Dinosaurs and the bible

holyjo

There are many scientists of great reputation who hold a faith. In fact some hold there faith as a result of their scientific knowledge. Although people of faith can not prove the existence of God , I would contend its not as absurd to believe in a divine power as some on here would contend. 

The universe is either eternal i.e. no beginning or end , or it was "birthed" into existence. In either of those thesis one might ask how they occurred. How they commenced. Science would say rightly that there is no evidence to determine the cause. Yes the Big Bang almost certainly caused the universe that we know today but science has no answer as to what pre dates that event. People of faith contend that a higher power was responsible. Also no evidence.

As to the impact of religion on the planet and humanity. Its an in interesting debate and again not as easy to determine a binary response. Yes there are some wars where faith is a factor or driver. There are many more where faith plays no part and some of the worst occurred in atheistic systems. 

Aa person who holds a faith I would argue that the Judeo Christian world view has on balance been a civilising influence on culture , law , and human interaction generally , certainly in the sphere of European renaissance. Much of the post industrial philanthropy was driven by people motivated by there faith basis and much of scientific advancement across the piece was by people of faith too. 

That said it is worth noting that the "modernism" the philosophical age that marked the 400 years I think up to maybe 70 years ago had a central tenet of the "inviolable truth"........ it kind of wasn't possible not to think of God as truth as Modernism was the architecture of thinking , the scaffolding as it were. 

Post Modernism has left us with as many questions as answers. The notion of truth being relative is as problematic intellectually as absolute truth . Relativism has meant that western culture is in a constant state of flux and anchor points are hard to identify and coalesce around. On the positive side it has meant for a much more inclusive world and a kinder more humane approach to difference in social policy.  

As I say , those on here who ridicule faith are perhaps those whose minds are closed and stuck in the dark ages. 

ME14addick

ShootersHillGuru said:

ME14addick said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

MuttleyCAFC said:

Other people's beliefs should be respected unless they hurt others. I don't like beliefs or even non beliefs imposed on or being used to oppress people. Jones' religion shouldn't matter to us one iota. And I'm sure it doesn't as what we are interested in is his managerial abilities.

Why should we respect someone’s views just because we attach the word religion or faith to them. I don’t respect the opinions of someone who believes that the earth is flat. Or that viruses don’t exist.  It flies in the face of 100% of the evidence. It’s stupid. No more stupid though than believing in a story that also has no evidence whatsoever to support it. If it was a harmless faith I would just park it alongside the flat earthers but religion time and time again for all of its history has been the cause and remains the cause of wars, death, misery and destruction. Respect. I have none.

Whilst science tells me that there is no God, I have no proof that there isn't some higher power beyond human comprehension, just as I have no proof that there is. We do have incontrovertible evidence that the earth is not flat and that viruses do exist.

A lot of people do have a lot of comfort from their faith and I respect that, even if I believe that on balance there is probably no God. 

What I find difficult to understand is that a supposedly loving God can allow the suffering that we see all over the world. What is the purpose of making anything suffer if you have the power to stop it. So many wars are fought in the name of religion, that is where I draw the line. 

We can’t disprove the existence of the tooth fairy or the Loch Ness monster but there is zero evidence to support the view that they exist. Attach the words religious or faith to the story of something with zero evidence to support it makes it no more in need of respect than the former two pieces of nonsense. In fact science doesn’t tell you there is no god. It just comments that there is no evidence to support the theory that there is.

Apart from telling children that the tooth fairy exists, nobody grows up believing that it does, so there is a difference. 

Science does suggest to me that there is no God, there is so much evidence of the planet having gone through many evolutionary changes, however I cannot say for certain that there is no higher power and that there is life after death, as none of us can know that whilst we are alive.

I'm not religious, but I know of people who take great comfort in their faith and it is not up to me to decide how they should live their lives.

PopIcon

Off_it said:

PopIcon said:

AddicksAddict said:

Chizz said:

PopIcon said:

Redvaliant said:

The Red Robin said:

It will never not blow my mind that grown adults believe in any god or religion. 

And start war's over it.

Did you read that in a pop up book?

Wars aren't fought by faiths, they are the indulgence of men. Faith isn't the issue, greed and power are.

WWII
Civil Wars - China's, Russian
WWI
Sino-Japanese Wars
Spanish Conquests of the Americas

More recently the war in the Ukraine.

The fighting in Israel is a land conflict.

Crusades (11th-13th centuries): A series of religious wars initiated by Western European Christians to regain control of the Holy Land from Muslims.

Thirty Years' War (1618-1648): Initially a conflict between Protestant and Catholic states in the Holy Roman Empire, it later evolved into a broader European war involving political and territorial disputes.

French Wars of Religion (1562-1598): A series of conflicts between Catholics and Protestants in France, marked by massacres, assassinations, and sieges.

Islamic conquests (7th-8th centuries): Military campaigns led by Islamic caliphs to spread Islam and conquer territories across the Middle East, North Africa, and parts of Europe.

Reconquista (8th-15th centuries): A long period of military campaigns by Christian kingdoms in the Iberian Peninsula to reconquer territory from Muslim rule.

Jewish-Roman Wars (1st and 2nd centuries): Revolts by Jewish communities against Roman rule, motivated partly by religious beliefs and resistance to Roman religious and cultural practices.

Wars of the Reformation (16th century): Conflicts across Europe sparked by the Protestant Reformation, pitting Catholic and Protestant states against each other.

Irish Confederate Wars (1641-1653): Conflicts in Ireland between Catholic Confederates and Protestant English and Scottish settlers, fueled by religious, political, and ethnic tensions.

Bosnian War (1992-1995): Although primarily driven by ethnic and political factors, religious identity played a significant role in the conflict between Bosnian Muslims, Serbs, and Croats.

Northern Crusades (12th-16th centuries): Military campaigns by Christian kingdoms and orders to conquer and convert pagan Baltic tribes in the Baltic region. 

Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Mr Popicon, as my Grandparents would have said. Why, I’ve no idea. 

Faith or religious fighting account for about 6% of all wars.

*Made up stat alert!!!!!!!!

I'm afraid you lost all credibility when you claimed the current tensions in the middle east weren't about religion.

It's not a made up stat, I studied Classics and know more about the history of war than most. If you're so inclined to do so I suggest you look it up. No need to apologise.

Off_it

PopIcon said:

Off_it said:

PopIcon said:

AddicksAddict said:

Chizz said:

PopIcon said:

Redvaliant said:

The Red Robin said:

It will never not blow my mind that grown adults believe in any god or religion. 

And start war's over it.

Did you read that in a pop up book?

Wars aren't fought by faiths, they are the indulgence of men. Faith isn't the issue, greed and power are.

WWII
Civil Wars - China's, Russian
WWI
Sino-Japanese Wars
Spanish Conquests of the Americas

More recently the war in the Ukraine.

The fighting in Israel is a land conflict.

Crusades (11th-13th centuries): A series of religious wars initiated by Western European Christians to regain control of the Holy Land from Muslims.

Thirty Years' War (1618-1648): Initially a conflict between Protestant and Catholic states in the Holy Roman Empire, it later evolved into a broader European war involving political and territorial disputes.

French Wars of Religion (1562-1598): A series of conflicts between Catholics and Protestants in France, marked by massacres, assassinations, and sieges.

Islamic conquests (7th-8th centuries): Military campaigns led by Islamic caliphs to spread Islam and conquer territories across the Middle East, North Africa, and parts of Europe.

Reconquista (8th-15th centuries): A long period of military campaigns by Christian kingdoms in the Iberian Peninsula to reconquer territory from Muslim rule.

Jewish-Roman Wars (1st and 2nd centuries): Revolts by Jewish communities against Roman rule, motivated partly by religious beliefs and resistance to Roman religious and cultural practices.

Wars of the Reformation (16th century): Conflicts across Europe sparked by the Protestant Reformation, pitting Catholic and Protestant states against each other.

Irish Confederate Wars (1641-1653): Conflicts in Ireland between Catholic Confederates and Protestant English and Scottish settlers, fueled by religious, political, and ethnic tensions.

Bosnian War (1992-1995): Although primarily driven by ethnic and political factors, religious identity played a significant role in the conflict between Bosnian Muslims, Serbs, and Croats.

Northern Crusades (12th-16th centuries): Military campaigns by Christian kingdoms and orders to conquer and convert pagan Baltic tribes in the Baltic region. 

Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Mr Popicon, as my Grandparents would have said. Why, I’ve no idea. 

Faith or religious fighting account for about 6% of all wars.

*Made up stat alert!!!!!!!!

I'm afraid you lost all credibility when you claimed the current tensions in the middle east weren't about religion.

It's not a made up stat, I studied Classics and know more about the history of war than most. If you're so inclined to do so I suggest you look it up. No need to apologise.

Lol. Laughable.

PopIcon

holyjo said:

There are many scientists of great reputation who hold a faith. In fact some hold there faith as a result of their scientific knowledge. Although people of faith can not prove the existence of God , I would contend its not as absurd to believe in a divine power as some on here would contend. 

The universe is either eternal i.e. no beginning or end , or it was "birthed" into existence. In either of those thesis one might ask how they occurred. How they commenced. Science would say rightly that there is no evidence to determine the cause. Yes the Big Bang almost certainly caused the universe that we know today but science has no answer as to what pre dates that event. People of faith contend that a higher power was responsible. Also no evidence.

As to the impact of religion on the planet and humanity. Its an in interesting debate and again not as easy to determine a binary response. Yes there are some wars where faith is a factor or driver. There are many more where faith plays no part and some of the worst occurred in atheistic systems. 

Aa person who holds a faith I would argue that the Judeo Christian world view has on balance been a civilising influence on culture , law , and human interaction generally , certainly in the sphere of European renaissance. Much of the post industrial philanthropy was driven by people motivated by there faith basis and much of scientific advancement across the piece was by people of faith too. 

That said it is worth noting that the "modernism" the philosophical age that marked the 400 years I think up to maybe 70 years ago had a central tenet of the "inviolable truth"........ it kind of wasn't possible not to think of God as truth as Modernism was the architecture of thinking , the scaffolding as it were. 

Post Modernism has left us with as many questions as answers. The notion of truth being relative is as problematic intellectually as absolute truth . Relativism has meant that western culture is in a constant state of flux and anchor points are hard to identify and coalesce around. On the positive side it has meant for a much more inclusive world and a kinder more humane approach to difference in social policy.  

As I say , those on here who ridicule faith are perhaps those whose minds are closed and stuck in the dark ages. 

Bang on! A large proportion of CL will be unwilling to grasp this.

You have articulated the point far better than I could have,

thenewbie

If you don't like the example used of love, you could make the same argument that laws/justice are just as much made up as "religion" - humans generally believe that if you do certain bad things there should be consequences (albeit with disagreement as to what those consequences should be.)

It's normally accepted that if one person steals from another, or someone kills someone else this is bad. But no other animals see this. If a lion kills a rival male, the lionesses don't form a jury to decide what happens to him. If a rat steals food from another rat then its just how it goes.

So really it's not actually "real'' any more than a sky man who judges you after death is. My argument is not that God is real (I don't believe he is.) I just think that all humans believe in made up things (including me) and you are fooling yourself if you think you don't.

Stu_of_Kunming

PopIcon said:

Off_it said:

PopIcon said:

AddicksAddict said:

Chizz said:

PopIcon said:

Redvaliant said:

The Red Robin said:

It will never not blow my mind that grown adults believe in any god or religion. 

And start war's over it.

Did you read that in a pop up book?

Wars aren't fought by faiths, they are the indulgence of men. Faith isn't the issue, greed and power are.

WWII
Civil Wars - China's, Russian
WWI
Sino-Japanese Wars
Spanish Conquests of the Americas

More recently the war in the Ukraine.

The fighting in Israel is a land conflict.

Crusades (11th-13th centuries): A series of religious wars initiated by Western European Christians to regain control of the Holy Land from Muslims.

Thirty Years' War (1618-1648): Initially a conflict between Protestant and Catholic states in the Holy Roman Empire, it later evolved into a broader European war involving political and territorial disputes.

French Wars of Religion (1562-1598): A series of conflicts between Catholics and Protestants in France, marked by massacres, assassinations, and sieges.

Islamic conquests (7th-8th centuries): Military campaigns led by Islamic caliphs to spread Islam and conquer territories across the Middle East, North Africa, and parts of Europe.

Reconquista (8th-15th centuries): A long period of military campaigns by Christian kingdoms in the Iberian Peninsula to reconquer territory from Muslim rule.

Jewish-Roman Wars (1st and 2nd centuries): Revolts by Jewish communities against Roman rule, motivated partly by religious beliefs and resistance to Roman religious and cultural practices.

Wars of the Reformation (16th century): Conflicts across Europe sparked by the Protestant Reformation, pitting Catholic and Protestant states against each other.

Irish Confederate Wars (1641-1653): Conflicts in Ireland between Catholic Confederates and Protestant English and Scottish settlers, fueled by religious, political, and ethnic tensions.

Bosnian War (1992-1995): Although primarily driven by ethnic and political factors, religious identity played a significant role in the conflict between Bosnian Muslims, Serbs, and Croats.

Northern Crusades (12th-16th centuries): Military campaigns by Christian kingdoms and orders to conquer and convert pagan Baltic tribes in the Baltic region. 

Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Mr Popicon, as my Grandparents would have said. Why, I’ve no idea. 

Faith or religious fighting account for about 6% of all wars.

*Made up stat alert!!!!!!!!

I'm afraid you lost all credibility when you claimed the current tensions in the middle east weren't about religion.

It's not a made up stat, I studied Classics and know more about the history of war than most. If you're so inclined to do so I suggest you look it up. No need to apologise.

Or you could provide a source? Something must religious nutnuts struggle with 

Off_it

Stu_of_Kunming said:

PopIcon said:

Off_it said:

PopIcon said:

AddicksAddict said:

Chizz said:

PopIcon said:

Redvaliant said:

The Red Robin said:

It will never not blow my mind that grown adults believe in any god or religion. 

And start war's over it.

Did you read that in a pop up book?

Wars aren't fought by faiths, they are the indulgence of men. Faith isn't the issue, greed and power are.

WWII
Civil Wars - China's, Russian
WWI
Sino-Japanese Wars
Spanish Conquests of the Americas

More recently the war in the Ukraine.

The fighting in Israel is a land conflict.

Crusades (11th-13th centuries): A series of religious wars initiated by Western European Christians to regain control of the Holy Land from Muslims.

Thirty Years' War (1618-1648): Initially a conflict between Protestant and Catholic states in the Holy Roman Empire, it later evolved into a broader European war involving political and territorial disputes.

French Wars of Religion (1562-1598): A series of conflicts between Catholics and Protestants in France, marked by massacres, assassinations, and sieges.

Islamic conquests (7th-8th centuries): Military campaigns led by Islamic caliphs to spread Islam and conquer territories across the Middle East, North Africa, and parts of Europe.

Reconquista (8th-15th centuries): A long period of military campaigns by Christian kingdoms in the Iberian Peninsula to reconquer territory from Muslim rule.

Jewish-Roman Wars (1st and 2nd centuries): Revolts by Jewish communities against Roman rule, motivated partly by religious beliefs and resistance to Roman religious and cultural practices.

Wars of the Reformation (16th century): Conflicts across Europe sparked by the Protestant Reformation, pitting Catholic and Protestant states against each other.

Irish Confederate Wars (1641-1653): Conflicts in Ireland between Catholic Confederates and Protestant English and Scottish settlers, fueled by religious, political, and ethnic tensions.

Bosnian War (1992-1995): Although primarily driven by ethnic and political factors, religious identity played a significant role in the conflict between Bosnian Muslims, Serbs, and Croats.

Northern Crusades (12th-16th centuries): Military campaigns by Christian kingdoms and orders to conquer and convert pagan Baltic tribes in the Baltic region. 

Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Mr Popicon, as my Grandparents would have said. Why, I’ve no idea. 

Faith or religious fighting account for about 6% of all wars.

*Made up stat alert!!!!!!!!

I'm afraid you lost all credibility when you claimed the current tensions in the middle east weren't about religion.

It's not a made up stat, I studied Classics and know more about the history of war than most. If you're so inclined to do so I suggest you look it up. No need to apologise.

Or you could provide a source? Something must religious nutnuts struggle with 

My dear boy, he doesnt need to do that. He studied Classics dont you know. Look it up!

Stig

I haven't studied classics, but I have looked it up in the worlds greatest encyclopaedia (wiki), here's what it has to say: 'According to the Encyclopedia of Wars, out of all 1,763 known/recorded historical conflicts, 121, or 6.87%, had religion as their primary cause'.

I think this is problematic for a number of reasons

• This only accounts for wars which two particular authors have chose to categorise as having, religion as their primary cause. Other people may chose to categorise them differently.
• They only counted those conflicts with religion as the 'primary' cause. In reality wars often have complex, interconnected causes. If you counted all of these factors, the figure for religious wars would be far higher.
• As someone pointed out above, the discounting of religion as the cause of the Israeli-Palestine conflict shows how nonsensical this methodology is.
• This is a minor point, but the rounding down from .87 is wrong.

Stuart_the_Red

ME14addick said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

MuttleyCAFC said:

Other people's beliefs should be respected unless they hurt others. I don't like beliefs or even non beliefs imposed on or being used to oppress people. Jones' religion shouldn't matter to us one iota. And I'm sure it doesn't as what we are interested in is his managerial abilities.

Why should we respect someone’s views just because we attach the word religion or faith to them. I don’t respect the opinions of someone who believes that the earth is flat. Or that viruses don’t exist.  It flies in the face of 100% of the evidence. It’s stupid. No more stupid though than believing in a story that also has no evidence whatsoever to support it. If it was a harmless faith I would just park it alongside the flat earthers but religion time and time again for all of its history has been the cause and remains the cause of wars, death, misery and destruction. Respect. I have none.

Whilst science tells me that there is no God, I have no proof that there isn't some higher power beyond human comprehension, just as I have no proof that there is…

So, Schrodinger’s God? 

PopIcon

Stig said:

I haven't studied classics, but I have looked it up in the worlds greatest encyclopaedia (wiki), here's what it has to say: 'According to the Encyclopedia of Wars, out of all 1,763 known/recorded historical conflicts, 121, or 6.87%, had religion as their primary cause'.

I think this is problematic for a number of reasons

• This only accounts for wars which two particular authors have chose to categorise as having, religion as their primary cause. Other people may chose to categorise them differently.
• They only counted those conflicts with religion as the 'primary' cause. In reality wars often have complex, interconnected causes. If you counted all of these factors, the figure for religious wars would be far higher.
• As someone pointed out above, the discounting of religion as the cause of the Israeli-Palestine conflict shows how nonsensical this methodology is.
• This is a minor point, but the rounding down from .87 is wrong.

I can't say i've heard of the Encyclopedia of Wars, who was it written by?

I don't care enough to spend time trying to convince people when i know i'm right. I'm not bothered if people aren't interested.

Stu_of_Kunming

PopIcon said:

Stig said:

I haven't studied classics, but I have looked it up in the worlds greatest encyclopaedia (wiki), here's what it has to say: 'According to the Encyclopedia of Wars, out of all 1,763 known/recorded historical conflicts, 121, or 6.87%, had religion as their primary cause'.

I think this is problematic for a number of reasons

• This only accounts for wars which two particular authors have chose to categorise as having, religion as their primary cause. Other people may chose to categorise them differently.
• They only counted those conflicts with religion as the 'primary' cause. In reality wars often have complex, interconnected causes. If you counted all of these factors, the figure for religious wars would be far higher.
• As someone pointed out above, the discounting of religion as the cause of the Israeli-Palestine conflict shows how nonsensical this methodology is.
• This is a minor point, but the rounding down from .87 is wrong.

I can't say i've heard of the Encyclopedia of Wars, who was it written by?

I don't care enough to spend time trying to convince people when i know i'm right. I'm not bothered if people aren't interested.

Peak internet right here.

About as laughable as religion in 2024. 

PopIcon

Stu_of_Kunming said:

PopIcon said:

Stig said:

I haven't studied classics, but I have looked it up in the worlds greatest encyclopaedia (wiki), here's what it has to say: 'According to the Encyclopedia of Wars, out of all 1,763 known/recorded historical conflicts, 121, or 6.87%, had religion as their primary cause'.

I think this is problematic for a number of reasons

• This only accounts for wars which two particular authors have chose to categorise as having, religion as their primary cause. Other people may chose to categorise them differently.
• They only counted those conflicts with religion as the 'primary' cause. In reality wars often have complex, interconnected causes. If you counted all of these factors, the figure for religious wars would be far higher.
• As someone pointed out above, the discounting of religion as the cause of the Israeli-Palestine conflict shows how nonsensical this methodology is.
• This is a minor point, but the rounding down from .87 is wrong.

I can't say i've heard of the Encyclopedia of Wars, who was it written by?

I don't care enough to spend time trying to convince people when i know i'm right. I'm not bothered if people aren't interested.

Peak internet right here.

About as laughable as religion in 2024. 

What does that even mean?

Stig

PopIcon said:

Stig said:

I haven't studied classics, but I have looked it up in the worlds greatest encyclopaedia (wiki), here's what it has to say: 'According to the Encyclopedia of Wars, out of all 1,763 known/recorded historical conflicts, 121, or 6.87%, had religion as their primary cause'.

I think this is problematic for a number of reasons

• This only accounts for wars which two particular authors have chose to categorise as having, religion as their primary cause. Other people may chose to categorise them differently.
• They only counted those conflicts with religion as the 'primary' cause. In reality wars often have complex, interconnected causes. If you counted all of these factors, the figure for religious wars would be far higher.
• As someone pointed out above, the discounting of religion as the cause of the Israeli-Palestine conflict shows how nonsensical this methodology is.
• This is a minor point, but the rounding down from .87 is wrong.

I can't say i've heard of the Encyclopedia of Wars, who was it written by?

I don't care enough to spend time trying to convince people when i know i'm right. I'm not bothered if people aren't interested.

Let me get this straight, you're not going to waste your time providing evidence, but you want me to waste my time providing you with a reference. You know better than anybody else, but you're not prepared to post anything to support that.

Oh, alright, I'll play your game. Encyclopaedia of Wars is by Axelrod and Phillips. To be fair to them though, it doesn't seem that they carried out any analysis for the purpose of progressing this argument. It seems that someone else arrived at this 6.87% figure by using the categorisations they'd put in their index. With that in mind it looks even more shaky than appears at first sight. 

ShootersHillGuru

holyjo said:

There are many scientists of great reputation who hold a faith. In fact some hold there faith as a result of their scientific knowledge. Although people of faith can not prove the existence of God , I would contend its not as absurd to believe in a divine power as some on here would contend. 

The universe is either eternal i.e. no beginning or end , or it was "birthed" into existence. In either of those thesis one might ask how they occurred. How they commenced. Science would say rightly that there is no evidence to determine the cause. Yes the Big Bang almost certainly caused the universe that we know today but science has no answer as to what pre dates that event. People of faith contend that a higher power was responsible. Also no evidence.

As to the impact of religion on the planet and humanity. Its an in interesting debate and again not as easy to determine a binary response. Yes there are some wars where faith is a factor or driver. There are many more where faith plays no part and some of the worst occurred in atheistic systems. 

Aa person who holds a faith I would argue that the Judeo Christian world view has on balance been a civilising influence on culture , law , and human interaction generally , certainly in the sphere of European renaissance. Much of the post industrial philanthropy was driven by people motivated by there faith basis and much of scientific advancement across the piece was by people of faith too. 

That said it is worth noting that the "modernism" the philosophical age that marked the 400 years I think up to maybe 70 years ago had a central tenet of the "inviolable truth"........ it kind of wasn't possible not to think of God as truth as Modernism was the architecture of thinking , the scaffolding as it were. 

Post Modernism has left us with as many questions as answers. The notion of truth being relative is as problematic intellectually as absolute truth . Relativism has meant that western culture is in a constant state of flux and anchor points are hard to identify and coalesce around. On the positive side it has meant for a much more inclusive world and a kinder more humane approach to difference in social policy.  

As I say , those on here who ridicule faith are perhaps those whose minds are closed and stuck in the dark ages. 

To be honest some of your “assumptions “ are quite distant from the current scientific theories about the universe. For a start nothing “pre dates” the origin of the universe. Time is not linear and space time was created at the moment of the Big Bang if indeed it was a momentary creation event. What about the idea that the universe is a continual cycle of expansion and contraction does that make it eternal and how would you describe eternal without recourse to linear time ? 

ShootersHillGuru

thenewbie said:

If you don't like the example used of love, you could make the same argument that laws/justice are just as much made up as "religion" - humans generally believe that if you do certain bad things there should be consequences (albeit with disagreement as to what those consequences should be.)

It's normally accepted that if one person steals from another, or someone kills someone else this is bad. But no other animals see this. If a lion kills a rival male, the lionesses don't form a jury to decide what happens to him. If a rat steals food from another rat then its just how it goes.

So really it's not actually "real'' any more than a sky man who judges you after death is. My argument is not that God is real (I don't believe he is.) I just think that all humans believe in made up things (including me) and you are fooling yourself if you think you don't.

Obvious man made constructs like the law and the other rules and conventions we choose to live by are hardly comparable to believing in a creator that is all powerful and benevolent who knows and sees everything and will judge you and your life on the day of judgement. The former is a man made practical solution to civilisation, avoiding anarchy and the other something quite different. 

cantersaddick

Stig said:

I haven't studied classics, but I have looked it up in the worlds greatest encyclopaedia (wiki), here's what it has to say: 'According to the Encyclopedia of Wars, out of all 1,763 known/recorded historical conflicts, 121, or 6.87%, had religion as their primary cause'.

I think this is problematic for a number of reasons

• This only accounts for wars which two particular authors have chose to categorise as having, religion as their primary cause. Other people may chose to categorise them differently.
• They only counted those conflicts with religion as the 'primary' cause. In reality wars often have complex, interconnected causes. If you counted all of these factors, the figure for religious wars would be far higher.
• As someone pointed out above, the discounting of religion as the cause of the Israeli-Palestine conflict shows how nonsensical this methodology is.
• This is a minor point, but the rounding down from .87 is wrong.

Also doesn't account for scale of war or number of resultant deaths etc. 

Alwaysneil

Only a relative matter of time before one of the local, immediate and all powerful local gods shuts this down in a very immediate and deliberate manner. Only just over the event horizon. 

ShootersHillGuru

Alwaysneil said:

Only a relative matter of time before one of the local, immediate and all powerful local gods shuts this down in a very immediate and deliberate manner. Only just over the event horizon. 

Superb

EveshamAddick

ME14addick said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

MuttleyCAFC said:

Other people's beliefs should be respected unless they hurt others. I don't like beliefs or even non beliefs imposed on or being used to oppress people. Jones' religion shouldn't matter to us one iota. And I'm sure it doesn't as what we are interested in is his managerial abilities.

Why should we respect someone’s views just because we attach the word religion or faith to them. I don’t respect the opinions of someone who believes that the earth is flat. Or that viruses don’t exist.  It flies in the face of 100% of the evidence. It’s stupid. No more stupid though than believing in a story that also has no evidence whatsoever to support it. If it was a harmless faith I would just park it alongside the flat earthers but religion time and time again for all of its history has been the cause and remains the cause of wars, death, misery and destruction. Respect. I have none.

Whilst science tells me that there is no God, I have no proof that there isn't some higher power beyond human comprehension, just as I have no proof that there is. We do have incontrovertible evidence that the earth is not flat and that viruses do exist.

A lot of people do have a lot of comfort from their faith and I respect that, even if I believe that on balance there is probably no God. 

What I find difficult to understand is that a supposedly loving God can allow the suffering that we see all over the world. What is the purpose of making anything suffer if you have the power to stop it. So many wars are fought in the name of religion, that is where I draw the line. 

As an ex brainwashed Catholic I think I can help you with that. My mum always refers to problems and things that go wrong as a “cross to bear”.  I think the idea being that some things we have to put up with in life like Jesus carrying his cross, but that we have the eternal ever after to look forward to which makes all the suffering worth while.

I should add that this will be based on 1940s/50s Catholic teaching via my mum so not sure what they would say today.

And of course the Old Testament  God was busy smiting people, calling up plagues and gouging people’s eyes out, so very much an old hand at spraying suffering around.

thenewbie

ShootersHillGuru said:

thenewbie said:

If you don't like the example used of love, you could make the same argument that laws/justice are just as much made up as "religion" - humans generally believe that if you do certain bad things there should be consequences (albeit with disagreement as to what those consequences should be.)

It's normally accepted that if one person steals from another, or someone kills someone else this is bad. But no other animals see this. If a lion kills a rival male, the lionesses don't form a jury to decide what happens to him. If a rat steals food from another rat then its just how it goes.

So really it's not actually "real'' any more than a sky man who judges you after death is. My argument is not that God is real (I don't believe he is.) I just think that all humans believe in made up things (including me) and you are fooling yourself if you think you don't.

Obvious man made constructs like the law and the other rules and conventions we choose to live by are hardly comparable to believing in a creator that is all powerful and benevolent who knows and sees everything and will judge you and your life on the day of judgement. The former is a man made practical solution to civilisation, avoiding anarchy and the other something quite different. 

But both are things that only "exist" if we believe they do. That's my point. The difference is one is universally accepted and one is not.

The law says "this is right, this is wrong" and people believe this is fair and right. What people (not me) say is God also says "this is right and this wrong" but not everyone believes that to be fair and right (including me.)

People will quite naturally assume in a nebulous concept. Religion is just one version. A bad, outdated version very often and I'm not advocating otherwise. 

ShootersHillGuru

thenewbie said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

thenewbie said:

If you don't like the example used of love, you could make the same argument that laws/justice are just as much made up as "religion" - humans generally believe that if you do certain bad things there should be consequences (albeit with disagreement as to what those consequences should be.)

It's normally accepted that if one person steals from another, or someone kills someone else this is bad. But no other animals see this. If a lion kills a rival male, the lionesses don't form a jury to decide what happens to him. If a rat steals food from another rat then its just how it goes.

So really it's not actually "real'' any more than a sky man who judges you after death is. My argument is not that God is real (I don't believe he is.) I just think that all humans believe in made up things (including me) and you are fooling yourself if you think you don't.

Obvious man made constructs like the law and the other rules and conventions we choose to live by are hardly comparable to believing in a creator that is all powerful and benevolent who knows and sees everything and will judge you and your life on the day of judgement. The former is a man made practical solution to civilisation, avoiding anarchy and the other something quite different. 

But both are things that only "exist" if we believe they do. That's my point. The difference is one is universally accepted and one is not.

The law says "this is right, this is wrong" and people believe this is fair and right. What people (not me) say is God also says "this is right and this wrong" but not everyone believes that to be fair and right (including me.)

People will quite naturally assume in a nebulous concept. Religion is just one version. A bad, outdated version very often and I'm not advocating otherwise. 

Once a law or convention is put into being you can prove its existence. You can see and feel its effects. The rights or wrongs of the law or convention is a different topic. Nothing thus far can prove or demonstrate the existence of god. There are no effects to be seen or demonstrated that can categorically be attributed to a god. There is a massive difference.

SELR_addicks

 Stig said:

I haven't studied classics, but I have looked it up in the worlds greatest encyclopaedia (wiki), here's what it has to say: 'According to the Encyclopedia of Wars, out of all 1,763 known/recorded historical conflicts, 121, or 6.87%, had religion as their primary cause'.

I think this is problematic for a number of reasons

• This only accounts for wars which two particular authors have chose to categorise as having, religion as their primary cause. Other people may chose to categorise them differently.
• They only counted those conflicts with religion as the 'primary' cause. In reality wars often have complex, interconnected causes. If you counted all of these factors, the figure for religious wars would be far higher.
• As someone pointed out above, the discounting of religion as the cause of the Israeli-Palestine conflict shows how nonsensical this methodology is.
• This is a minor point, but the rounding down from .87 is wrong.

Wars are started because of power and land. 

Religion is often a convenient way of saying you're on the 'right side' of the war. 

JaShea99

PopIcon said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

PopIcon said:

Stig said:

I haven't studied classics, but I have looked it up in the worlds greatest encyclopaedia (wiki), here's what it has to say: 'According to the Encyclopedia of Wars, out of all 1,763 known/recorded historical conflicts, 121, or 6.87%, had religion as their primary cause'.

I think this is problematic for a number of reasons

• This only accounts for wars which two particular authors have chose to categorise as having, religion as their primary cause. Other people may chose to categorise them differently.
• They only counted those conflicts with religion as the 'primary' cause. In reality wars often have complex, interconnected causes. If you counted all of these factors, the figure for religious wars would be far higher.
• As someone pointed out above, the discounting of religion as the cause of the Israeli-Palestine conflict shows how nonsensical this methodology is.
• This is a minor point, but the rounding down from .87 is wrong.

I can't say i've heard of the Encyclopedia of Wars, who was it written by?

I don't care enough to spend time trying to convince people when i know i'm right. I'm not bothered if people aren't interested.

Peak internet right here.

About as laughable as religion in 2024. 

What does that even mean?

I don’t wanna speak for him, but I think he means peak as in classic Internet - classic Internet argument response these days is instead of offering a repost someone just says “I know I’m right.” Then, again, don’t want to speak for him but I think he’s saying the above is as laughable, (as in as humorous) as believing there’s a man in the sky who controls everything in 2024.

MrOneLung

ME14addick said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

ME14addick said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

MuttleyCAFC said:

Other people's beliefs should be respected unless they hurt others. I don't like beliefs or even non beliefs imposed on or being used to oppress people. Jones' religion shouldn't matter to us one iota. And I'm sure it doesn't as what we are interested in is his managerial abilities.

Why should we respect someone’s views just because we attach the word religion or faith to them. I don’t respect the opinions of someone who believes that the earth is flat. Or that viruses don’t exist.  It flies in the face of 100% of the evidence. It’s stupid. No more stupid though than believing in a story that also has no evidence whatsoever to support it. If it was a harmless faith I would just park it alongside the flat earthers but religion time and time again for all of its history has been the cause and remains the cause of wars, death, misery and destruction. Respect. I have none.

Whilst science tells me that there is no God, I have no proof that there isn't some higher power beyond human comprehension, just as I have no proof that there is. We do have incontrovertible evidence that the earth is not flat and that viruses do exist.

A lot of people do have a lot of comfort from their faith and I respect that, even if I believe that on balance there is probably no God. 

What I find difficult to understand is that a supposedly loving God can allow the suffering that we see all over the world. What is the purpose of making anything suffer if you have the power to stop it. So many wars are fought in the name of religion, that is where I draw the line. 

We can’t disprove the existence of the tooth fairy or the Loch Ness monster but there is zero evidence to support the view that they exist. Attach the words religious or faith to the story of something with zero evidence to support it makes it no more in need of respect than the former two pieces of nonsense. In fact science doesn’t tell you there is no god. It just comments that there is no evidence to support the theory that there is.

Apart from telling children that the tooth fairy exists, nobody grows up believing that it does, so there is a difference. 

Apart from telling children that God exists, nobody grows up believing that it does, so there is NO difference. 

Off_it

MrOneLung said:

ME14addick said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

ME14addick said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

MuttleyCAFC said:

Other people's beliefs should be respected unless they hurt others. I don't like beliefs or even non beliefs imposed on or being used to oppress people. Jones' religion shouldn't matter to us one iota. And I'm sure it doesn't as what we are interested in is his managerial abilities.

Why should we respect someone’s views just because we attach the word religion or faith to them. I don’t respect the opinions of someone who believes that the earth is flat. Or that viruses don’t exist.  It flies in the face of 100% of the evidence. It’s stupid. No more stupid though than believing in a story that also has no evidence whatsoever to support it. If it was a harmless faith I would just park it alongside the flat earthers but religion time and time again for all of its history has been the cause and remains the cause of wars, death, misery and destruction. Respect. I have none.

Whilst science tells me that there is no God, I have no proof that there isn't some higher power beyond human comprehension, just as I have no proof that there is. We do have incontrovertible evidence that the earth is not flat and that viruses do exist.

A lot of people do have a lot of comfort from their faith and I respect that, even if I believe that on balance there is probably no God. 

What I find difficult to understand is that a supposedly loving God can allow the suffering that we see all over the world. What is the purpose of making anything suffer if you have the power to stop it. So many wars are fought in the name of religion, that is where I draw the line. 

We can’t disprove the existence of the tooth fairy or the Loch Ness monster but there is zero evidence to support the view that they exist. Attach the words religious or faith to the story of something with zero evidence to support it makes it no more in need of respect than the former two pieces of nonsense. In fact science doesn’t tell you there is no god. It just comments that there is no evidence to support the theory that there is.

Apart from telling children that the tooth fairy exists, nobody grows up believing that it does, so there is a difference. 

Apart from telling children that God exists, nobody grows up believing that it does, so there is NO difference. 

I think the point she was trying to make was that although you're told it exists when you're young, by the time you get older you grow up, get a mind of your own and realise the tooth fairy is a load of old claptrap.

Which I think actually goes to prove the opposite point than was intended!

Rob

Hmm. Interesting points brought up by @seth plum regarding love. 

In the Bible in both the original Hebrew (Old Testament) and Koine Greek (New Testament) the root of the words for the Womb and for the love and compassion of ‘God’ is the same. So in the Bible unconditional love in humans is directly related to God’s love. That’s how we as humans can comprehend God’s love (if we want to).

ValleyGary

What a load of bollocks 🤣

JamesSeed

One of the many questions that made me doubt the existence of ‘god’ and the afterlife:
At which point in our evolution did we suddenly acquire a soul, and the ability to transition to some sort of afterlife (heaven or hell)?
The more I think about it, the more ludicrous the whole thing seems. ‘God’s love for mankind’ is the most ridiculous idea of all, when you look at the terrible things he, she or it allows to beset us, from childhood cancers, to wars and torture and genocide. 

Whilst I agree that religion gives some people peace of mind, if I was granted one wish it would be for it to be proved that there is no god, and we could all live or lives accordingly, based on humanitarian principles. 

MuttleyCAFC

JamesSeed said:

One of the many questions that made me doubt the existence of ‘god’ and the afterlife:
At which point in our evolution did we suddenly acquire a soul, and the ability to transition to some sort of afterlife (heaven or hell)?
The more I think about it, the more ludicrous the whole thing seems. ‘God’s love for mankind’ is the most ridiculous idea of all, when you look at the terrible things he, she or it allows to beset us, from childhood cancers, to wars and torture and genocide. 

Whilst I agree that religion gives some people peace of mind, if I was granted one wish it would be for it to be proved that there is no god, and we could all live or lives accordingly, based on humanitarian principles. 

If it was proven there was no God, people would still believe.