gater2 Posted December 4, 2009 Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 I'm really not sure how that is an argument for a God. The two extremes are both through social values and the conditioning that goes with it. If we are just a bunch of atoms, then emergent qualities arise out of it that come to what we call feelings. Why would pain and suffering not be a problem if there was no God? It's based on the societies view of what is right and wrong, this changes quite frequently. Also, the justice of the action is based on the current government and society, the culture of the country also matters in this case. There would still be change and advancement in society, through science and understanding. I'm not saying my argument proves God, or that what you say has to be wrong. I'm working on probabilities and analysis of the human condition. I know the argument of societial and evolutionary values of right and wrong; all I'm saying is, from my perspective when you look at the depth of human emotion (joy and despair), I think that view of deriving meaning and purpose from society is transient at best and doesn't satisfy the deep longing in humanity for something greater than ourselves. Look at the great existentialists such as Camus ('Ah, mon cher, for anyone who is alone, without God and without a master, the weight of days is dreadful...Beauty is unbearable, drives us to despair, offering us for a minute the glimpse of an eternity that we should like to stretch out over the whole of time'), Sartre, or even Freddie Mercury ('Nothing really matters, anyone can see, nothing really matters to me): Ultimately I agree with them, trying to find ultimate meaning without God is a very difficult task (note, I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong). Now of course its up to each individual, and I respect the fact (not in a patronising way) the fact that you've thought about it, and come to the conclusion you have come to. For me, the fact that we are born, we live and we die then that's it can't be it. I think there's too much hope in the world that things can get better for this to be the case, and what foundation does this hope have if we are just a bunch of atoms. Also, Red Goblin is right: why can't the emergent feelings that arise out of our brains and conditioning ultimately come from God? I acknowledge we have brains and most of what we can feel can be described from chemical reactions in our brains, but that doesn't exclude the possibility God made our brains to work this way. Also, although we have had an advancement in technology and science in the last few thousand years, I would disagree that there has been much, if any, advancement in morality, however much anyone wants to defend Enlightenment reason and values. Look at the figures: the 20th century was the bloodiest in history, the gap between rich and poor has never been wider. If you were to say our society in the West (the more 'developled') had advanced more I'd just need to cite figues on depression, stress, suicide, rape etc. to show that our society isn't any more 'advanced morally'. People run after tempory pleasures like the security of money and I believe ultimately find it does not satisfy. Please don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you can prove God; this will always be an argument of what is most likely, and if anyone looks at the world and decides there can't be a God, then fair enough. When I look at the world, I personally can't see how there can't be a God who loves us, and loves us so much that He wants to change this world and redeem it from all the hurt and the pain that we see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Mosquito Posted December 4, 2009 Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 Also, although we have had an advancement in technology and science in the last few thousand years, I would disagree that there has been much, if any, advancement in morality, however much anyone wants to defend Enlightenment reason and values. Look at the figures: the 20th century was the bloodiest in history, the gap between rich and poor has never been wider. If you were to say our society in the West (the more 'developled') had advanced more I'd just need to cite figues on depression, stress, suicide, rape etc. to show that our society isn't any more 'advanced morally'. People run after tempory pleasures like the security of money and I believe ultimately find it does not satisfy. I think living conditions now are more comfortable in this generally cold and wet country - with central heating etc - but are people really happier now than they were 50, 100 or 200 years ago? It's a taboo subject, but there are more abortions now than ever before and that's a major moral and ethical failing in this country that's never really discussed in order to correct it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Belgrave Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 I think living conditions now are more comfortable in this generally cold and wet country - with central heating etc - but are people really happier now than they were 50, 100 or 200 years ago? It's a taboo subject, but there are more abortions now than ever before and that's a major moral and ethical failing in this country that's never really discussed in order to correct it. Excellent point: what is current " Happiness Quotient?" Certainly people are more comfortable now but does that equate with "Happiness" per se? After all ,what you don't have, or can have no conception of ,you don't miss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newboy Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 If God did exist what would you ask him? Why is this on a football forum? Still, since you asked (and really nothing personal, but since you decided to put it up): If you really exist, you're all powerful and all knowing and you created Man in your image, why do Bristol Rovers exist? Do you really hate gay people or is that just chinese whispers? I don't fancy men, but my wife's quite heavily pregnant now and it's like, been a while and I like to keep my options open at my age. How come you used to turn naughty people into a pillar of salt but don't anymore? That would be cool. Especially on child molestors. Or even on those with late library cards. Or middle lane hoggers on motorways. You did it to someone for looking back at a burning city, so surely Timmy Mallet deserves it more? Why did you ask someone to kill their own child to prove their faith? That's sort of sick. I hope they saw the funny side. If you cant' be bothered to intervene in natural disasters where innocents get killed, large scale genocides, people killing in your name, child abuse, cancer etc, why should we bother believing in you? Seriously? If the Earth is really 3000-odd years old (or whatever it is, it's not much), how come there's loads of evidence to suggest otherwise? Was it a misprint? How come crime rates are higher in areas with the least amount of atheists? If the Bible is the authoratitive book of God, how come it was selectively edited by a whole bunch of humans to come to the final version? Which juicy bits have we missed out on? Was it edited to get a PG rating? Or was it rushed out so it wouldn't get lost in the Xmas rush? Can you respond to that Richard Dawkins book - it got kinda boring and patronising after a while but it asked some good questions I've not heard a decent response to other than "God's simply a fairy tale for people who a) can't handle the ultimate futility of life and b) can't deal with the complexities of 'shit happens for no reason sometimes'". Can you lend me a tenner? And make it snow this Xmas? Or even better lend me a grand and I'll give it back with interest when I get to heaven. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gater2 Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 Why is this on a football forum? Still, since you asked (and really nothing personal, but since you decided to put it up): 1)If you really exist, you're all powerful and all knowing and you created Man in your image, why do Bristol Rovers exist? 2)Do you really hate gay people or is that just chinese whispers? I don't fancy men, but my wife's quite heavily pregnant now and it's like, been a while and I like to keep my options open at my age. 3)How come you used to turn naughty people into a pillar of salt but don't anymore? That would be cool. Especially on child molestors. Or even on those with late library cards. Or middle lane hoggers on motorways. You did it to someone for looking back at a burning city, so surely Timmy Mallet deserves it more? 4)Why did you ask someone to kill their own child to prove their faith? That's sort of sick. I hope they saw the funny side. 5)If you cant' be bothered to intervene in natural disasters where innocents get killed, large scale genocides, people killing in your name, child abuse, cancer etc, why should we bother believing in you? Seriously? 6)If the Earth is really 3000-odd years old (or whatever it is, it's not much), how come there's loads of evidence to suggest otherwise? Was it a misprint? 7)How come crime rates are higher in areas with the least amount of atheists? 8)If the Bible is the authoratitive book of God, how come it was selectively edited by a whole bunch of humans to come to the final version? Which juicy bits have we missed out on? Was it edited to get a PG rating? Or was it rushed out so it wouldn't get lost in the Xmas rush? 9)Can you respond to that Richard Dawkins book - it got kinda boring and patronising after a while but it asked some good questions I've not heard a decent response to other than "God's simply a fairy tale for people who a) can't handle the ultimate futility of life and b) can't deal with the complexities of 'shit happens for no reason sometimes'". 10)Can you lend me a tenner? And make it snow this Xmas? Or even better lend me a grand and I'll give it back with interest when I get to heaven. Cheers Good response, not quite what I was expecting but hey.. Firstly, I think I'm allowed to have this on my signature as although this is a football forum, I think you know this is more than just a football forum. People have music, politics quotes etc. on their signatures, why shouldn't I have something I'm passionate about? I think this debate is probably better had in the 'general' section of the forum, but if you are interested: Very short answers: 1) That is a question I ask Him every day. 2) The God I believe in doesn't hate gay people, and I certainly don't have a problem with gay people 3) This is a hermeneutical issue, and I believe a story that makes more sense when taken in the context of the whole Bible (yes this does sound like a cop out and will unless I wrote an essay about, which even I'm not sad enough to do) 4) Same as above 5) As I said in the debate in the 'general' chat: turn it on its head: if God doesn't exist, would these still create a moral dilemma (I mean a really deep one)? If we are all just a bunch of atoms, there is nothing essentially that constitutes what is 'right' and 'wrong' apart from a very flimsy argument that attriubtes it to society. The world is cold and unforgiving with events like this if there is no God, and I believe humanity has too much hope for this to be the case. 6) I don't believe the world is 3000 years old, I believe in evolution, which I don't believe is incompatible with the Bible. 7) Christianity doesn't teach that Christians are better people than non-Christians, just that we need to look outside ourselves (to God) to be better rather than relying on human strength. 8) A text can still be authoritative in its final form having been edited throughout history (and the final canon for the Bible was in fact decided on around 200AD) 9) In my experience Richard Dawkins is not reall taken seriously by anyone who has thought about these issues to any great degree (atheists and theists alike). His arguments are based on the fallacy that all faith is blind, when this is certainly not the case. I have faith that my fiancee isn't cheating on me, but I can't prove it; from Richard Dawkins' approach, you can't trust anything unless you can prove it, and this is often not the case. 10) I'll pray extra hard..! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheese Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 Good response, not quite what I was expecting but hey.. Firstly, I think I'm allowed to have this on my signature as although this is a football forum, I think you know this is more than just a football forum. People have music, politics quotes etc. on their signatures, why shouldn't I have something I'm passionate about? I think this debate is probably better had in the 'general' section of the forum, but if you are interested: Very short answers: 1) That is a question I ask Him every day. 2) The God I believe in doesn't hate gay people, and I certainly don't have a problem with gay people 3) This is a hermeneutical issue, and I believe a story that makes more sense when taken in the context of the whole Bible (yes this does sound like a cop out and will unless I wrote an essay about, which even I'm not sad enough to do) 4) Same as above 5) As I said in the debate in the 'general' chat: turn it on its head: if God doesn't exist, would these still create a moral dilemma (I mean a really deep one)? If we are all just a bunch of atoms, there is nothing essentially that constitutes what is 'right' and 'wrong' apart from a very flimsy argument that attriubtes it to society. The world is cold and unforgiving with events like this if there is no God, and I believe humanity has too much hope for this to be the case. 6) I don't believe the world is 3000 years old, I believe in evolution, which I don't believe is incompatible with the Bible. 7) Christianity doesn't teach that Christians are better people than non-Christians, just that we need to look outside ourselves (to God) to be better rather than relying on human strength. 8) A text can still be authoritative in its final form having been edited throughout history (and the final canon for the Bible was in fact decided on around 200AD) 9) In my experience Richard Dawkins is not reall taken seriously by anyone who has thought about these issues to any great degree (atheists and theists alike). His arguments are based on the fallacy that all faith is blind, when this is certainly not the case. I have faith that my fiancee isn't cheating on me, but I can't prove it; from Richard Dawkins' approach, you can't trust anything unless you can prove it, and this is often not the case. 10) I'll pray extra hard..! Number 9 - Yes, but it can be falsified - it is possible. A few of my own to ask: 11. What do you have against amputees? People claim that you allow miracles to be performed on very ill people, but amuptees never have their limbs grow back. Why is that? 12. Why is Bristol City not European Champions? Why make me suffer like that? 13. Is the Devil in charge of North Somerset County Council? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Peacock Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 Ask him if pride is a sin. When he says yes, then ask him why he made Jesus in his own image, as surely that is pride. Actually, that is always a good question to ask a vicar or priest. It nearly got my daughter thrown out of confirmation class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newboy Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 Good response, not quite what I was expecting but hey.. Firstly, I think I'm allowed to have this on my signature as although this is a football forum, I think you know this is more than just a football forum. People have music, politics quotes etc. on their signatures, why shouldn't I have something I'm passionate about? I think this debate is probably better had in the 'general' section of the forum, but if you are interested: Very short answers: 1) That is a question I ask Him every day. 2) The God I believe in doesn't hate gay people, and I certainly don't have a problem with gay people 3) This is a hermeneutical issue, and I believe a story that makes more sense when taken in the context of the whole Bible (yes this does sound like a cop out and will unless I wrote an essay about, which even I'm not sad enough to do) 4) Same as above 5) As I said in the debate in the 'general' chat: turn it on its head: if God doesn't exist, would these still create a moral dilemma (I mean a really deep one)? If we are all just a bunch of atoms, there is nothing essentially that constitutes what is 'right' and 'wrong' apart from a very flimsy argument that attriubtes it to society. The world is cold and unforgiving with events like this if there is no God, and I believe humanity has too much hope for this to be the case. 6) I don't believe the world is 3000 years old, I believe in evolution, which I don't believe is incompatible with the Bible. 7) Christianity doesn't teach that Christians are better people than non-Christians, just that we need to look outside ourselves (to God) to be better rather than relying on human strength. 8) A text can still be authoritative in its final form having been edited throughout history (and the final canon for the Bible was in fact decided on around 200AD) 9) In my experience Richard Dawkins is not reall taken seriously by anyone who has thought about these issues to any great degree (atheists and theists alike). His arguments are based on the fallacy that all faith is blind, when this is certainly not the case. I have faith that my fiancee isn't cheating on me, but I can't prove it; from Richard Dawkins' approach, you can't trust anything unless you can prove it, and this is often not the case. 10) I'll pray extra hard..! Thanks for taking the time out to answer that. It's an incredibly personal issue and I'm glad you took no offence. I'd love to debate this further (not many people in my experience can discuss this without it getting aggressive or simply not being able to debate it properly). No worries with the personal sig, but obviously you're inviting responses you may not like. If you're happy with that, cool. 2) Means you are selectively interpreting as the bible is explicitly anti-Gay in parts. 3) Again, selective interpretation. 4) Once again. Hermeneutical is a posh word for interpretation which is a polite way of admitting that the stated 'facts' can't be taken at face value. At this rate you're ignoring large swathes because it's either demonstrably untrue or inconvenient or contradictory. Just like the facts that support LJ as a competent midfielder that peskily get in the way of irrational argument. If you decide which bits are untrue (conveniently interpreting them as metaphor) and which bits you want to believe in, doesn't that undermine the whole point of an authorative source? And if you take that to it's natural conclusion, I'd argue that it's easy to say that none of it can be taken at face value and therefore is metaphorical and therefore God is a myth. Ergo Jesus was just a very wise and influential bloke. 5) From my point of view, you don't need God to believe in morality. Call it Game Theory if you like, but a rational human being can recognise that by helping out fellow men, we all benefit. I'm an absolute atheist and I utterly believe in society and the inherent good in it because as a basic survival instinct we know we'll survive better as a group - it's simply logical that we need to help each other to survive since we can protect each other and share skills and resources. Hence the need for people to come to Ashton Gate - it's hardly for the entertaining football or pies is it?! From all of that comes morality. Of course some people will be selfish and screw others over, but the interconnected nature of our lives means that they can only get away with it for so long and it will come back and bite them in the ass. Unless they're stupid, they'll learn from that and become better people. All done without the presence of a God. Just common sense and survival instincts. 6) Selectively picking again. The Bible (and religous scholars and Bishops since then) are pretty explicit about the age of the Earth. At this rate you might as well rule out the whole of the Old Testament. If you're going to rule out a fair chunk of the Old Testament, how can you say that the bits you do believe in are true? Doesn't that give you serious doubts about the whole thing if piece by piece it doesn't bear scrutiny? 7) Is admonishing responsibility to a higher entity. Just like the AA programme tells people that they can't help themselves, but only God can sort them out (seriously - look up the Alcoholic Anonymous steps - scary cult like stuff). That's disempowerment in my book and is where a religion goes from a tool of personal comfort for dealing with hard stuff to taking decision making out of peoples hands and putting it into the hands of an organised entity. This is where it turns harmful. Think that sounds melodramatic? Look at the Police in Ireland who for decades went to the church rather than the courts when child abuse occurred. Nasty. All because they believed in a higher power that would deal with it rather than take responsibility themselves. Same goes for the Bishops. In my book the sooner we get out of the mindset that we can't help ourselves and switch it so that we take responsibility for our lives the better. Bit like GJ blaming the players all the time. The sooner he admits that he makes the odd ballsup the quicker he'll improve. 8) But people were editing and switching parts of the book around more often than GJ's rotation policy. At which point does it stop becoming the word of God when a human being decides to leave a bit out? As soon as a human being alters it, it's not longer definitive. 9) You'll need a better example than that to convince me to be honest. Richard Dawkins is saying that we should believe things we can test for ourselves. Even Buddhism says that. He's actually challenging people to go out there and test it for themselves. Good scientific behaviour goes a step beyond and encourages you to actually try and disprove that. Can you find a fault in that as a sensible approach? You're asking people to believe in something that has no evidence. Yes there are things that we can't currently explain but it doesn't mean that your particular God (out of the 1000's out there) is the answer. An absence of an explanation is not proof that your theory is right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Man In Black Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 OK, we're no more than a collection of atoms but forces such as gravity, magnetism, weak nuclear forces, electrical energy etc etc influence those atoms. Who's to say that some higher being or whatever does not influence those atoms as well ???!!!! God doesn't actually solve this issue. If you use a deity as a reason for all these things, you have to ask where the deity himself or herself came from... infinite regress. Rather than use god to explain any gaps in science.... let's use science. Because we couldn't explain how reproduction works years ago. People assumed it was god. But now we have an understanding of how reproduction works. We didn't understand how odd rocks seemed to crop up in weird places when the same type of rock could only be found occurring naturally hundreds of miles away. God? No, the ice age. Many things in the universe are way outside of our understanding right now, and probably won't be properly understood for many years yet, but that to me is no reason to use a god as an excuse. On a slightly unrelated note, if god really does exist, I'm sure he'll appreciate people being inquisitive about the way of the world, than the closed minded 'playing with god' attitude of some religious folk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gater2 Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newboy Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Rizzle Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 A really interesting read, thankyou both. Its good to see people able to express their opinions and give answers for what they believe in a respectful manner. Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Man In Black Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 I think living conditions now are more comfortable in this generally cold and wet country - with central heating etc - but are people really happier now than they were 50, 100 or 200 years ago? It's a taboo subject, but there are more abortions now than ever before and that's a major moral and ethical failing in this country that's never really discussed in order to correct it. Excellent point: what is current " Happiness Quotient?" Certainly people are more comfortable now but does that equate with "Happiness" per se? After all ,what you don't have, or can have no conception of ,you don't miss. I had a similar debate with some Jehovah's Witnesses that arrived on my doorstep on Sunday. They were asking why people today are so much more miserable, and I disagreed. We just think we're miserable. RG, I would love to see what you are basing 'more abortions than ever before' on. What data? Don't forget that before it was legalised many people had illegal, and potentially deadly, abortions. People have been having babies out of wedlock for years, they just used to either palm them off to older relatives or attempt to hide it as it wasn't seen as acceptable, despite being prevalent. They have also had backstreet abortions. To try and claim this is a new thing and that it's a sign that we are morally and ethically as a country is absurd. I would much prefer for those "in trouble" (to use an old phrase) got proper medical help and counselling as opposed to being ostracised and putting their lives at risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gater2 Posted December 10, 2009 Report Share Posted December 10, 2009 Cool. I don't agree but I respect what you've written and see where you're coming from. I guess that's all you can ask from in a debate. I'm certainly not hoping to change your mind, but just understand those with a different viewpoint better. I guess there is no middle ground here. Belief in a God is black and white in my eyes. I don't have time to write a full response (too many late nights working) but in brief (all around point 5): You say suffering is proof of God. I say it's the main cause of Religion alongside the inability to explain something, which often go hand in hand. IMHO many people find it easier to believe in an escape clause (Heaven) to deal with pain such as either current suffering ('there must be something better than this') or dealing with grief ('she's gone to a better place'). It's a neat compact way of dealing with something painful and people tend to go for those rather than face the cold hard truth that sometimes life can be cruel due to the laws of probability or your own actions. People nearly always need to understand a reason for unexpected events. Try and explain chaos theory or negligence to someone grieving and is desperately looking for answers. It's always easier to assign it to a higher being. Again a nice neat answer. Same goes for stuff people couldn't explain in the early days - hence fire gods, sun gods, rain gods. As our understanding gets better the beliefs in these gods disappear. You've more or less said the same thing: - "The world cannot offer you any assurance that things will get better" - "From my perspective, I think humans have a deep yearning that what we experience here and now cannot be it, and there must be a reason to hope for a better future " Absolutely. Life is cruel. Need a comfort blanket? Religion is one answer. It's a nice easy way for your brain to deal with it. The downside is that you sacrifice varying degrees of empowerment to the church. Re: Stalin/Hitler. Hitler died with a bullet in his head. And a bad haircut. Ultimately it caught up with him. Stalin was lucky. Given the nearly unlimited number of events that go on, statistically there will always be people that buck the trend either by being desperately lucky or unlucky. That's not fate or God, that's just basic probability. Finally - you can't credit God for sunrises/love without also Him taking responsibility for the nasty stuff. That's just selectively picking evidence at it's worst. I love the quote from Attenborough who rebuts people who claim that nature is proof of God. He simply asks them about the worm that lives in water that makes African kids blind. If God does exist, he's not an interventionist since really nasty stuff happens all the time to innocent people. If he's not interventionist, why believe in him? What's the point? Anyhoo. Have a good evening. Personally this has been really interesting. Cheers for that. Indeed, very interesting, and good to have a good natured debate rather than a personal slanging match, which it often descends to on this. Very quickly: 'Absolutely. Life is cruel. Need a comfort blanket? Religion is one answer. It's a nice easy way for your brain to deal with it. The downside is that you sacrifice varying degrees of empowerment to the church.' - I admit, this might well be the case, but my point about generating meaning from society is that I don't think you can argue the world is a better place without God. Whether He's there or not, you get a much more positive world view I think that if he is not. I also don't have time to write a full response (being at work and all that), but thank you again! Maybe we'll continue it at another point! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newboy Posted December 10, 2009 Report Share Posted December 10, 2009 Indeed, very interesting, and good to have a good natured debate rather than a personal slanging match, which it often descends to on this. Very quickly: 'Absolutely. Life is cruel. Need a comfort blanket? Religion is one answer. It's a nice easy way for your brain to deal with it. The downside is that you sacrifice varying degrees of empowerment to the church.' - I admit, this might well be the case, but my point about generating meaning from society is that I don't think you can argue the world is a better place without God. Whether He's there or not, you get a much more positive world view I think that if he is not. I also don't have time to write a full response (being at work and all that), but thank you again! Maybe we'll continue it at another point! I can quite happily argue that the world is a better place without God. :-) In my eyes, religion can be a great thing - it can bring communities together, bring structure and rules to those who need it, provide a comfort blanket to the grieving, bring an easy answer to those asking complex questions and can bring happiness to people - you're a case in point in terms of personal happiness and I'm happy that you're happy and would not want to take that away from you. However IMHO, all of the above can be provided by fellow man, I know many atheists and they're all happily, well balanced and contribute a lot to the schools and community around them. I think many Christians think they have a monopoly on happiness because they don't like to admit that happiness can come from something other than God, which in turn undermines God's impact. There's also some very nasty downsides to God: 1. The obvious stuff. Wars caused by differences in belief. Communities split by differences. Families split by differences. Idiots who take it way too far and take the contradictory mess that is the bible literally, killing abortionists, harassing those who think differently. 2. God creates the church which has an awful track record. Child abuse in a disturbing amount of places. Covering up of child abuse at very high levels for a long period of time. Anti-condom policies in aids ridden countries. Mass wealth in the Vatican whilst followers starve. Persecution of other beliefs - crusades. Sexism - witch-hunts and male driven structures. Witholding the progress of science - look at the accusations of herecy against those who said the earth was round and that Earth wasn't the centre of the universe and many of the renaissance peeps. Corruption - stealing of collections etc. That's the stuff that's very visible and very well known, but I believe there's a more insidious and ultimately dangerous side to belief. It encourages and relies on bad thinking and stops people from ultimately fulfilling their potential. It encourages bad thinking because it depends on selective analysis. Take the potato with the shape of Christ on it. There are billions of potatoes. Over the last hundreds of years there have been billions of billions of potatoes. Due to the basic law of probability there's bound to be some that are oddly shaped. Basic odds are that one will look like Jesus at some point somewhere. And yet when this happens, believers frantically proclaim it as a miracle and proof that God exists. In the mean time conveniently ignoring the billions that don't and look like something else. Same thing with nature as I've previously said - there's lots of beautiful things that are used to justify God. In the mean time all the really nasty stuff that nature provided is completely ignored. There's no balance. It's human nature that people love confirmation of what they hold dear. But if we don't challenge those beliefs then we don't advance as a society. It's all closed thinking.. I firmly believe in the approach of science. Look for proof that supports your theory. But crucially then try even more to look for evidence that contradicts it and then open it up to peers who will do the same. By doing that you can be pretty sure that you're right. I can't see a fault in that but it is the complete antithesis of faith, which relies on either blindness or only looking for stuff that conveniently fits. If you use the thought process that supports belief in God to pretty much anything else in life you'd end up believing in fairies, ghosts, reiki or pretty much anything else I could throw at you. If you really want to you can find evidence that supports anything you want as long as you ignore the evidence that doesn't fit. So why believe? To get happiness? There are plenty of happy atheists. To get answers? An absence of a decent explanation does not mean that religous beliefs are right. To get consolation - maybe. I believe the upshot of this all is that a hell of a lot of people don't fulfil their potential. And that to me is the biggest crime. I believe that by placing some control of one's life to an etheral, non-intervening being one can potentially: - be abused by those with power (the Church) - accept mediocrity in life and procastinate because of the promise of the afterlife - feel powerless because God is ultimately responsible - not take responsibility for your own actions because you believe there is a higher power that will sort it out Not all will apply in all situations, but together that's a potent cocktail for lack of self esteem and social apathy. At my son's school the kids were given a line to rehearse which they had to repeat out loud the next day. It said "I thank God for me learning all that I do and doing well" What about the kids who don't do well? Or schools that don't do as well? Is that God punishing them? Sick. What does that say about the efforts the kids put in? Should they not bother since it's not their efforts or the parents or the teachers but God? What about the police in Ireland who didn't act on the child abuse and relied on God/Church to sort it out. What about the attitude by some churches that you can sin, but as long as you repent to God (not fellow man) then you'll be ok. (this then creates further dependencies on the church - clever manipulative stuff) By not believing in God you acknowledge that: - there is not afterlife. you might as well enjoy this life as much as you can - there is no higher authority, there's only us. so we'd better take responsibility and work together to sort it out And to me (alongside friends, family and a decent performance by City) that's liberating, gives me happiness and makes me fulfilled. Not a single hint of God in that and not a single act of selfishness. Ultimately I'm glad it gives you comfort and recognise that that it gives a lot of people comfort. But on the other hand I'd argue that it's wholly unnecessary and has a nasty subtle sting in it's tail. Still - those 2 goals from Sproule and Skuse eh? Wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gater2 Posted December 13, 2009 Report Share Posted December 13, 2009 Sorry for bumping, but there have been a few replies here since I last saw. Here's a good example of the faith I have and the God I believe in which you might find interesting: http://www.esquire.com/features/best-and-b...-claiborne-1209 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newboy Posted December 13, 2009 Report Share Posted December 13, 2009 Sorry for bumping, but there have been a few replies here since I last saw. Here's a good example of the faith I have and the God I believe in which you might find interesting: http://www.esquire.com/features/best-and-b...-claiborne-1209 Woah there. Before you go off on another tangent and carry on prosthletising is there any chance you'd like to address my last post? You asked me to carry on the debate and I've taken time out to respond to your points. Could you do the honourable thing and respond to it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gater2 Posted December 13, 2009 Report Share Posted December 13, 2009 Woah there. Before you go off on another tangent and carry on prosthletising is there any chance you'd like to address my last post? You asked me to carry on the debate and I've taken time out to respond to your points. Could you do the honourable thing and respond to it? OK I will in a bit, I'm in berlin this weekend and haven't had time to. I will sometime in the next few days though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gater2 Posted December 13, 2009 Report Share Posted December 13, 2009 Interesting summary of Christianity for anyone who's interested, and maybe one not quite so well known in a world of televangelists and southern baptists: http://www.esquire.com/features/best-and-b...-claiborne-1209 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newboy Posted December 13, 2009 Report Share Posted December 13, 2009 OK I will in a bit, I'm in berlin this weekend and haven't had time to. I will sometime in the next few days though. Fair enough. Enjoy Berlin! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gater2 Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 I can quite happily argue that the world is a better place without God. :-) In my eyes, religion can be a great thing - it can bring communities together, bring structure and rules to those who need it, provide a comfort blanket to the grieving, bring an easy answer to those asking complex questions and can bring happiness to people - you're a case in point in terms of personal happiness and I'm happy that you're happy and would not want to take that away from you. However IMHO, all of the above can be provided by fellow man, I know many atheists and they're all happily, well balanced and contribute a lot to the schools and community around them. I think many Christians think they have a monopoly on happiness because they don't like to admit that happiness can come from something other than God, which in turn undermines God's impact. There's also some very nasty downsides to God: 1. The obvious stuff. Wars caused by differences in belief. Communities split by differences. Families split by differences. Idiots who take it way too far and take the contradictory mess that is the bible literally, killing abortionists, harassing those who think differently. 2. God creates the church which has an awful track record. Child abuse in a disturbing amount of places. Covering up of child abuse at very high levels for a long period of time. Anti-condom policies in aids ridden countries. Mass wealth in the Vatican whilst followers starve. Persecution of other beliefs - crusades. Sexism - witch-hunts and male driven structures. Witholding the progress of science - look at the accusations of herecy against those who said the earth was round and that Earth wasn't the centre of the universe and many of the renaissance peeps. Corruption - stealing of collections etc. That's the stuff that's very visible and very well known, but I believe there's a more insidious and ultimately dangerous side to belief. It encourages and relies on bad thinking and stops people from ultimately fulfilling their potential. It encourages bad thinking because it depends on selective analysis. Take the potato with the shape of Christ on it. There are billions of potatoes. Over the last hundreds of years there have been billions of billions of potatoes. Due to the basic law of probability there's bound to be some that are oddly shaped. Basic odds are that one will look like Jesus at some point somewhere. And yet when this happens, believers frantically proclaim it as a miracle and proof that God exists. In the mean time conveniently ignoring the billions that don't and look like something else. Same thing with nature as I've previously said - there's lots of beautiful things that are used to justify God. In the mean time all the really nasty stuff that nature provided is completely ignored. There's no balance. It's human nature that people love confirmation of what they hold dear. But if we don't challenge those beliefs then we don't advance as a society. It's all closed thinking.. I firmly believe in the approach of science. Look for proof that supports your theory. But crucially then try even more to look for evidence that contradicts it and then open it up to peers who will do the same. By doing that you can be pretty sure that you're right. I can't see a fault in that but it is the complete antithesis of faith, which relies on either blindness or only looking for stuff that conveniently fits. If you use the thought process that supports belief in God to pretty much anything else in life you'd end up believing in fairies, ghosts, reiki or pretty much anything else I could throw at you. If you really want to you can find evidence that supports anything you want as long as you ignore the evidence that doesn't fit. So why believe? To get happiness? There are plenty of happy atheists. To get answers? An absence of a decent explanation does not mean that religous beliefs are right. To get consolation - maybe. I believe the upshot of this all is that a hell of a lot of people don't fulfil their potential. And that to me is the biggest crime. I believe that by placing some control of one's life to an etheral, non-intervening being one can potentially: - be abused by those with power (the Church) - accept mediocrity in life and procastinate because of the promise of the afterlife - feel powerless because God is ultimately responsible - not take responsibility for your own actions because you believe there is a higher power that will sort it out Not all will apply in all situations, but together that's a potent cocktail for lack of self esteem and social apathy. At my son's school the kids were given a line to rehearse which they had to repeat out loud the next day. It said "I thank God for me learning all that I do and doing well" What about the kids who don't do well? Or schools that don't do as well? Is that God punishing them? Sick. What does that say about the efforts the kids put in? Should they not bother since it's not their efforts or the parents or the teachers but God? What about the police in Ireland who didn't act on the child abuse and relied on God/Church to sort it out. What about the attitude by some churches that you can sin, but as long as you repent to God (not fellow man) then you'll be ok. (this then creates further dependencies on the church - clever manipulative stuff) By not believing in God you acknowledge that: - there is not afterlife. you might as well enjoy this life as much as you can - there is no higher authority, there's only us. so we'd better take responsibility and work together to sort it out And to me (alongside friends, family and a decent performance by City) that's liberating, gives me happiness and makes me fulfilled. Not a single hint of God in that and not a single act of selfishness. Ultimately I'm glad it gives you comfort and recognise that that it gives a lot of people comfort. But on the other hand I'd argue that it's wholly unnecessary and has a nasty subtle sting in it's tail. Still - those 2 goals from Sproule and Skuse eh? Wow. Enjoyed Berlin very much thanks, just got back and having the day off work! Also, thanks to mods for moving this from the city forum; although I think some were finding it interesting, some were probably a bit annoyed. This response will be divided into two sections as I hope will become clear. Firstly a more philospohical response (apologetic) of the things you have said above; this is, however, in my mind a little bit useless as you will probably disagree with a lot of what I say (although hopefully see at least some sense in what I'm saying), you'll reply, I'll agree with somw of what you say, but disagree with a lot of it too etc. etc. What I have been trying to get across in this debate is precisely this (and this will come out more in the second section), that I know I will never convince you there is a God; if I did, I'd be very worried and it wouldn't be the God I believed in as this God cannot be held by an argument or an idea you can be convinced of. As I will say in the second part (probably sounding a little more 'preachy' (but still based on sound principles and please still read)), the only way this could make sense is by experiencing something of the love or goodness of God, and this is something which can't be done within the realm of ivory tower academia and arguments like this (but I'll come onto that). For this philosophical bit, I'll just take bits of your response above and reply: 'However IMHO, all of the above can be provided by fellow man, I know many atheists and they're all happily, well balanced and contribute a lot to the schools and community around them. I think many Christians think they have a monopoly on happiness because they don't like to admit that happiness can come from something other than God, which in turn undermines God's impact.' - We've been debating this a lot, and I don't think either of us will convince the other. As I said before, I think it must be all about the grey and not the black and white: I'd like to think rather than 100% blocking out the possibility of happiness/joy being attributed to God, there is a little bit of you which 'understands' why people attribute this to God, and even a tiny bit of you which admits it could be true. This could only be 0.001% or whatever, you could be very set in your atheism, but as I have reiterated before, neither theism or atheism can be proved. Of course, objectively either one is true or the other is true, but my point about it being grey is that we can't know that here and now, and this is proved by the fact that there are atheists and theistis. So from my perspective you have to lay the evidence down on the table and say 'this is what I think is more likely', rather than 'this is definitely true', as you can't say that with certainty. I admit it might be that happiness comes from a lot of chemical reactions, and I admit it's a compelling argument that religion is the opium of the people, giving people meaning that isn't really there. But, why can't you go the other way? I could just as easily say that atheists that have 'achieved' happiness are really just kidding themselves and blinding themselves from the depressing truth that there is ultimately no reason or purpose for them to be on this earth. If they died tomorrow, it would make a few people sad for a while, but in the grand scheme of things, it won't affect anything or anyone beyond this generation. This is what the existentialists such as Camus and Sartre realised with their atheism: at the end of the day nothing really matters: you live, you die and that's it; any meaning you derive from society/your life is gone when you die, and I think fricking depressing (note, not necessarily untrue, but just really depressing). On this, I really love the example you see in Batman, The Dark Knight, especially in the scene with Two Face at the end with the hostages. (see link). Two face sums up what I think I'm trying to say: 'The world is cruel, and the only morality in a cruel world is chance. Unbiased, unprejudiced chance. At the end I also see the 'yearning' for something greater than ourselves, 'the joker cannot win'. Batman ultimately takes the sins of others onto himself as the scapegoat as normal human beings cannot do that - the little boy says: 'why is he running dad? He's done nothing wrong?'. This is the message of Christianity in a nutshell, and shows this deep yearning and dissatisfaction of how things are now. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkK39ADFQSM '1. The obvious stuff. Wars caused by differences in belief. Communities split by differences. Families split by differences. Idiots who take it way too far and take the contradictory mess that is the bible literally, killing abortionists, harassing those who think differently.' - You can't just attribute this to religion. What were the only two societies which pushed God out of them truely? Nazism and Communism. People everywhere have something which drives them, and if it's not religion it would be politics, or whatever, and wars would still go on. Again Richard Dawkins is completely mistaken if he thinks a world without religion would be a peaceful one. There would still be left wing v right wing clashes, even football riots, wars over natural resources etc. '2. God creates the church which has an awful track record. Child abuse in a disturbing amount of places. Covering up of child abuse at very high levels for a long period of time. Anti-condom policies in aids ridden countries. Mass wealth in the Vatican whilst followers starve. Persecution of other beliefs - crusades. Sexism - witch-hunts and male driven structures. Witholding the progress of science - look at the accusations of herecy against those who said the earth was round and that Earth wasn't the centre of the universe and many of the renaissance peeps. Corruption - stealing of collections etc.' - This I completely agree with and as I Christian I want to aplolgise to the world on behalf of the church. The church has an awful track record and has rarely displayed the love of Christ to the world as it has meant to. I'll also talk about this in the second section. The only thing I'll say here is that as a Christian you are meant to look at Christ and not Christians for guidance. 'It encourages bad thinking because it depends on selective analysis. Take the potato with the shape of Christ on it. There are billions of potatoes. Over the last hundreds of years there have been billions of billions of potatoes. Due to the basic law of probability there's bound to be some that are oddly shaped. Basic odds are that one will look like Jesus at some point somewhere. And yet when this happens, believers frantically proclaim it as a miracle and proof that God exists. In the mean time conveniently ignoring the billions that don't and look like something else.' - As I said above, yes of course you're right, but this doesn't exclude the possibility it's God. 'Same thing with nature as I've previously said - there's lots of beautiful things that are used to justify God. In the mean time all the really nasty stuff that nature provided is completely ignored. There's no balance. It's human nature that people love confirmation of what they hold dear. But if we don't challenge those beliefs then we don't advance as a society. It's all closed thinking..' - I don't think it's closed thinking. I admit a lot of Christians/Muslims/Jews/Hindus etc. are very closed minded, but then again some of the cleverest people in the world, with countless PhDs or whatever believe in God, and they have certainly not closed their minds. 'So why believe? To get happiness? There are plenty of happy atheists. To get answers? An absence of a decent explanation does not mean that religous beliefs are right. To get consolation - maybe. I believe the upshot of this all is that a hell of a lot of people don't fulfil their potential. And that to me is the biggest crime. I believe that by placing some control of one's life to an etheral, non-intervening being one can potentially: - be abused by those with power (the Church) - accept mediocrity in life and procastinate because of the promise of the afterlife - feel powerless because God is ultimately responsible - not take responsibility for your own actions because you believe there is a higher power that will sort it out' - I don't believe necessarily because of happiness or to get an answer, I believe at the end of the day because I believe it's true and I believe I have experienced God in some way that I can't describe in words. I also definitely don't buy the filling the potential thing. I know feel amazingly fulfilled in my life and I know countless others who have founded their life on God and lived far more fulfilled lives than those who haven't. Are you saying that Ghandi, Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King, Dietrich Bonheoffer (and I could go on a very long time), didn't live fulfilled lives? In fact, they are all the people who our society lifts up and honours most, and these were the people who believed against all the odds. Even in the face of basically certain defeat they were willing to believe that things could be better. This isn't a very scientific approach if you as me. There is something in our society which is, I would argue, contrary to the scientific approach, and encourages us to have faith. Why do we sing, 'we always believe' at Ashton gate? There's no rational argument for it, but people do it anyway. Why is that? I would argue that people are yearning to look outside themselves and the world for something else. Also, those people I named above: they all believed in God: did they accept mediocrity in life and procrastinate cos of the promise of the afterlife? This is a great misunderstanding held by many theists I'll admit, and especially Christians, that we're just to wait till the afterlife. In fact, the Bible teaches that God's kingdom should come on Earth as it is in Heaven, and this should start now. Jesus preached the forgivness of all sins and bringing people to 'fullness of life' here and now. Finally, this is not something we just wait for God to do, but we should get on and do, acknowledging we need God's help for it. It's maybe like a child learning to walk or ride a bike: they need an adult's help to get going, but ultimately they have a huge part to play as well. 'What about the kids who don't do well? Or schools that don't do as well? Is that God punishing them? Sick.' - I don't believe so: Martin Luther said that Jesus didn't come for the healthy, but the sick. In fact it is a premise of Christian faith that God is with those who society has casted out. As I said before, my fiancee and I are moving onto a council estate where the church we go to does a lot of work in the community, and believe me, I see God where you would least expect to see Him. Again we can go back to the problem of pain and suffering: if there is no God, then I don't think there's a huge problem with this. A lot of people's lives are defined by where they are born and the upbringing they have. As I suggested with the batman clip above, this just happens in a world without God. In London you have shootings almost every month; in a world without God, will there ever be justice for this? No, certainly not for the child that has died: they're dead, do they care if the purpetrator goes to jail? Will the family who lost their child get the child back? No. 'What about the police in Ireland who didn't act on the child abuse and relied on God/Church to sort it out. What about the attitude by some churches that you can sin, but as long as you repent to God (not fellow man) then you'll be ok. (this then creates further dependencies on the church - clever manipulative stuff)' - I agree, these are tragedies, and a result of distorted theology. The answer for bad theology, however is not no theology, but good theology. I know you'll then bring out the 'selective' card, and I would refer back to my response in the post before. I do believe there is objectivity on these matters which can be achieved. I think you'll find the Church does now condemn the actions of police in Ireland and says it is a tragedy. Ultimately of course, though, the church has to have different things which keep it in check: the Bible (and yes, I know there's not a untied consensus, but in my experience Christians do actually agree more often than they disagree, and especially on the core issues), the rest of the church (international body), and of course society. I'm running out of time so I'm just going onto my second part (not as long!). The premise of this part is that I know full well that you probably won't be very convinced by the arguments I have said here. You probably have a lot of things to argue from what I've put, and that's fine; it should be that way as God is not something you can understand, but a relationship to be had. The link I posted on the last post (the one to which you demaned a reply to your post) I think is really good on this, and if you have time you should read it, as it summarizes what I'm trying to say very well. Basically it acknowledges that Christians are often really crap. As you have picked up on, we have not often displayed the love of Jesus to the world around us, which is what we are trying to do, but often fail miserably. I would like to suggest that rather than looking at Christians as a representative of Christinaity you look at the Jesus portrayed in the Bible. This is a Jesus who pretty much turned everything upside down from what people were expecting. Christians often go on about how God wants to judge, send people to hell etc., but if you look at what Jesus said, he did not come to condemn the world, but to save it, because he loved it so much. This is a Jesus who in fact said to those who were proud and 'pious' that the 'tax collectors [hated in Jewish society] and prostitutes will enter God's kingdom before you'. 'It is this Jesus who was born in a stank manger in the middle of a genocide. That is the God that we are just as likely to find in the streets as in the sanctuary, who can redeem revolutionaries and tax collectors, the oppressed and the oppressors... a God who is saving some of us from the ghettos of poverty, and some of us from the ghettos of wealth.' http://www.esquire.com/features/best-and-b...-claiborne-1209 I can't convince you that there is a God or that Christiniaty is true. The only one who could do that is God. A very good way to experience something of the goodness and love of God is in the community of the church. I know it has a very bad reception (and partly rightly so), but there is actually a lot of really great stuff happening in the church. I don't know whether you are searching for God in this debate or debating for the sake of debating, or trying to prove me wrong or whatever (and none of those are bad things); but if anything I have said makes any kind of sense, and if you did want to ask more questions along these lines, then I would suggest looking into an alpha course. I don't mean to be offensive and I definitely don't mean any of this in a patronising way, but I know a lot of people who have had a lot of questions like you do and have gone on an alpha course and really enjoyed it (not necessarily became a Christian at the end, but enjoyed having the forum in which to ask these questions). If you you're not searching at all, then of course, absolutely fine. All I can say is that my faith in God brings me an incomparible joy, which I haven't ever experienced before, and I would now never go back. I would love it if you (or anyone else) wants to come and see (rather than just hear) a bit about this, but if you don't want to that's fine. Wow.. that was long. Hope it made sense, and thanks again for the good spirit in which this debate has been had. http://uk.alpha.org/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newboy Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 Enjoyed Berlin very much thanks, just got back and having the day off work! Also, thanks to mods for moving this from the city forum; although I think some were finding it interesting, some were probably a bit annoyed. This response will be divided into two sections as I hope will become clear. Firstly a more philospohical response (apologetic) of the things you have said above; this is, however, in my mind a little bit useless as you will probably disagree with a lot of what I say (although hopefully see at least some sense in what I'm saying), you'll reply, I'll agree with somw of what you say, but disagree with a lot of it too etc. etc. What I have been trying to get across in this debate is precisely this (and this will come out more in the second section), that I know I will never convince you there is a God; if I did, I'd be very worried and it wouldn't be the God I believed in as this God cannot be held by an argument or an idea you can be convinced of. As I will say in the second part (probably sounding a little more 'preachy' (but still based on sound principles and please still read)), the only way this could make sense is by experiencing something of the love or goodness of God, and this is something which can't be done within the realm of ivory tower academia and arguments like this (but I'll come onto that). For this philosophical bit, I'll just take bits of your response above and reply: 'However IMHO, all of the above can be provided by fellow man, I know many atheists and they're all happily, well balanced and contribute a lot to the schools and community around them. I think many Christians think they have a monopoly on happiness because they don't like to admit that happiness can come from something other than God, which in turn undermines God's impact.' - We've been debating this a lot, and I don't think either of us will convince the other. As I said before, I think it must be all about the grey and not the black and white: I'd like to think rather than 100% blocking out the possibility of happiness/joy being attributed to God, there is a little bit of you which 'understands' why people attribute this to God, and even a tiny bit of you which admits it could be true. This could only be 0.001% or whatever, you could be very set in your atheism, but as I have reiterated before, neither theism or atheism can be proved. Of course, objectively either one is true or the other is true, but my point about it being grey is that we can't know that here and now, and this is proved by the fact that there are atheists and theistis. So from my perspective you have to lay the evidence down on the table and say 'this is what I think is more likely', rather than 'this is definitely true', as you can't say that with certainty. I admit it might be that happiness comes from a lot of chemical reactions, and I admit it's a compelling argument that religion is the opium of the people, giving people meaning that isn't really there. But, why can't you go the other way? I could just as easily say that atheists that have 'achieved' happiness are really just kidding themselves and blinding themselves from the depressing truth that there is ultimately no reason or purpose for them to be on this earth. If they died tomorrow, it would make a few people sad for a while, but in the grand scheme of things, it won't affect anything or anyone beyond this generation. This is what the existentialists such as Camus and Sartre realised with their atheism: at the end of the day nothing really matters: you live, you die and that's it; any meaning you derive from society/your life is gone when you die, and I think fricking depressing (note, not necessarily untrue, but just really depressing). Yeah - thanks to the mods on this one as well - I'm conscious that my opinion is my own and spending so long explaining it may come across as either egotisitical or just plain dull. But hey, people don't have to read it. Absolutely. I can't explain what makes me happy, and nor can you, but you've attributed it at least partly to God. I can't of course argue definitively against that and there's a large part of me that doesn't want to over-analyse that. Fair enough that you put it down to God. As a partial rebuttal, I'd like to re-iterate that the absence of an explanation does not explain the presence of God. There's been many unexplained things in the past that were attribute to a God and that have since been disproven otherwise. I can't convince you (nor want to tbh) otherwise, but can point to a pretty extensive track record of God-attributed things being found to be otherwise. Cup half full vs Cup half empty. The limited time on earth to me is just that, so realising that surely makes one more likely to make the most of it? How many people do you think accept mediocrity or oppression because of the promise of an afterlife? How many will have decisions taken away from them because of guidelines imposed by a partially corrupt church? What I will concur is that for those whose life is deperately oppressed with no hope of change than religion is a good thing to have since it's their only hope. How about looking at it this way. You've got someone in front of you whose life is just beginning. Can you give them a cast iron promise or produce any evidence at all that there's an afterlife? Can you promise them that the guidance of the church is best for them? You know there's a strong chance that the person will end up sacrificing some sense of self worth and self-determinism if they believe in a higher more powerful entity, however if you're sure of what you believe then they will go to heaven. Are you so sure in your belief that this will happen? Isn't it far more sensible to go with what you can see and live this life to the most, not being second-place to the church or a higher being? Isn't it best that we make all our decisions for ourselves and not at least impart some determinism to a 2000 year old book and/or a minister? To me it's almost arrogant that you're suggesting to someone that they should run their life according to a set of beliefs that can't be proved because you it gives you personal happiness. I've no doubt that your motives are good, but I on the other hand merely ask that people use a bit of rigour - as I've harped on about for ages - just try and disprove it as much as you can before you take it on face value. I don't think that's unreasonable or even in any way a daft approach. I guess I derive happiness from the freedom that atheism gives me. I can handle that I'll die and rot. I can also see that religion gives some people a nice fluffy answer to death but I don't like what price has to be paid. I won't judge you for your choice and won't believe for an instant that you're less or more happy than me, so please don't put quotes around "atheists' 'achieved' happiness". I know a lot of what you're saying is that God gives you a lot of happiness but I don't know how you can say that us atheists aren't the same as you. I've had an epiphany about my reality, you've had one about yours. Let's agree that we're equally happy. On this, I really love the example you see in Batman, The Dark Knight, especially in the scene with Two Face at the end with the hostages. (see link). Two face sums up what I think I'm trying to say: 'The world is cruel, and the only morality in a cruel world is chance. Unbiased, unprejudiced chance. At the end I also see the 'yearning' for something greater than ourselves, 'the joker cannot win'. Batman ultimately takes the sins of others onto himself as the scapegoat as normal human beings cannot do that - the little boy says: 'why is he running dad? He's done nothing wrong?'. This is the message of Christianity in a nutshell, and shows this deep yearning and dissatisfaction of how things are now. '1. The obvious stuff. Wars caused by differences in belief. Communities split by differences. Families split by differences. Idiots who take it way too far and take the contradictory mess that is the bible literally, killing abortionists, harassing those who think differently.' - You can't just attribute this to religion. What were the only two societies which pushed God out of them truely? Nazism and Communism. People everywhere have something which drives them, and if it's not religion it would be politics, or whatever, and wars would still go on. Again Richard Dawkins is completely mistaken if he thinks a world without religion would be a peaceful one. There would still be left wing v right wing clashes, even football riots, wars over natural resources etc. Yeah good story that. But are you saying that no good comes from Man and only from God? Are you saying that we're all so dumb that we can't realise that helping each other (strength through numbers, synergy through shared skills) is the way to go? How do you explain the mere survival and indeed social prosperity of other belief systems and atheist peoples? Are you seriously saying that all non-Christian communities/countries are unhappy immoral and unadvanced? Conversely how can you at a large scale justify society that has been subject to Christianity to 2000 years? Your argument has just gone around in knots. We've had 2000 years of Christianity - that's a pretty long time for an experiment and yet you say that this very society has deep yearning for more and is massively dissatified. Isn't that proof itself that Christianity hasn't worked?! Re: obvious stuff. Absolutely, but two wrongs don't make a right. If you want to put Christianity in the same boat as Nazism and Communism then I think you've gone too far. '2. God creates the church which has an awful track record. Child abuse in a disturbing amount of places. Covering up of child abuse at very high levels for a long period of time. Anti-condom policies in aids ridden countries. Mass wealth in the Vatican whilst followers starve. Persecution of other beliefs - crusades. Sexism - witch-hunts and male driven structures. Witholding the progress of science - look at the accusations of herecy against those who said the earth was round and that Earth wasn't the centre of the universe and many of the renaissance peeps. Corruption - stealing of collections etc.' - This I completely agree with and as I Christian I want to aplolgise to the world on behalf of the church. The church has an awful track record and has rarely displayed the love of Christ to the world as it has meant to. I'll also talk about this in the second section. The only thing I'll say here is that as a Christian you are meant to look at Christ and not Christians for guidance. But Christ has been dead for 2000 years. Christians follow his guidance. The Church is the official organisation for spreading the word of God. How else can we judge it? To me it looks as if you've at least partially agreed that some of the bible is a parable at best. You've also pretty much disowned the Church. So now we're down to personal belief and for that I'm immensely grateful. But this does raise a troubling question? If God does exist, why does he allow people to do bad in his name? Surely he's be pretty miffed at that and do something about it? I don't believe you answered why he allows genocide etc either. Surely if God is to be of any practical use he'd help out once in a while? If he's just there to make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside I'm not sure I'd want to spend my life believing in him. And another troubling question. If God does provide morality, why has the Church got such a bad track record? Since we're on the subject of morality, why do so many Christian aid organisations insist on only helping those who are converted to Christian? Why don't they unconditionally help everyone? 'It encourages bad thinking because it depends on selective analysis. Take the potato with the shape of Christ on it. There are billions of potatoes. Over the last hundreds of years there have been billions of billions of potatoes. Due to the basic law of probability there's bound to be some that are oddly shaped. Basic odds are that one will look like Jesus at some point somewhere. And yet when this happens, believers frantically proclaim it as a miracle and proof that God exists. In the mean time conveniently ignoring the billions that don't and look like something else.' - As I said above, yes of course you're right, but this doesn't exclude the possibility it's God. Absolutely, but in the absence of any other evidence, why should we believe in your particular version of God? This can keep going around in circles. I believe that if you make an assertion, the onus is down to you to provide the evidence. I can't disprove anything because in order to do that, I'd have to show every single infinite alternative and find nothing. It's always harder to find something that isn't there because you have to look absolutely everywhere to prove it's missing. You're using an unfair argument by saying 'aha - but you can't prove God's not there' in areas of uncertainty (which shrink as humankind gets more knowedge but at a very slow rate). I don't have the resources to do that. Can you play fair and give me some evidence that God is behind this? It's like me saying that the Yeti exists. You'd have to simultaenously scan every mountain to prove that it's not there. It's far fairer for me to say that you have to show evidence of a yeti before you expect me to believe it. 'Same thing with nature as I've previously said - there's lots of beautiful things that are used to justify God. In the mean time all the really nasty stuff that nature provided is completely ignored. There's no balance. It's human nature that people love confirmation of what they hold dear. But if we don't challenge those beliefs then we don't advance as a society. It's all closed thinking..' - I don't think it's closed thinking. I admit a lot of Christians/Muslims/Jews/Hindus etc. are very closed minded, but then again some of the cleverest people in the world, with countless PhDs or whatever believe in God, and they have certainly not closed their minds. So why does religion encourage positive belief and actively discourage science/learning? 'So why believe? To get happiness? There are plenty of happy atheists. To get answers? An absence of a decent explanation does not mean that religous beliefs are right. To get consolation - maybe. I believe the upshot of this all is that a hell of a lot of people don't fulfil their potential. And that to me is the biggest crime. I believe that by placing some control of one's life to an etheral, non-intervening being one can potentially: - be abused by those with power (the Church) - accept mediocrity in life and procastinate because of the promise of the afterlife - feel powerless because God is ultimately responsible - not take responsibility for your own actions because you believe there is a higher power that will sort it out' - I don't believe necessarily because of happiness or to get an answer, I believe at the end of the day because I believe it's true and I believe I have experienced God in some way that I can't describe in words. I also definitely don't buy the filling the potential thing. I know feel amazingly fulfilled in my life and I know countless others who have founded their life on God and lived far more fulfilled lives than those who haven't. Are you saying that Ghandi, Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King, Dietrich Bonheoffer (and I could go on a very long time), didn't live fulfilled lives? In fact, they are all the people who our society lifts up and honours most, and these were the people who believed against all the odds. Even in the face of basically certain defeat they were willing to believe that things could be better. This isn't a very scientific approach if you as me. There is something in our society which is, I would argue, contrary to the scientific approach, and encourages us to have faith. Why do we sing, 'we always believe' at Ashton gate? There's no rational argument for it, but people do it anyway. Why is that? I would argue that people are yearning to look outside themselves and the world for something else. Also, those people I named above: they all believed in God: did they accept mediocrity in life and procrastinate cos of the promise of the afterlife? This is a great misunderstanding held by many theists I'll admit, and especially Christians, that we're just to wait till the afterlife. In fact, the Bible teaches that God's kingdom should come on Earth as it is in Heaven, and this should start now. Jesus preached the forgivness of all sins and bringing people to 'fullness of life' here and now. Finally, this is not something we just wait for God to do, but we should get on and do, acknowledging we need God's help for it. It's maybe like a child learning to walk or ride a bike: they need an adult's help to get going, but ultimately they have a huge part to play as well. Fair point and I'm happy to see some actual examples. However I would argue that we get an innate sense of happiness from being a part of society and that is driven by an anthropological/socialogical need for strength in numbers. If we belong to a group we meet one of our hierarchy of needs and that is a greater driving force than any ethereal being. In terms of the examples you give - there will always be strong people that rise above the rest. But are you honestly saying that there won't be a downside to belief where people do settle for second best because of abdication of responsibility. Note that I'm not saying that won't happen in an atheist society - there always will be people who are apathetic. But I'd argue that for those that are marginal religion/a higher power will tip the balance towards disempowerment. 'What about the kids who don't do well? Or schools that don't do as well? Is that God punishing them? Sick.' - I don't believe so: Martin Luther said that Jesus didn't come for the healthy, but the sick. In fact it is a premise of Christian faith that God is with those who society has casted out. As I said before, my fiancee and I are moving onto a council estate where the church we go to does a lot of work in the community, and believe me, I see God where you would least expect to see Him. Again we can go back to the problem of pain and suffering: if there is no God, then I don't think there's a huge problem with this. A lot of people's lives are defined by where they are born and the upbringing they have. As I suggested with the batman clip above, this just happens in a world without God. In London you have shootings almost every month; in a world without God, will there ever be justice for this? No, certainly not for the child that has died: they're dead, do they care if the purpetrator goes to jail? Will the family who lost their child get the child back? No. will there ever be justice for this? Occasionally - it probably just won't get reported. However in practical terms would you rather rely on God or a 100+ strong squad of detectives to get justice? I think you're doing a lot of disservice to the people who do actually get justice and putting a lot of credit to God who in my eyes hasn't metered out any justice since Babylon! 'What about the police in Ireland who didn't act on the child abuse and relied on God/Church to sort it out. What about the attitude by some churches that you can sin, but as long as you repent to God (not fellow man) then you'll be ok. (this then creates further dependencies on the church - clever manipulative stuff)' - I agree, these are tragedies, and a result of distorted theology. The answer for bad theology, however is not no theology, but good theology. I know you'll then bring out the 'selective' card, and I would refer back to my response in the post before. I do believe there is objectivity on these matters which can be achieved. I think you'll find the Church does now condemn the actions of police in Ireland and says it is a tragedy. Ultimately of course, though, the church has to have different things which keep it in check: the Bible (and yes, I know there's not a untied consensus, but in my experience Christians do actually agree more often than they disagree, and especially on the core issues), the rest of the church (international body), and of course society. The point about the kids of course was an absurd point, but that's what the innocuous attempt at guidance ultimately meant. It's a subtle thing and religion does it very well. The bit about the church doing good in the community makes me genuinely happy - if only the church did more like that. I'd recommend the church got a better PR system! However why does it have to be done in the name of God? Barnardos is an excellent case in point - he only helped kids who were Christians or who became Christian through them. Same goes for a huge amount of the foreign aid organisations. I'm running out of time so I'm just going onto my second part (not as long!). The premise of this part is that I know full well that you probably won't be very convinced by the arguments I have said here. You probably have a lot of things to argue from what I've put, and that's fine; it should be that way as God is not something you can understand, but a relationship to be had. The link I posted on the last post (the one to which you demaned a reply to your post) I think is really good on this, and if you have time you should read it, as it summarizes what I'm trying to say very well. I did read that (would have been rude not to), but to be honest don't have much to say on it - it didn't tell me anything that you've haven't put better already. Basically it acknowledges that Christians are often really crap. As you have picked up on, we have not often displayed the love of Jesus to the world around us, which is what we are trying to do, but often fail miserably. I would like to suggest that rather than looking at Christians as a representative of Christinaity you look at the Jesus portrayed in the Bible. This is a Jesus who pretty much turned everything upside down from what people were expecting. Christians often go on about how God wants to judge, send people to hell etc., but if you look at what Jesus said, he did not come to condemn the world, but to save it, because he loved it so much. This is a Jesus who in fact said to those who were proud and 'pious' that the 'tax collectors [hated in Jewish society] and prostitutes will enter God's kingdom before you'. 'It is this Jesus who was born in a stank manger in the middle of a genocide. That is the God that we are just as likely to find in the streets as in the sanctuary, who can redeem revolutionaries and tax collectors, the oppressed and the oppressors... a God who is saving some of us from the ghettos of poverty, and some of us from the ghettos of wealth.' http://www.esquire.com/features/best-and-b...-claiborne-1209 I can't convince you that there is a God or that Christiniaty is true. The only one who could do that is God. A very good way to experience something of the goodness and love of God is in the community of the church. I know it has a very bad reception (and partly rightly so), but there is actually a lot of really great stuff happening in the church. I don't know whether you are searching for God in this debate or debating for the sake of debating, or trying to prove me wrong or whatever (and none of those are bad things); but if anything I have said makes any kind of sense, and if you did want to ask more questions along these lines, then I would suggest looking into an alpha course. I don't mean to be offensive and I definitely don't mean any of this in a patronising way, but I know a lot of people who have had a lot of questions like you do and have gone on an alpha course and really enjoyed it (not necessarily became a Christian at the end, but enjoyed having the forum in which to ask these questions). If you you're not searching at all, then of course, absolutely fine. All I can say is that my faith in God brings me an incomparible joy, which I haven't ever experienced before, and I would now never go back. I would love it if you (or anyone else) wants to come and see (rather than just hear) a bit about this, but if you don't want to that's fine. Wow.. that was long. Hope it made sense, and thanks again for the good spirit in which this debate has been had. I'd like to do a meta-analysis and just state that if Christ was born into a shitty society and we've now had 2000 years of a largely Christian society and it's still just as bad isn't it time we did something different? Re: thanks. I've enjoyed it far more than I thought I would so thanks v much for responding. I'm guessing that it's now run it's course. We've both spent a lot of time on this and although I've probably become more a militant atheist as a result of it, I've certainly learnt more about the opposing argument and respect that. I hope the community work you do pays dividends and restores your faith in society as a whole. As an experiment, why not try doing it without God's name? Oh, and please pray for Bristol City. I know it's trivial in the grand scale of things, but if it brings 12000 people happiness then it's a good place to start! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Mosquito Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 RG, I would love to see what you are basing 'more abortions than ever before' on. What data? Don't forget that before it was legalised many people had illegal, and potentially deadly, abortions. People have been having babies out of wedlock for years, they just used to either palm them off to older relatives or attempt to hide it as it wasn't seen as acceptable, despite being prevalent. They have also had backstreet abortions. To try and claim this is a new thing and that it's a sign that we are morally and ethically as a country is absurd. I would much prefer for those "in trouble" (to use an old phrase) got proper medical help and counselling as opposed to being ostracised and putting their lives at risk. There are plenty of articles in the press about it including the following..... http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/dec...repeat-abortion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Man In Black Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 I fail to see any statistics in that article that states "there are more abortions now than ever before". And you will never find it without the phrase "since records began". My point about it being 'off the record' in the past still stands. I don't think it's a lack of morality/religion. It's a lack of a common sense approach to sex. Kids either get very poor/non-existent sex education, or lots and are told "DON'T do it" a lot. Which hardly helps. Incidentally, I had sex education from the age of 10 in primary school right through to leaving and I can only think of one person in the whole large secondary school that got pregnant. It started on "this is how boys' and girls' bodies differ and this is how babies are made", then onto emotional issues and contraception in secondary school. We touched on the subject every year. We were never really told "don't do it", just "only do it if you're comfortable and ready". I went to uni, and it was the sort of topic that came up in conversation. This is purely anecdotal, of course, but all my friends who went to schools with nearly non-existent sex education and were just told "don't do it" told me of huge teenage pregnancy issues. If you remember that many religious bodies would prefer to ban sex education, then you should see my concern. Even worse, don't forget that the Catholic church teaches that sex is a sin, and what's more condom use completely immoral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newboy Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Mosquito Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 I fail to see any statistics in that article that states "there are more abortions now than ever before". And you will never find it without the phrase "since records began". My point about it being 'off the record' in the past still stands. I don't think it's a lack of morality/religion. It's a lack of a common sense approach to sex. Kids either get very poor/non-existent sex education, or lots and are told "DON'T do it" a lot. Which hardly helps. Incidentally, I had sex education from the age of 10 in primary school right through to leaving and I can only think of one person in the whole large secondary school that got pregnant. It started on "this is how boys' and girls' bodies differ and this is how babies are made", then onto emotional issues and contraception in secondary school. We touched on the subject every year. We were never really told "don't do it", just "only do it if you're comfortable and ready". I went to uni, and it was the sort of topic that came up in conversation. This is purely anecdotal, of course, but all my friends who went to schools with nearly non-existent sex education and were just told "don't do it" told me of huge teenage pregnancy issues. If you remember that many religious bodies would prefer to ban sex education, then you should see my concern. Even worse, don't forget that the Catholic church teaches that sex is a sin, and what's more condom use completely immoral. As this topic is about religion, I find it really surprising that it only seems to be the Catholic Church that's up front on the abortion issue while the other Churches remain mainly silent on the issue. You may not agree with the Catholic Church on the issue but at least they give direction. China tried to address the issue of over population by restricting families to one child and they seem to have abandoned that edict now in favour of other means of population control such as executing more criminals than ever before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newboy Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 You may not agree with the Catholic Church on the issue but at least they give direction. And why should they give direction? Especially if that includes: - no condoms - no abortions What if someone is raped? What is someone has made a mistake? It's the church's will being imposed on someone's body. The church won't be there to pick up the pieces when the baby is born. The Church won't help single mothers who can struggle to bring up an unplanned baby. The church won't address the social decay when children are bought up in single families where there is no strong father figure (note I'm not saying that all children with single parents turn out bad, but there's a correlation in general). The Catholic Church notably did bring in child control of their own. Catholic priests used to be able to marry, but especially with the no-condoms principle, the financial burden on the church turned out to be too great so they simply passed a new edict saying that priests must be celibate. So they accepted that lots of babies was too expensive for them to deal with internally, but are quite happy for their followers to burden the result of careless breeding. Nice. Bad advice *and* hipocracy. If I was being particularly cheeky, I'd also suggest that the celibacy thing may be a contributory factor towards some frustrated Catholic priests fiddling with kids as well. That's got to be at least a partial reason - the incidences of kiddy fiddling seem to be far lower with CofE priests who can relieve their frustrations in a far more acceptable manner. That may be a logical leap too far (I'd find it hard to find stats to back that up), but it seems intuitive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gater2 Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 And why should they give direction? Especially if that includes: - no condoms - no abortions What if someone is raped? What is someone has made a mistake? It's the church's will being imposed on someone's body. The church won't be there to pick up the pieces when the baby is born. The Church won't help single mothers who can struggle to bring up an unplanned baby. The church won't address the social decay when children are bought up in single families where there is no strong father figure (note I'm not saying that all children with single parents turn out bad, but there's a correlation in general). The Catholic Church notably did bring in child control of their own. Catholic priests used to be able to marry, but especially with the no-condoms principle, the financial burden on the church turned out to be too great so they simply passed a new edict saying that priests must be celibate. So they accepted that lots of babies was too expensive for them to deal with internally, but are quite happy for their followers to burden the result of careless breeding. Nice. Bad advice *and* hipocracy. If I was being particularly cheeky, I'd also suggest that the celibacy thing may be a contributory factor towards some frustrated Catholic priests fiddling with kids as well. That's got to be at least a partial reason - the incidences of kiddy fiddling seem to be far lower with CofE priests who can relieve their frustrations in a far more acceptable manner. That may be a logical leap too far (I'd find it hard to find stats to back that up), but it seems intuitive. The church should give direction. For starters millions of people put themselves under its authority. Secondly, of course it makes mistakes like any form of authority. Secular governments have made horrible mistakes, should we stop listening to them? I know you have a big problem with the church, and, as I said above, some of it is definitely justified. But you cannot forget (and maybe you're not aware at the moment) of all the wonderful and amazing things the Church has done/is doing. Just a few examples: The church was at the heart of the civil rights movement in america with Revd Martin Luther King at the forefront. The church was at the heart of abolishing slavery in the 18th Century with William Wilberforce at the forefront, who founded his drive for change on his faith in a God of love. The church has been a strong driving force behind the green movement with many churches advocating a much greener way of life. The church has been a strong force with trying to eradicate poverty ('Make Poverty History' was a Christian campaign at first) - also, before you say it, it's definitely NOT just Christians they look after; I know many people who work for Tearfund, another Christian aid organisation with whom it makes no difference what faith, race you are. You say the church won't address social decay when children are brought up in single families..etc - I know first hand this is not the case: the Salvation Army is the second largest distributor of welfare after the government, and that is a Church, founded on the principle of Christian charity. 'The Church won't help single mothers who can struggle to bring up an unplanned baby.' - Again, not true - in my church there is a community centre where single mums can come and do exactly this; they are provided the support and guidance that they need and often can't find anywhere else, especially in a secularised, depersonlised society. In India Mother Theresa (a catholic) used to say to mothers thinking of abortion: 'don't get an abortion, life is too precious for that. If you really don't want your child, my sisters and I in the nunnery will take care of your baby.' My fiance works in a salvation army church in east london, and on Christmas day they are having a celebration with everyone who is lonely in the neighbourhood. When they opened for people to buy tickets, they went in under a week; that's how many people are lonely, and on a very frequent basis, if the church wasn't there, they wouldn't have anywhere to go at all. All around the world I know Christians who have given up wealth and security and gone where pretty much no one else will go to show people that they are loved. Yes the church makes mistakes, it's a human institution, but it's not as bad as it's worst mistakes. I also acknowlege the whole church hasn't always been behind all of the things I've mentioned, but that doesn't mean you can lump all Christians and 'the church' into the terrible institution you seem to think it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Man In Black Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 As this topic is about religion, I find it really surprising that it only seems to be the Catholic Church that's up front on the abortion issue while the other Churches remain mainly silent on the issue. You may not agree with the Catholic Church on the issue but at least they give direction. China tried to address the issue of over population by restricting families to one child and they seem to have abandoned that edict now in favour of other means of population control such as executing more criminals than ever before. Well, I think it's probably going to be fair to say we will never see eye to eye on this issue. The church should give direction. For starters millions of people put themselves under its authority. Secondly, of course it makes mistakes like any form of authority. Secular governments have made horrible mistakes, should we stop listening to them? I know you have a big problem with the church, and, as I said above, some of it is definitely justified. But you cannot forget (and maybe you're not aware at the moment) of all the wonderful and amazing things the Church has done/is doing. Just a few examples: The church was at the heart of the civil rights movement in america with Revd Martin Luther King at the forefront. The church was at the heart of abolishing slavery in the 18th Century with William Wilberforce at the forefront, who founded his drive for change on his faith in a God of love. The church has been a strong driving force behind the green movement with many churches advocating a much greener way of life. The church has been a strong force with trying to eradicate poverty ('Make Poverty History' was a Christian campaign at first) - also, before you say it, it's definitely NOT just Christians they look after; I know many people who work for Tearfund, another Christian aid organisation with whom it makes no difference what faith, race you are. You say the church won't address social decay when children are brought up in single families..etc - I know first hand this is not the case: the Salvation Army is the second largest distributor of welfare after the government, and that is a Church, founded on the principle of Christian charity. 'The Church won't help single mothers who can struggle to bring up an unplanned baby.' - Again, not true - in my church there is a community centre where single mums can come and do exactly this; they are provided the support and guidance that they need and often can't find anywhere else, especially in a secularised, depersonlised society. In India Mother Theresa (a catholic) used to say to mothers thinking of abortion: 'don't get an abortion, life is too precious for that. If you really don't want your child, my sisters and I in the nunnery will take care of your baby.' My fiance works in a salvation army church in east london, and on Christmas day they are having a celebration with everyone who is lonely in the neighbourhood. When they opened for people to buy tickets, they went in under a week; that's how many people are lonely, and on a very frequent basis, if the church wasn't there, they wouldn't have anywhere to go at all. All around the world I know Christians who have given up wealth and security and gone where pretty much no one else will go to show people that they are loved. Yes the church makes mistakes, it's a human institution, but it's not as bad as it's worst mistakes. I also acknowlege the whole church hasn't always been behind all of the things I've mentioned, but that doesn't mean you can lump all Christians and 'the church' into the terrible institution you seem to think it is. I'm trying not to make anything I say come across as an attack on people's personal beliefs, so please don't take anything that I say the wrong way - I'm just wary that it might be misinterpreted as I am commenting on your own belief system. But I have to say that I find it astounding that you cite some examples of the church as 'progressive' when it was them that lived in those systems for years. You mention the churches' role in the civil rights movement, yet fail to mention that there were separate black and white churches in America at the time. You have also amazingly glossed over the churches' role in the slave trade - something that they didn't feel that they needed to formally apologise for until 2006. When the church does attempt to be 'progressive' (women and gay priests, for example) it causes immense divides. Yet I don't know why, it always humours me as I was always led to believe that it was god that did the judging, and not others... yet that is exactly what often happens. Secondly, I always find it astounding when people claim that without the church charitable acts would just stop. It's almost a tacit way of saying "if you don't believe in a deity, how can you do good things?" You can do good things without religion, and people do every day. It comes down to morals, and morals are not prescribed by the church or the bible, no matter what people may think. If they do, simply read the old testament and let me know whether the morals offered in there are ones you want to live by. Morals are created by society at the time, and I believe that in today's increasingly secular society there is still a lot of good. I like doing good acts in the knowledge that it's just because I want to do it. Many religious people do good acts as they think it will please their god. Which is more moral? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Man In Black Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 Oh, and I forgot Mother Teresa. There are plenty of detractors of her work if you know where to look. Are you really sure you know where all that donated money went? Are you really sure that she gave great standards of care? I for one wouldn't want to leave any child of mine in those conditions. Oh, and she also baptised the dying, whether they wanted it or not. This will hopefully be my strongest statement in this whole thread... as an atheist I think that is absolutely deplorable and despicable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.