man without the intervention of any God, by which we should live our lives. In this sense they have worth and in fact the commandments are an example of an early codified legal system.
At worst they were written by elders in an attempt (when they were written) along with all other forms of ritual worship (Pagans, Sun worshippers, Zoroastrians, Roman and Greek Gods etc...) to control the masses and therefore examples of early judicial and law enforcement processes. It's a pretty powerful message to tell someone (and so convincingly that they believe you) that as long as they behave themselves on earth they will live in eternity in paradise. Pretty effective governance of the masses!
As others have said, the creation story in Genesis predates any scientific explanantion and therefore as good an explanantion as any at the time.
'Belief' in the scientific (and atheistic) sense is about probabilities. For example 'I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow', means it is very probable given the evidence from past events. All science is about probabilities. Atheists are saying that they think it is probable, given the evidence we have, that God does not exist.
'Belief' in the religious sense means faith - believing in something regardless of the physical evidence and intellectual arguments. I know some religious people try to make their case on quasi scientific grounds, but those are pretty weak arguments and in the end religion, probably by definition, has to be about the supernatural, i.e. about things not subject to cause and effect and therefore not open to scientific scrutiny.
Two different meanings of belief, you can't treat them as the same.
I understand the point that you are making, but, again, I think that this is a misunderstanding of what faith really is (and that misunderstanding can very often caused by the way that some religious people - myself included - can express themselves).
Faith is absolutely not the eradication of doubt. I have never met anyone who professes a religious faith and has never doubted that faith. I know that religious people tend to express themselves in absolutes, but, as you say, faith is only every a question of probability and it is generally not correct to think that religious people have their faith in some way whilst sticking their fingers in their ears against rational arguments.
The reality is that religious people tend to spend very little time considering the 'supernatural' element of faith, certainly Christians get this from Jesus who seemed to have spent pretty much no time at all considering the nature of 'God'. It is all about the actions that faith inspires you to take.
On the atheist side, I am simply not convinced that Richard Dawkins and some others takes such a relative approach - I believe that he actually, is quite sure that he is right and religious people are wrong.
@Algarveaddick - it is a tremendously long time since I studied this, but from what I remember the four gospels that we have now were written down about 60 to 70 AD (about the time of the Jewish Uprising - which had some very important implications for how Jesus's death had to be portrayed, but that is another issue entirely). They were not so much individual books as the combined knowledge of various groups of people of what their community memory of the events was (you can sometime see in the text where one scroll clearly just stopped and the next started with quite a different story) and there is thought to have been either two or three groups. Certainly John (I think, as i say, it was a long time ago) is very different in style, tone, and content from the others, so was probably written by a different group.
Is there a 'physical' God, or is it merely the combined wisdom and understanding of many millennia of faith? Why would it make any difference when you cannot know anything about the nature of God when you are on earth?
We say that God exists in the image of man, doesn't mean he is a physical form how can he be? He is greater than any physical entity and greater than the universe so can't be a physical element. He will exist physically in any form he wishes to present himself. But we don't need to see him to be able to feel him.
Didn't the bible say something about god creating man in his own image?
I dont think Christianity is the answer to life, at all...but lets ask this.
The chances of any of us being alive today, PRESENT DAY, where we only live for a tiny fraction of all existence, as humans, the most dominant, intelligent animal on the planet (unless an octopus wants to argue that fact), is so inncredibly rich and far-fetched its, well it doesnt really have a word.
Would Atheists be saying.. Its all pure coincidence and luck? Because if it is...I certainly havent made the most of how f*ckin lucky I am!
I dont think Christianity is the answer to life, at all...but lets ask this.
The chances of any of us being alive today, PRESENT DAY, where we only live for a tiny fraction of all existence, as humans, the most dominant, intelligent animal on the planet (unless an octopus wants to argue that fact), is so inncredibly rich and far-fetched its, well it doesnt really have a word.
Would Atheists be saying.. Its all pure coincidence and luck? Because if it is...I certainly havent made the most of how f*ckin lucky I am!
Of course its luck. Or a better word being 'chance'.
As mentioned earlier on the thread, earth can inhabit life due to a serious of events that have occurred over billions of years. We are just the result of these events. Nothing more. Remember, we are just 1 of trillions of planets in the known universe.
We are extremely complex beings but ultimately, we are just atoms.
The idea that a supreme being chose just this tiny planet, in one average sized galaxy, in this vast universe to house his creations is much more far fetched.
How can you 'prove' God doesnt exist? Maybe I can pray that no children die this month from cancer. If one does, is that proof he doesnt exist - no, just like if none die this month it proves he exists.
It is like proving that today I did not think about marshmallows - you cannot do it.
OK, but is that not precisely saying that atheism must be a faith, because you could never prove that God does not exist?
It is nothing like it at all.
I am saying you cannot prove something doesnt exist, you can only prove something does exist. Atheism is not a faith as you are not believing in something, you are believing something is not there.
For want of a better phrase 'the burden of proof' is with those that state that something exists, did exist or did happen.
I jumped over the roof of my house this morning - prove that I didnt.
As others have pointed out - this is an excellent thread.
I dont think Christianity is the answer to life, at all...but lets ask this.
The chances of any of us being alive today, PRESENT DAY, where we only live for a tiny fraction of all existence, as humans, the most dominant, intelligent animal on the planet (unless an octopus wants to argue that fact), is so inncredibly rich and far-fetched its, well it doesnt really have a word.
Would Atheists be saying.. Its all pure coincidence and luck? Because if it is...I certainly havent made the most of how f*ckin lucky I am!
Of course its luck. Or a better word being 'chance'.
As mentioned earlier on the thread, earth can inhabit life due to a serious of events that have occurred over billions of years. We are just the result of these events. Nothing more. Remember, we are just 1 of trillions of planets in the known universe.
We are extremely complex beings but ultimately, we are just atoms.
The idea that a supreme being chose just this tiny planet, in one average sized galaxy, in this vast universe to house his creations is much more far fetched.
Christianity is more far-fetched then atheism, yes.
Atoms, being the basis of all life...basically everything, can not be reffered to as "just atoms" like out the school text-book.
I dont think Christianity is the answer to life, at all...but lets ask this.
The chances of any of us being alive today, PRESENT DAY, where we only live for a tiny fraction of all existence, as humans, the most dominant, intelligent animal on the planet (unless an octopus wants to argue that fact), is so inncredibly rich and far-fetched its, well it doesnt really have a word.
Would Atheists be saying.. Its all pure coincidence and luck? Because if it is...I certainly havent made the most of how f*ckin lucky I am!
Of course its luck. Or a better word being 'chance'.
As mentioned earlier on the thread, earth can inhabit life due to a serious of events that have occurred over billions of years. We are just the result of these events. Nothing more. Remember, we are just 1 of trillions of planets in the known universe.
We are extremely complex beings but ultimately, we are just atoms.
The idea that a supreme being chose just this tiny planet, in one average sized galaxy, in this vast universe to house his creations is much more far fetched.
Christianity is more far-fetched then atheism, yes.
Atoms, being the basis of all life...basically everything, can not be reffered to as "just atoms" like out the school text-book.
My point about 'just atoms' is that we are no different to other life on this planet, or the dinosaurs or any species that came before us. So why do religions think we are special? In Christianity, Why would this 'god' choose a human to be his son just 2,000 years ago out of the earths 4.54 billion year existence, which in turn he waited 10 billion years to create? If gods message was so important, why wait?
I dont think Christianity is the answer to life, at all...but lets ask this.
The chances of any of us being alive today, PRESENT DAY, where we only live for a tiny fraction of all existence, as humans, the most dominant, intelligent animal on the planet (unless an octopus wants to argue that fact), is so inncredibly rich and far-fetched its, well it doesnt really have a word.
Would Atheists be saying.. Its all pure coincidence and luck? Because if it is...I certainly havent made the most of how f*ckin lucky I am!
Of course its luck. Or a better word being 'chance'.
As mentioned earlier on the thread, earth can inhabit life due to a serious of events that have occurred over billions of years. We are just the result of these events. Nothing more. Remember, we are just 1 of trillions of planets in the known universe.
We are extremely complex beings but ultimately, we are just atoms.
The idea that a supreme being chose just this tiny planet, in one average sized galaxy, in this vast universe to house his creations is much more far fetched.
Christianity is more far-fetched then atheism, yes.
Atoms, being the basis of all life...basically everything, can not be reffered to as "just atoms" like out the school text-book.
My point about 'just atoms' is that we are no different to other life on this planet, or the dinosaurs or any species that came before us. So why do religions think we are special? In Christianity, Why would this 'god' choose a human to be his son just 2,000 years ago out of the earths 4.54 billion year existence, which in turn he waited 10 billion years to create? If gods message was so important, why wait?
Comments
The idea that genocides, natural disasters, wars, famines, diseases are all 'part of God's plan' is ridiculous. Unless he really hates Africans for some reason, why punish those people far more harshly than everyone else from birth?
The believers have all said that God is intangible, personal and based on faith. The strength of that faith can fluctuate too based on experience regardless of who you are. The Bishop of Durham for example , David Jenkins, publicly cast doubt on the resurrection a few years back.
As regards Algarve's pink cat one has a choice whether or not to believe. Thomas doubted the resurrection and, in simple terms, Jesus made an exception for him and showed his wounds but stated that following him would be an article of faith for everyone else. In other words a choice.
My choice is to let Mimbo buy his own whiskas with Algarve's money but I might change my mind if he can prove he exists :-)
Those lucky enough to have a rewarding spiritual relationship have an instinct to share that with others and some get carried away in trying to persuade just as occurs in other walks of life.
As I've said above ultimately it's a personal thing. I class myself as a believer and I regularly attend Church (and I don't mean Simon). I have my own doubts from time to time and make no claim to have all the answers.
My main reasons for being on this thread are firstly to attempt to even up the numbers a bit and secondly to assert that underneath all the froth non believers really have no more proof that God does not exist than believers do that he does.
Pascal probably had it right.
Science has provided more evidence in regards to our past and origin in the last 10 years than Christianity has in the last 1500.
What I meant by my opening sentence was that Christianity arose from a guy who went against the religious rulers of the day, and indeed counter to the prevailing religion. That people have used 'religion' to control people is no less criminal in my book than you clearly feel about it. The faith isn't the same as the 'religion'.
Books left out of the bible because the editors didn't like what they said is a little inaccurate. Much of the New Testament is made up of letters. You wouldn't expect a letter from the current Archbishop to automatically qualify in, and likewise it is both an art and a science to agree what's known as the 'canon of scripture'. The Catholic faith does include some of those books that didn't make it into the mainstream bible, commonly known as the 'apocrypha'. Some useful stuff, but not necessarily consistent with the other writings. There are 4 eye witness accounts at the start though.
Someone else said that science is great for the 'what's but rubbish at the 'whys'. This is perhaps what I meant by my last paragraph - that those of faith believe there are truths in the bible that science has yet to catch up with, just as much as those who believe the bible is out of date (typically those who haven't read it, mind).
I know this is more of a rhetorrical question but i'll ask it anyway. Is there a different god for each planet? or maybe each galaxy?
Another question:
What happened to all the Gods that existed before the Catholic religion arrived?
A final question:
What happen's when a new religion comes in and overwrites all Catholic history and it is accepted by most. Does God become the next Zeus? or maybe Awonawilona?
'Belief' in the scientific (and atheistic) sense is about probabilities. For example 'I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow', means it is very probable given the evidence from past events. All science is about probabilities. Atheists are saying that they think it is probable, given the evidence we have, that God does not exist.
'Belief' in the religious sense means faith - believing in something regardless of the physical evidence and intellectual arguments. I know some religious people try to make their case on quasi scientific grounds, but those are pretty weak arguments and in the end religion, probably by definition, has to be about the supernatural, i.e. about things not subject to cause and effect and therefore not open to scientific scrutiny.
Two different meanings of belief, you can't treat them as the same.
What we do know and can prove from the scientific criteria for evidence does conflict markedly with the some of the key concepts and beliefs about the world previously passed down by religions.
At some point this will need to be addressed and properly debated in society at large because whilst I have complete respect for personal faith and belief as expressed by Sadiejane and others on here, I have a difficulty with schools being made to teach RE by law, particularly at Primary level where faith and fact can easily be blurred. It all too easily spirals into dogma, or the subject is paid lip service. That is not satisfactory in itself.
None of us really know what this life is about, and IMO each to his/her own way of finding some meaning on our respective journeys through this existence, whatever that means, but on a wider platform I think there is increasingly a need for a look at religion's position in our society because a lot of things have changed.
Have to say I cannot see this happening it will take a brave politician to lift their head over the parapet or indeed the pulpit, on this one.
Riko, do the original letters you refer to exist in their original form (can I go and look at "Paul's letter to the Corinthians")? How much of the stuff incorporated in the bible was written at the time of the events? My understanding is none, but I am prepared to be corrected.
Are the eyewitness accounts you talk of contemporary?
"Art and science", "cannon of scripture" - sorry we are back in mumbo-jumbo land again from where I am sitting old bean...
PS God exists
As regards your other questions again it's a matter of faith and personal belief.
The other Gods remained and remain for those that believed and believe in them but Christians choose to believe in God as portrayed by Jesus Christ.
Christians believe that God (the mechanics of how it was done are open to debate) created the universe which renders your first and third questions irrelevant as far as they are concerned.
Obviously there must be answers to these questions as otherwise nothing would exist, but I don't think anyone can come up with an unarguable scientific theory as to what those answers are. I repeat that I do not believe in an omniscient, omnipresent Creator but that there is something beyond humans - and beyond human comprehension.
Catholicism and Christianity have confused me for years.
I'll remain agnostic I think for now, not a decision just a place I find myself in!
My view - the Torah, Bible and Koran are at best descriptions of morals and ethics, written by man without the intervention of any God, by which we should live our lives. In this sense they have worth and in fact the commandments are an example of an early codified legal system.
At worst they were written by elders in an attempt (when they were written) along with all other forms of ritual worship (Pagans, Sun worshippers, Zoroastrians, Roman and Greek Gods etc...) to control the masses and therefore examples of early judicial and law enforcement processes. It's a pretty powerful message to tell someone (and so convincingly that they believe you) that as long as they behave themselves on earth they will live in eternity in paradise. Pretty effective governance of the masses!
As others have said, the creation story in Genesis predates any scientific explanantion and therefore as good an explanantion as any at the time.
Faith is absolutely not the eradication of doubt. I have never met anyone who professes a religious faith and has never doubted that faith. I know that religious people tend to express themselves in absolutes, but, as you say, faith is only every a question of probability and it is generally not correct to think that religious people have their faith in some way whilst sticking their fingers in their ears against rational arguments.
The reality is that religious people tend to spend very little time considering the 'supernatural' element of faith, certainly Christians get this from Jesus who seemed to have spent pretty much no time at all considering the nature of 'God'. It is all about the actions that faith inspires you to take.
On the atheist side, I am simply not convinced that Richard Dawkins and some others takes such a relative approach - I believe that he actually, is quite sure that he is right and religious people are wrong.
@Algarveaddick - it is a tremendously long time since I studied this, but from what I remember the four gospels that we have now were written down about 60 to 70 AD (about the time of the Jewish Uprising - which had some very important implications for how Jesus's death had to be portrayed, but that is another issue entirely). They were not so much individual books as the combined knowledge of various groups of people of what their community memory of the events was (you can sometime see in the text where one scroll clearly just stopped and the next started with quite a different story) and there is thought to have been either two or three groups. Certainly John (I think, as i say, it was a long time ago) is very different in style, tone, and content from the others, so was probably written by a different group.
That is the key thing here.
I dont think Christianity is the answer to life, at all...but lets ask this.
The chances of any of us being alive today, PRESENT DAY, where we only live for a tiny fraction of all existence, as humans, the most dominant, intelligent animal on the planet (unless an octopus wants to argue that fact), is so inncredibly rich and far-fetched its, well it doesnt really have a word.
Would Atheists be saying.. Its all pure coincidence and luck? Because if it is...I certainly havent made the most of how f*ckin lucky I am!
As mentioned earlier on the thread, earth can inhabit life due to a serious of events that have occurred over billions of years. We are just the result of these events. Nothing more. Remember, we are just 1 of trillions of planets in the known universe.
We are extremely complex beings but ultimately, we are just atoms.
The idea that a supreme being chose just this tiny planet, in one average sized galaxy, in this vast universe to house his creations is much more far fetched.
I am saying you cannot prove something doesnt exist, you can only prove something does exist.
Atheism is not a faith as you are not believing in something, you are believing something is not there.
For want of a better phrase 'the burden of proof' is with those that state that something exists, did exist or did happen.
I jumped over the roof of my house this morning - prove that I didnt.
As others have pointed out - this is an excellent thread.
Atoms, being the basis of all life...basically everything, can not be reffered to as "just atoms" like out the school text-book.