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?
Wanted to see if it was posted on the OS first
I did hear that when he first put across his message, Colin1961 posted it 10 minutes after.
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?
Oh exactly...to think otherwise in that sense, in my opinion, is delusional. We share 98% of our make up DNA with champanzees, our closest living relative. Only difference of why us and chimps would not be able to produce offspring is that we have less chromosomes to match.
My view is that religion stems from the fact we all need to come to terms with the reality of not knowing where we came from or where we go when we die.
Your religion is whatever allows you to be at peace with these uncertainties. If you think you know what the answers are even though nothing can be proven, it becomes a "faith", if not, you just have a hunch and go with the flow and are classed as non religious.
There are ready made off-the-shelf religions you can choose, or be indoctrinated with, or you carry your own rationalization or “religion” internally. The more exotic the religion the better the experience for the believer, and if a religion's creed causes moral, charitable behaviour, all the better, and we can have as many religions as there are tribes of people.
Problem with some religions is that they create such emotions and confer such power on the leaders that mere mortals struggle to handle them without becoming unstable and despotic.
I'm an atheist, I believe in science not superstition. The core teachings of the main mono-theistic religions are basically the same (an historic inevitability) and their concepts of right & wrong, good & evil and respect for one's fellow man are perfectly decent maxims by which to live one's life. They all suffer for the (relatively) modern manipulation by cynical people of those core teachings. Choose whichever belief system you like, use whatever you need to get you through just don't badger me with your version (indoctrination) nor use it as an excuse to attack anyone else (persecution). I believe we have the absolute right to do whatever we like - right up to the point that it effects anyone else. These 2 tenets are hugely incompatible as my right to do what the heck I like is limited massively by everybody else's right not to be bothered by me. We must of course take full responsibility for all consequences of our actions, which is where society and neighbourliness come in and why we're fundamentally knackered cos the vast majority of people believe in the first part but ignore the 2nd.
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 find the difficulty with arguments like this is that they really only work from the perspective of the person making them - an atheist thinks that God does not exist and so will tend to expect the burden of proof to be on the theist. The theist believes that God (whatever that might mean) does exits, so would tend to expect the opposite.
You can argue it either way - neither of us, for example, have any first-hand proof that Henry VIII existed, but I doubt that either of us would find it reasonable to for the burden of proof to fall on the side of showing that he definitely was real.
As I say, there is a good argument on either side, but I just don't like that it is an argument that tends to be trotted out quite often (not by you or anyone on this thread, but elsewhere) as a sort of 'winning argument' by people who want to ignore the fact that for millennia the best thinkers in the world have been religious.
For me, I would say that the burden of proof should lie with the people who are saying that the likes of Charles Darwin and all the great scientists who set up the Royal Society were wrong (all religious), and we know better now.
If Charles Darwin was religious (and he was) how can the fact of the discovery of evolution in some way put the onus on religious people to prove anything?
Threads like these just go to show how many clever people than me there are in this world - very interesting indeed!
I am not making any claims about the existence of a supernatural being. I have nothing to prove, it is for those that do make such a claim to submit their proofs for scrutiny.
Atheists are united. We don't believe in a god and put our trust in science and what we know about the world.
Agnostics are united. They keep an open mind, reject the majority of what religion teaches but believe that there could be something out there and if they ever encounter it themselves are prepared to believe.
Religious people are not united. They are the least united it is possible to be. Firstly through the major faiths, Christian, Jews, Muslims, etc. Then factions within those religions. Then the local branches and groups within those factions. Then the individuals within those local branches and groups within those factions within those faiths.
So you see, when religious people tell me what they believe in it's very hard to take those beliefs seriously or show them too much respect, as they are picking and choosing what they want to believe, with no consistent or coherent discourse amongst themselves and standing almost isolated in that specific set of beliefs *even from the religious people alongside them*.
As a wise man once said, "I hope they serve beer in hell"
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 find the difficulty with arguments like this is that they really only work from the perspective of the person making them - an atheist thinks that God does not exist and so will tend to expect the burden of proof to be on the theist. The theist believes that God (whatever that might mean) does exits, so would tend to expect the opposite.
You can argue it either way - neither of us, for example, have any first-hand proof that Henry VIII existed, but I doubt that either of us would find it reasonable to for the burden of proof to fall on the side of showing that he definitely was real.
As I say, there is a good argument on either side, but I just don't like that it is an argument that tends to be trotted out quite often (not by you or anyone on this thread, but elsewhere) as a sort of 'winning argument' by people who want to ignore the fact that for millennia the best thinkers in the world have been religious.
For me, I would say that the burden of proof should lie with the people who are saying that the likes of Charles Darwin and all the great scientists who set up the Royal Society were wrong (all religious), and we know better now.
If Charles Darwin was religious (and he was) how can the fact of the discovery of evolution in some way put the onus on religious people to prove anything?
Threads like these just go to show how many clever people than me there are in this world - very interesting indeed!
The onus is on the religious because until relatively recently they ruled the roost with their assertions that they were right and anyone disagreeing was wrong, to the point where those that did disagree were tortured or killed (Spanish Inquisition). People who suggested the earth revolved around the sun imprisoned and threatened with excommunication (Galileo), or people who were discovering that the world was older than the 6000 years the church had been claiming, were discredited by them (Champollion). 400 years ago you would have been claiming all these things to be an absolute incontrovertible truth. The earth created in seven days myth, the Adam and Eve myth, the Noah myth, all pushed as absolute truth for centuries until science proved them wrong. Add to that this supposed good and loving god who allows all the unspeakable and tragic things that happen to innocent people every day to continue and I would say there is more than enough evidence that this supreme being does not exist.
I hate religion because it causes nothing but trouble. During most wars we always had some kind of religion involvement and it causes more hatred. You got the situation in Gaza where religion is involved, you also have terrorist currently in Afghanistan who have some kind of hatred against Christianity.
What puzzles me about Christianity is the 10 commandments, one of them is thou shall not lie. Ok it's bad to lie but on occasions people lie for a nice reason, does this mean they go to hell because of it? I
I believe there is someone out who have created the universe whether it's God, Allah, Mr Blobby, Jesus or someone else I just really don't know. I also believe in reincarnation and we learn from our previous life.
As a British person, I have adapted to the British culture and the way of life so I do celebrate events like Christmas and even like the religious songs but it does not mean I believe Jesus existed let alone born on Christmas Day.
I personally think we should all be free to do what we want to do just as long as we are good people. I am certainly not letting religion dictating my life like the Islamic religion states they can't drink alcohol and they must pray at certain times during the day.
I hate religion because it causes nothing but trouble. During most wars we always had some kind of religion involvement and it causes more hatred. You got the situation in Gaza where religion is involved, you also have terrorist currently in Afghanistan who have some kind of hatred against Christianity.
What puzzles me about Christianity is the 10 commandments, one of them is thou shall not lie. Ok it's bad to lie but on occasions people lie for a nice reason, does this mean they go to hell because of it? I
I believe there is someone out who have created the universe whether it's God, Allah, Mr Blobby, Jesus or someone else I just really don't know. I also believe in reincarnation and we learn from our previous life.
As a British person, I have adapted to the British culture and the way of life so I do celebrate events like Christmas and even like the religious songs but it does not mean I believe Jesus existed let alone born on Christmas Day.
I personally think we should all be free to do what we want to do just as long as we are good people. I am certainly not letting religion dictating my life like the Islamic religion states they can't drink alcohol and they must pray at certain times during the day.
I hate religion because it causes nothing but trouble. During most wars we always had some kind of religion involvement and it causes more hatred. You got the situation in Gaza where religion is involved, you also have terrorist currently in Afghanistan who have some kind of hatred against Christianity.
What puzzles me about Christianity is the 10 commandments, one of them is thou shall not lie. Ok it's bad to lie but on occasions people lie for a nice reason, does this mean they go to hell because of it? I
I believe there is someone out who have created the universe whether it's God, Allah, Mr Blobby, Jesus or someone else I just really don't know. I also believe in reincarnation and we learn from our previous life.
As a British person, I have adapted to the British culture and the way of life so I do celebrate events like Christmas and even like the religious songs but it does not mean I believe Jesus existed let alone born on Christmas Day.
I personally think we should all be free to do what we want to do just as long as we are good people. I am certainly not letting religion dictating my life like the Islamic religion states they can't drink alcohol and they must pray at certain times during the day.
Bit rich coming from the bible
Lol, I do have some kind of knowledge on religion.
Again, I take your point and I certainly would not seek to downplay the bad things that people have done in the name of religion, but you do have to allow the church to change its mind on things in the light of modern discoveries.
This is true for understanding in both the religious and scientific world. I would, for example, feel pretty silly walking into the doctor's surgery and saying 'well you tell me that I should take this aspirin, but 300 years ago doctors thought that blood-letting was a good idea, so why should I believe you now?' And, for the most part, the church has come up to date on all the examples that you list.
I am certainly no apologist for the church - I very rarely go to church - but it is only fair to allow it to change its mind on things, just as every institution that lasts over generations does. In fact, it tends to be where it does not change its mind (such as on the issue of women priests) where I think the church falls down.
There is truth in science, without doubt, but scientific progress is not opposed to religion, in fact many of the scientists that I know are religious.
“I think that when you consider the beauty of the world and you wonder how it came to be what it is, you are naturally overwhelmed with a feeling of awe, a feeling of admiration and you almost feel a desire to worship something. I feel this, I recognise that other scientists such as Carl Sagan feel this, Einstein felt it. We, all of us, share a kind of religious reverence for the beauties of the universe, for the complexity of life. For the sheer magnitude of the cosmos, the sheer magnitude of geological time. And it’s tempting to translate that feeling of awe and worship into a desire to worship some particular thing, a person, an agent. You want to attribute it to a maker, to a creator. What science has now achieved is an emancipation from that impulse to attribute these things to a creator.
-- God Delusion debate Professor Richard Dawkins vs John Lennox” ― Richard Dawkins
Again, I take your point and I certainly would not seek to downplay the bad things that people have done in the name of religion, but you do have to allow the church to change its mind on things in the light of modern discoveries.
This is true for understanding in both the religious and scientific world. I would, for example, feel pretty silly walking into the doctor's surgery and saying 'well you tell me that I should take this aspirin, but 300 years ago doctors thought that blood-letting was a good idea, so why should I believe you now?' And, for the most part, the church has come up to date on all the examples that you list.
I am certainly no apologist for the church - I very rarely go to church - but it is only fair to allow it to change its mind on things, just as every institution that lasts over generations does. In fact, it tends to be where it does not change its mind (such as on the issue of women priests) where I think the church falls down.
There is truth in science, without doubt, but scientific progress is not opposed to religion, in fact many of the scientists that I know are religious.
I really, honestly, believe you don't though Stevie, because they have been so bloody cocksure that they were totally and utterly right (and woe betide anyone who disagreed) for so long, suddenly eating humble pie (and of course there are nut jobs in the USA who still take it all as gospel - pun intended) just does not cut it for me. They were wrong on so much that asking rational people to still accept the rest is beyond the pale.
Doctors thought leaches and the like were the way to go, but they didn't want to force everyone in the country to stick 'em on their back whether they needed it or not, did they?
The though of scientists being religious actually worries me.
I'd quite like to hear Sadie's answer as to why God buried dinosaur fossils.
Why Sadie? There are at least five other people who have commented from a religious perspective on this thread. Stop picking on one person - it does you no favours as it comes across as aggressive and childish.
Also - why single out 'dinosaur' fossils? Why not Pleistocene mammals? (c. 2 million years ago). Or Trilobites (c. 540 million - c. 230 million years ago)? Or the Ediacaran Fauna? (c. 630-540 million years ago)
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 find the difficulty with arguments like this is that they really only work from the perspective of the person making them - an atheist thinks that God does not exist and so will tend to expect the burden of proof to be on the theist. The theist believes that God (whatever that might mean) does exits, so would tend to expect the opposite.
You can argue it either way - neither of us, for example, have any first-hand proof that Henry VIII existed, but I doubt that either of us would find it reasonable to for the burden of proof to fall on the side of showing that he definitely was real.
As I say, there is a good argument on either side, but I just don't like that it is an argument that tends to be trotted out quite often (not by you or anyone on this thread, but elsewhere) as a sort of 'winning argument' by people who want to ignore the fact that for millennia the best thinkers in the world have been religious.
For me, I would say that the burden of proof should lie with the people who are saying that the likes of Charles Darwin and all the great scientists who set up the Royal Society were wrong (all religious), and we know better now.
If Charles Darwin was religious (and he was) how can the fact of the discovery of evolution in some way put the onus on religious people to prove anything?
Threads like these just go to show how many clever people than me there are in this world - very interesting indeed!
The onus is on the religious because until relatively recently they ruled the roost with their assertions that they were right and anyone disagreeing was wrong, to the point where those that did disagree were tortured or killed (Spanish Inquisition). People who suggested the earth revolved around the sun imprisoned and threatened with excommunication (Galileo), or people who were discovering that the world was older than the 6000 years the church had been claiming, were discredited by them (Champollion). 400 years ago you would have been claiming all these things to be an absolute incontrovertible truth. The earth created in seven days myth, the Adam and Eve myth, the Noah myth, all pushed as absolute truth for centuries until science proved them wrong. Add to that this supposed good and loving god who allows all the unspeakable and tragic things that happen to innocent people every day to continue and I would say there is more than enough evidence that this supreme being does not exist.
Excellent stuff, AA.
You see, I knew I didn't have the words to summarise my thoughts on this fascinating subject but I knew someone far more intelligent would. Voila !
I'd quite like to hear Sadie's answer as to why God buried dinosaur fossils.
Why Sadie? There are at least five other people who have commented from a religious perspective on this thread. Stop picking on one person - it does you no favours as it comes across as aggressive and childish.
Also - why single out 'dinosaur' fossils? Why not Pleistocene mammals? (c. 2 million years ago). Or Trilobites (c. 540 million - c. 230 million years ago)? Or the Ediacaran Fauna? (c. 630-540 million years ago)
I wasn't picking on her. She has just been the most prominent voice on the religious side. And I picked dinosaurs because it's the most famous of the extinct animals but I'm glad you got a chance to show us how intelligent you are.
I'd quite like to hear Sadie's answer as to why God buried dinosaur fossils.
Why Sadie? There are at least five other people who have commented from a religious perspective on this thread. Stop picking on one person - it does you no favours as it comes across as aggressive and childish.
Also - why single out 'dinosaur' fossils? Why not Pleistocene mammals? (c. 2 million years ago). Or Trilobites (c. 540 million - c. 230 million years ago)? Or the Ediacaran Fauna? (c. 630-540 million years ago)
I wasn't picking on her. She has just been the most prominent voice on the religious side. And I picked dinosaurs because it's the most famous of the extinct animals but I'm glad you got a chance to show us how intelligent you are.
Excellent. Now you want to antagonise people who are actually on your 'side' of the debate
I am a radical atheist with strong anti- theist leanings. Losing my religion was one of the most liberating, joyous and life affirming events in my existence. I believe in secular Government and education and strongly recommend reading at least;
Richard Dawkins, " The God Delusion", - systematic, humorous, logical, dispassionate, point by point, demolition of religion.
Sam Hill " Letter to a Christian Nation"
Christopher Hitchins " God is not Great"
& Peter Boghossian " A Manual for Creating Atheists " Argues that atheists should actively seek to liberate people from their religion and provides a detailed method for achieving this.
If there is a God, the best thing that can be said is that basically he is an underachiever. All religions are the same guilt, with different holidays.
I'd quite like to hear Sadie's answer as to why God buried dinosaur fossils.
Why Sadie? There are at least five other people who have commented from a religious perspective on this thread. Stop picking on one person - it does you no favours as it comes across as aggressive and childish.
Also - why single out 'dinosaur' fossils? Why not Pleistocene mammals? (c. 2 million years ago). Or Trilobites (c. 540 million - c. 230 million years ago)? Or the Ediacaran Fauna? (c. 630-540 million years ago)
I wasn't picking on her. She has just been the most prominent voice on the religious side. And I picked dinosaurs because it's the most famous of the extinct animals but I'm glad you got a chance to show us how intelligent you are.
You make valid points Nick and appear to be passionate about atheism. You asked a question people of the Christian faith would perhaps not like to answer, hence the point your trying to make, but argue like an adult mate and don't get funny about it.
You weren't rude - just a bit 'passionate'. This thread's doing nicely - plenty of informed and educated debate, and we've managed to stay largely away from the mud-slinging that usually accompanies discussions between the religious and the non-religious.
If anything the civilizations that looked upon the stars as God's are the closest religion has come to what created us. The fusion of chemistry in dying stars created the elements and those elements created life.
I am a radical atheist with strong anti- theist leanings. Losing my religion was one of the most liberating, joyous and life affirming events in my existence. I believe in secular Government and education and strongly recommend reading at least;
Richard Dawkins, " The God Delusion", - systematic, humorous, logical, dispassionate, point by point, demolition of religion.
Sam Hill " Letter to a Christian Nation"
Christopher Hitchins " God is not Great"
& Peter Boghossian " A Manual for Creating Atheists " Argues that atheists should actively seek to liberate people from their religion and provides a detailed method for achieving this.
If there is a God, the best thing that can be said is that basically he is an underachiever. All religions are the same guilt, with different holidays.
Comments
Your religion is whatever allows you to be at peace with these uncertainties. If you think you know what the answers are even though nothing can be proven, it becomes a "faith", if not, you just have a hunch and go with the flow and are classed as non religious.
There are ready made off-the-shelf religions you can choose, or be indoctrinated with, or you carry your own rationalization or “religion” internally. The more exotic the religion the better the experience for the believer, and if a religion's creed causes moral, charitable behaviour, all the better, and we can have as many religions as there are tribes of people.
Problem with some religions is that they create such emotions and confer such power on the leaders that mere mortals struggle to handle them without becoming unstable and despotic.
The core teachings of the main mono-theistic religions are basically the same (an historic inevitability) and their concepts of right & wrong, good & evil and respect for one's fellow man are perfectly decent maxims by which to live one's life. They all suffer for the (relatively) modern manipulation by cynical people of those core teachings.
Choose whichever belief system you like, use whatever you need to get you through just don't badger me with your version (indoctrination) nor use it as an excuse to attack anyone else (persecution).
I believe we have the absolute right to do whatever we like - right up to the point that it effects anyone else. These 2 tenets are hugely incompatible as my right to do what the heck I like is limited massively by everybody else's right not to be bothered by me.
We must of course take full responsibility for all consequences of our actions, which is where society and neighbourliness come in and why we're fundamentally knackered cos the vast majority of people believe in the first part but ignore the 2nd.
You can argue it either way - neither of us, for example, have any first-hand proof that Henry VIII existed, but I doubt that either of us would find it reasonable to for the burden of proof to fall on the side of showing that he definitely was real.
As I say, there is a good argument on either side, but I just don't like that it is an argument that tends to be trotted out quite often (not by you or anyone on this thread, but elsewhere) as a sort of 'winning argument' by people who want to ignore the fact that for millennia the best thinkers in the world have been religious.
For me, I would say that the burden of proof should lie with the people who are saying that the likes of Charles Darwin and all the great scientists who set up the Royal Society were wrong (all religious), and we know better now.
If Charles Darwin was religious (and he was) how can the fact of the discovery of evolution in some way put the onus on religious people to prove anything?
Threads like these just go to show how many clever people than me there are in this world - very interesting indeed!
Agnostics are united. They keep an open mind, reject the majority of what religion teaches but believe that there could be something out there and if they ever encounter it themselves are prepared to believe.
Religious people are not united. They are the least united it is possible to be. Firstly through the major faiths, Christian, Jews, Muslims, etc. Then factions within those religions. Then the local branches and groups within those factions. Then the individuals within those local branches and groups within those factions within those faiths.
So you see, when religious people tell me what they believe in it's very hard to take those beliefs seriously or show them too much respect, as they are picking and choosing what they want to believe, with no consistent or coherent discourse amongst themselves and standing almost isolated in that specific set of beliefs *even from the religious people alongside them*.
As a wise man once said, "I hope they serve beer in hell"
I hate religion because it causes nothing but trouble. During most wars we always had some kind of religion involvement and it causes more hatred. You got the situation in Gaza where religion is involved, you also have terrorist currently in Afghanistan who have some kind of hatred against Christianity.
What puzzles me about Christianity is the 10 commandments, one of them is thou shall not lie. Ok it's bad to lie but on occasions people lie for a nice reason, does this mean they go to hell because of it? I
I believe there is someone out who have created the universe whether it's God, Allah, Mr Blobby, Jesus or someone else I just really don't know. I also believe in reincarnation and we learn from our previous life.
As a British person, I have adapted to the British culture and the way of life so I do celebrate events like Christmas and even like the religious songs but it does not mean I believe Jesus existed let alone born on Christmas Day.
I personally think we should all be free to do what we want to do just as long as we are good people. I am certainly not letting religion dictating my life like the Islamic religion states they can't drink alcohol and they must pray at certain times during the day.
"Have to" is not the correct term but they believe in it.
This is true for understanding in both the religious and scientific world. I would, for example, feel pretty silly walking into the doctor's surgery and saying 'well you tell me that I should take this aspirin, but 300 years ago doctors thought that blood-letting was a good idea, so why should I believe you now?' And, for the most part, the church has come up to date on all the examples that you list.
I am certainly no apologist for the church - I very rarely go to church - but it is only fair to allow it to change its mind on things, just as every institution that lasts over generations does. In fact, it tends to be where it does not change its mind (such as on the issue of women priests) where I think the church falls down.
There is truth in science, without doubt, but scientific progress is not opposed to religion, in fact many of the scientists that I know are religious.
-- God Delusion debate Professor Richard Dawkins vs John Lennox”
― Richard Dawkins
Doctors thought leaches and the like were the way to go, but they didn't want to force everyone in the country to stick 'em on their back whether they needed it or not, did they?
The though of scientists being religious actually worries me.
Also - why single out 'dinosaur' fossils? Why not Pleistocene mammals? (c. 2 million years ago). Or Trilobites (c. 540 million - c. 230 million years ago)? Or the Ediacaran Fauna? (c. 630-540 million years ago)
You see, I knew I didn't have the words to summarise my thoughts on this fascinating subject but I knew someone far more intelligent would. Voila !
Richard Dawkins, " The God Delusion", - systematic, humorous, logical, dispassionate, point by point, demolition of religion.
Sam Hill " Letter to a Christian Nation"
Christopher Hitchins " God is not Great"
& Peter Boghossian " A Manual for Creating Atheists " Argues that atheists should actively seek to liberate people from their religion and provides a detailed method for achieving this.
If there is a God, the best thing that can be said is that basically he is an underachiever. All religions are the same guilt, with different holidays.
PS COYR's!
Not being patronising.
What was the 'beginning'?
Can you whisper it to me, I won't tell.