Religion

[Mr Mosquito]

From my limited perspective I find it odd that you root against the state as a domineering controlling evil entity, and yet seem to happily accept religious 'wisdom' and edicts.

In what way is religious control better than a democratically elected one? In what way has religion (less so for CofE) not tried to control peoples lives?

Christian religion in this country hasn't forceably tried to control people's lives for hundreds of years. Meanwhile politicians - of various colours - have been bringing in masses of legislation to be used against us in order to subjugate, coerce and control us. In turn our traitor politicians now take their orders from the enemy alien organisations that are the European Union and European Commission. I also don't consider a band of undemocratic Lib-Lab-Connunist EU loving public school educated Toffs capable of representing me in Parliament.

[newboy]

Christian religion in this country hasn't forceably tried to control people's lives for hundreds of years. Meanwhile politicians - of various colours - have been bringing in masses of legislation to be used against us in order to subjugate, coerce and control us. In turn our traitor politicians now take their orders from the enemy alien organisations that are the European Union and European Commission. I also don't consider a band of undemocratic Lib-Lab-Connunist EU loving public school educated Toffs capable of representing me in Parliament.

I'd agree with you if:

a) you're referring to the CofE religion only and

b) this was a discussion about religion in the UK only

In the last UK census in 2001, there were 4.2 million Catholics in England and Wales, some 8 per cent of the population. One hundred years earlier, in 1901, they had represented only 4.8 per cent of the population.

Therefore 8+ percent of the nation, assuming they're good Catholics, follow the Catholic church's advice on abortions, contraception, stem-cell research, attitudes to gay people, subliminal oppression of women and anything else that the Catholic church decides to preach about.

And unlike the CofE, the Catholic church is much stricter on obeying it's rules.

And then there's Islam, where in extreme forms dictates who gets married to whom, under what conditions people can have sex, what women have to wear, what people can say, what people can listen to and can repress education for women.

[Mr Mosquito]

I'd agree with you if:

a) you're referring to the CofE religion only and

b) this was a discussion about religion in the UK only

In the last UK census in 2001, there were 4.2 million Catholics in England and Wales, some 8 per cent of the population. One hundred years earlier, in 1901, they had represented only 4.8 per cent of the population.

Therefore 8+ percent of the nation, assuming they're good Catholics, follow the Catholic church's advice on abortions, contraception, stem-cell research, attitudes to gay people, subliminal oppression of women and anything else that the Catholic church decides to preach about.

And unlike the CofE, the Catholic church is much stricter on obeying it's rules.

And then there's Islam, where in extreme forms dictates who gets married to whom, under what conditions people can have sex, what women have to wear, what people can say, what people can listen to and can repress education for women.

Reading between the lines you're stating that religious intolerance is increasing in this country due to the increase in the numbers of Islamists and Roman Catholics? Empirical evidence would suggest that this is the case with the likes of known war mongerer Tony Blair jumping on the band wagon and joining the Roman Catholic Church and stating he'd like a war with Islamist Iran. In comparison to some in the Catholic church and some Islamists, the Church of England - that I actually belong to - is extremely mellow and easy going.

[newboy]

Reading between the lines you're stating that religious intolerance is increasing in this country due to the increase in the numbers of Islamists and Roman Catholics? Empirical evidence would suggest that this is the case with the likes of known war mongerer Tony Blair jumping on the band wagon and joining the Roman Catholic Church and stating he'd like a war with Islamist Iran. In comparison to some in the Catholic church and some Islamists, the Church of England - that I actually belong to - is extremely mellow and easy going.

Yup - pretty much so. RC and Islam is far more controlling than CofE and they're growing. If you're looking at it from a CofE-only perspective then I'd say it was pretty benign, apart from the ocassional daft comment (at my son's CofE primary school the priest said during service that the Haitiian earthquake was caused by God and it was a good thing, since we can all learn from it!!).

You simply can't use CofE as a template when talking about the state vs the Pope and the relative merits/evils of both. I'd argue that the Pope is not a great weapon to bash the government with - his religion is far from clean when it comes to tolerance, control and corruption.

[Mr Mosquito]

Yup - pretty much so. RC and Islam is far more controlling than CofE and they're growing. If you're looking at it from a CofE-only perspective then I'd say it was pretty benign, apart from the ocassional daft comment (at my son's CofE primary school the priest said during service that the Haitiian earthquake was caused by God and it was a good thing, since we can all learn from it!!).

You simply can't use CofE as a template when talking about the state vs the Pope and the relative merits/evils of both. I'd argue that the Pope is not a great weapon to bash the government with - his religion is far from clean when it comes to tolerance, control and corruption.

The Pope is a weapon and he is bashing our Government and rightly so, he's doing the job that maybe the Church of England should be doing. We thus now see a Pope that's encouraging disillusioned people to leave the Church of England and join his church.

[newboy]

The Pope is a weapon and he is bashing our Government and rightly so, he's doing the job that maybe the Church of England should be doing. We thus now see a Pope that's encouraging disillusioned people to leave the Church of England and join his church.

He is bashing our government because he's trying to sustain his right to be homophobic and misogynist. Do you think that's moral?

[Philip Belgrave]

Not necessarily. People for tens of thousands of years worshipped the sun as a god. Not so long ago people thought all of the bible, even the bits we find nutty now, were Gospel.

Increased knowledge is gradually eroding the credibility of the bible. It's an inevitable trend.

Thousands of people right now devoutly believe in Mormonism and Scientology despite them being both recent and easily discretiable. In hundreds of years time do you think they'll be more credible just because of age?

Who can say? Sheer longevity might not be so bad a criterion at that, as ,over the passage of time- as you point out- the crap tends to fall by the wayside.

Take mainstream Christianity as a whole. People may scoff all they like about the Christ's reported life, the miracles: water-into-wine, raising-from-the-dead etc, but the fact remains that something remarkable happened in the Roman Province of Judea, 1st century AD (sorry- CE).

[newboy]

Who can say? Sheer longevity might not be so bad a criterion at that, as ,over the passage of time- as you point out- the crap tends to fall by the wayside.

Take mainstream Christianity as a whole. People may scoff all they like about the Christ's reported life, the miracles: water-into-wine, raising-from-the-dead etc, but the fact remains that something remarkable happened in the Roman Province of Judea, 1st century AD (sorry- CE).

So all the reported miracles can be taken away and yet still something happended and it's remarkable? Remarkable things happen all the time due to the sheer volume of interactions happening in the universe. It's basic statistics and doesn't prove a divine being.

Who's to say that there was an influential great man in Judea who had a power struggle with the authorities. Stories were written about him at time and for decades later. Quite some time after his death some people get together and edit the stories into the new testament, leaving out some bits and changing others to deify him. Over the millennia that followed the RC embellishes this canon with archangels and amazing complex and arcane rituals and rules, whilst attempting to suppress any scientific advances that show up large parts of the gospel to be complete bollocks.

Who is to say? No-one - since it all happened a long time ago. But I'd ask you this - if someone comes to you to with story with next to no evidence and over time (doesn't matter if it's minutes or 1000's of years) you realise that most of the bits that can be challenged are clearly made up, what credence can you give to the rest?

If you were to give any credence to Christianity it would have to have some basis in something tangible - as I've said before millions of people worshipped the sun for thousands of years - why is that credible due to duration? There's no doubt that there was a wise and influential man (or men, if you believe the latest theories) around that time. But there's plenty of reason and motive for people to take that series of events and turn it into a religion. Take away most of the fanciful stuff around Jesus and what are you left with? Some good advice we should follow? Great - let's do that, but then do we have to be subservient to a religious organisation in order to do that?

There's no compelling evidence to believe in God and something that relies on Faith must surely be viewed with suspicion by any rational mind.

And as I asked before - if in 1000 years we've still got Scientology and Mormonism (if you haven't already, take a look at the story of how they were created and what they actually believe in - it's a great example of what you can get away with and what people are ready to believe) because some people will believe anything does that make them more credible?

Let's put this another way: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Sikhism and hundreds of other religions have been around for 1000s of years and all have millions of followers. Which one is right and why? They all meet your criteria for longevity and only one can be correct if you want to follow that route.

So forthe one religion that you claim must have credibility because it's been there for 1000s of years, there's over 100 other religions that aren't credible despite them having the same criteria. Isn't that hypocrisy and flawed?

[Maesknoll Red]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8497365.stm

This is the sort of division that religion causes, which only helps me conclude, that believers think they have some moral high ground over us non believers.

[Mr Mosquito]

Who can say? Sheer longevity might not be so bad a criterion at that, as ,over the passage of time- as you point out- the crap tends to fall by the wayside.

Take mainstream Christianity as a whole. People may scoff all they like about the Christ's reported life, the miracles: water-into-wine, raising-from-the-dead etc, but the fact remains that something remarkable happened in the Roman Province of Judea, 1st century AD (sorry- CE).

I believe you're right about how remarkable the events in the Roman province of Judea were because Jesus was a truely great leader of men - surely no one can argue with that after 2,000 years. "Higher education" is that imparted by Him "in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." "In Him was life; and the life was the light of men." "He that followeth Me," said Jesus, "shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life." Who could possibly argue that Jesus didn't have both wisdom and knowledge ????!!!!

Our yearly calendar is based on the years after Jesus, even Bristol as a City was famed for hosting the Templar Knights - otherwise known as the Poor Fellow Soldiers of Christ of the Temple of Solomon.

One thing is certain, when all the detractors of Jesus have long been turned to dust and forgotten Jesus Christ will still be remembered - that's the science fact that counts.

[newboy]

I believe you're right about how remarkable the events in the Roman province of Judea were because Jesus was a truely great leader of men - surely no one can argue with that after 2,000 years. "Higher education" is that imparted by Him "in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." "In Him was life; and the life was the light of men." "He that followeth Me," said Jesus, "shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life." Who could possibly argue that Jesus didn't have both wisdom and knowledge ????!!!!

Our yearly calendar is based on the years after Jesus, even Bristol as a City was famed for hosting the Templar Knights - otherwise known as the Poor Fellow Soldiers of Christ of the Temple of Solomon.

One thing is certain, when all the detractors of Jesus have long been turned to dust and forgotten Jesus Christ will still be remembered - that's the science fact that counts.

There are and have been many great people and I don't see many detractors of Jesus on this board so far. Personally speaking I find a lot of resonance with a lot of the things he's been attributed for (along with the founding fathers of America, Martin Luther King and pretty much anyone who has stood up to oppression) , but I still don't see why taking on board what he says and living by them should be incompatible with not believing he was the son of a God, the son of a Virgin mother, the one who got resurrected etc. Obviously that's not as exciting as the New Testament story, but real-life often isn't as exciting as a good dramatised version of events.

I'm sure that Jesus was fallible and had some nasty traits like all people, but obviously making him the Son of God makes it much easier to get his message out without contention and that's yet another motive for those who after his death deified him.

I'm pretty sure, but would obviously welcome comment, that if he was alive today Jesus would be ashamed of what the RC church has done since in his name in the last two millennia.

[Mr Mosquito]

I'm pretty sure, but would obviously welcome comment, that if he was alive today Jesus would be ashamed of what the RC church has done since in his name in the last two millennia.

That's why the Christian Church has fragmented into so many pieces from the big Christian Church that is the Roman Catholic Church. At the time that Bristol South End FC became Bristol City FC in 1897, the following book was published by Samuel Church about the fragmentation of the Christian Church in Britain at the time of Oliver Cromwell 250 years before. The same type of problems in the Christian religion then as today it seems. You can read the whole book online and Bristol - our city - does get a big mention. ........

Oliver Cromwell is a fascinating historical personage. He has to rank as one of the great Christian statesmen of history. His heroic efforts as a life-long champion of civil and religious liberty demand admiration and respect. The ultimate irony was that the only way be could maintain liberty and keep the forces of despotism at bay was by the sword. In a sense it took a dictator to forcibly keep tyranny at bay and impose liberty. It took the rule of the major generals to keep England free. Nobody really wanted freedom, especially nobody wanted religious liberty. They all wanted to impose their views.

The Presbyterians wanted a religious establishment that support a Presbyterian Church and ban and suppress all others. The Anglicans wanted a return to the Stuart dynasty with a monopoly for the Church of England and suppression of the Puritan and Presbyterian party, etc. Cromwell stood for religious liberty. If he could solve the political problems of loyalty to a Pope who claimed political powers and urged his followers to overthrow Protestant princes and establish catholic governments, he would have granted full religious liberty to Roman Catholics. He wanted to disestablish the Church of England and have full religious liberty, but his advisors, even the great Puritan theologian and his court chaplain, John Owen, an independent, warned him that it was not politically possible as the people were too fond of their church.

When the Scotch Presbyterians foolishly accepted the lies of the Stuart dynasty to establish Presbyterianism if the Scotch would restore them to the throne and sought to do so, Cromwell fought them and prevailed. When Catholic Ireland became a base for Stuart invasion to retake England Cromwell fought them and prevailed. Anywhere and everywhere Cromwell fought the forces of civil and religious tyranny and as long as God gave him breath he prevailed. Under his vigorous leadership England became a world power and Cromwell used that power to support religious freedom for persecuted Protestants such as the French Huguenots and the Waldenses. When he died the England returned as a dog to her vomit and restored the Stuart dynasty. A corrupt and licentious court soon suppressed and persecuted the Puritans, ejecting all Puritan ministers from the Church of England in The Great Ejection. It was not long before the "Killing Times" came to Scotland as the faithful Presbyterians were harassed and slain and a corrupt monarchy sought to force episcopacy and unscriptural ceremonies on the land. Yet Cromwell, who had kept these forces at bay and granted full religious liberty to all, was styled as the "conquering usurper." Such are the ironies of history.

Source: http://www.americanp..._cromwell_1.htm

[newboy]

Thanks - that was interesting.

"When he died the England returned as a dog to her vomit and restored the Stuart dynasty."

Fantastic line. Must try and fit that line into a conversation today!

[Mr Mosquito]

Thanks - that was interesting.

"When he died the England returned as a dog to her vomit and restored the Stuart dynasty."

Fantastic line. Must try and fit that line into a conversation today!

Great minds think alike. That's the beauty of being an 'online book worm'. The restored Stuart dynasty certainly caused major problems and loss of life here in the West Country what with the Battle of Sedgemoor brought about by a feud within the Stuart clan.

Note he writes "the England" meaning "the land of the Angles"?

[Philip Belgrave]

So all the reported miracles can be taken away and yet still something happended and it's remarkable? Remarkable things happen all the time due to the sheer volume of interactions happening in the universe. It's basic statistics and doesn't prove a divine being.

Who's to say that there was an influential great man in Judea who had a power struggle with the authorities. Stories were written about him at time and for decades later. Quite some time after his death some people get together and edit the stories into the new testament, leaving out some bits and changing others to deify him. Over the millennia that followed the RC embellishes this canon with archangels and amazing complex and arcane rituals and rules, whilst attempting to suppress any scientific advances that show up large parts of the gospel to be complete bollocks.

Who is to say? No-one - since it all happened a long time ago. But I'd ask you this - if someone comes to you to with story with next to no evidence and over time (doesn't matter if it's minutes or 1000's of years) you realise that most of the bits that can be challenged are clearly made up, what credence can you give to the rest?

If you were to give any credence to Christianity it would have to have some basis in something tangible - as I've said before millions of people worshipped the sun for thousands of years - why is that credible due to duration? There's no doubt that there was a wise and influential man (or men, if you believe the latest theories) around that time. But there's plenty of reason and motive for people to take that series of events and turn it into a religion. Take away most of the fanciful stuff around Jesus and what are you left with? Some good advice we should follow? Great - let's do that, but then do we have to be subservient to a religious organisation in order to do that?

There's no compelling evidence to believe in God and something that relies on Faith must surely be viewed with suspicion by any rational mind.

And as I asked before - if in 1000 years we've still got Scientology and Mormonism (if you haven't already, take a look at the story of how they were created and what they actually believe in - it's a great example of what you can get away with and what people are ready to believe) because some people will believe anything does that make them more credible?

Let's put this another way: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Sikhism and hundreds of other religions have been around for 1000s of years and all have millions of followers. Which one is right and why? They all meet your criteria for longevity and only one can be correct if you want to follow that route.

So forthe one religion that you claim must have credibility because it's been there for 1000s of years, there's over 100 other religions that aren't credible despite them having the same criteria. Isn't that hypocrisy and flawed?

Let's get one thing clear: I make NO value judgements as the validity or merit of the various religions or sects ,one against another. I would not presume to do so.

I merely cited the case of Christianity because it's the religion of which most people to Western society is acquainted. For better or worse it forms the historic basis of that society. Whether it's "correct", as you put it depends on where you stand. It could be contended that all the religions that you mention have virtue in them and ,some would say,are all paths to the same ultimate goal.

I take on board your rational, show-me-the-money, WYSIWYG approach to theology (a personal reaction caused by exposure to hard line Roman dogma, perhaps?) but it's really not the only way of looking at it.

I will enlarge upon the longevity theme- yes, it's going to be Christianity again, but bear with me., we're talking history here ,not opinion. Sweep away the "complete bollocks" as you describe it ,by all means, but you're still left with something that deserves reflection.

You mention "an influential great man in Judea", but if you mean The Nazarine (to put it in a neutral context) that just ain't so. He was a manual worker, who picked up a little learning along the way;- the bastard son of a Roman Soldier ,some have said. He wonders around, preaches, picks up a rabble of followers and is eventually ignomineous executed as a troublemaker.

So there goes just another Religious Nut- the world's full of them, always has been. End of story ?

No ,because within three centuries of his execution the religion he inspired takes over the entire Roman Empire.

It's with us still,

That is the longevity that I was banging on about. Despite being split into various competing denominations the Christian Church is. Anything which survives that long and has commanded the allegiance of millions MUST have something going for it.

That's really all I'm saying.

[ruraldean]

No ,because within three centuries of his execution the religion he inspired takes over the entire Roman Empire.

It's with us still,

That is the longevity that I was banging on about. Despite being split into various competing denominations the Christian Church is. Anything which survives that long and has commanded the allegiance of millions MUST have something going for it.

That's really all I'm saying.

Philip, this is disingenuous. I refer back to my Constantine reference: The fact that Christianity ended up as the religion of the Roman world has little to do with Jesus. It was to do with political expediency.

Religious proponents often expect us to overlook just how easy it was to convert people in the first century, and just how willing they were to believe. Roman citizens already had an acceptance of deities, many of them. Christianity merely allowed them to consolidate their many gods into a single God. Nevertheless, most Romans continued in their paganism. It wasn't the viewing of miracles in the flesh, or the compelling story of Christ, it was the imposition of Christianity as the State Religion by Constantine that kicked things off in a big way. Without his input many scholars will admit that this small Jewish cult would have died a natural death like all the other God-Man cults before them had.

And what was it that killed off paganism in the Roman Empire? It was the sacking of their temples by Constantine, who by the way continued in his pagan practices and still declared himself a supernatural being until his death. His reward was beautification by the Church after his death. He became a saint.

Obviously this is a potted history, and I could go into what happened at the Battle of Milvian Bridge (do you really believe that Constantine saw a cross over the sun with the words "By this, conquer" on it?) but space precludes putting the whole story here. Suffice to say that it was Constantine's mum who actually converted him.

I'm not saying this is a bad thing, because over time pagan rituals all but disappeared and blood sacrifice was replaced by metaphorical sacrifice, but let's not run away with the simplistic idea that people spontaneously became believers in one huge wave and that's the story of the growth of Christianity. We haven't even touched on the powers granted by the emperor to the Church, and the fact that Romans ruled the world.

Newboy has already pointed out that Christianity is just one of many religions in the world. you pays your money and takes your choice. But had you NOT been born in the Western world Philip, you may well be putting the weight of your arguments behind Islam. Belief in any religion is usually an accident of birth, and longevity and numbers do not make an untruth true.

[newboy]

Hi,

To add to RuralDean's points, I'm not presuming that you're Christian (you've already said you're mainly agnostic), but I chose this since the majority of people on here so far have used that particular brand and are familliar . I find it hard to understand how if there's hundreds of competing religions that have lasted thousands of years and each with millions of followers they must all have some element of truth in them.

Obviously Christianity, Islam and Judaism have the New Testament as their base, but there's a) a lot of differences between them and b) there's many other religions who differ even more radically.

They all say different things and are all ancient. I was going to say that only if you reduce them down to the most common aspect of a single divine being would you find a commonality that 'must be true', but even then that's not a commonality they all share. Logically this all asserts that longevity is no indication of accuracy since there's no common truth.

I see it as an impossible situation for anyone aligned to any one religion to win - not only is the burden of truth upon one, but one then has to argue that one's religion is true where the others are not true even though there's equal evidence for all - i.e. none.

That's why religion relies upon faith. If you take a slightly different look at it, all faith is is suspending reality, accepting some pretty wild claims that any sane person wouldn't swallow if it wasn't for magnificence of the organisation (large churches, obvious wealth), complex rituals (obfuscating that it's all bollocks) and herd mentality(everyone else is doing it so it must be right) and some people's need for plugging those pesky gaps in knowledge we have (why are we here, how did we get here, why do bad things happen etc).

If there was one religion it might have *some* credibility due to durability and strength of following but even that's not true. I would argue that if there's billions of people believing in one thing and billions of people believing in something completely different all that proves is that billions of people can be wrong and that strength in numbers means nothing in terms of truth.

[Philip Belgrave]

Hi,

To add to RuralDean's points, I'm not presuming that you're Christian (you've already said you're mainly agnostic), but I chose this since the majority of people on here so far have used that particular brand and are familliar . I find it hard to understand how if there's hundreds of competing religions that have lasted thousands of years and each with millions of followers they must all have some element of truth in them.

Obviously Christianity, Islam and Judaism have the New Testament as their base, but there's a) a lot of differences between them and b) there's many other religions who differ even more radically.

They all say different things and are all ancient. I was going to say that only if you reduce them down to the most common aspect of a single divine being would you find a commonality that 'must be true', but even then that's not a commonality they all share. Logically this all asserts that longevity is no indication of accuracy since there's no common truth.

I see it as an impossible situation for anyone aligned to any one religion to win - not only is the burden of truth upon one, but one then has to argue that one's religion is true where the others are not true even though there's equal evidence for all - i.e. none.

That's why religion relies upon faith. If you take a slightly different look at it, all faith is is suspending reality, accepting some pretty wild claims that any sane person wouldn't swallow if it wasn't for magnificence of the organisation (large churches, obvious wealth), complex rituals (obfuscating that it's all bollocks) and herd mentality(everyone else is doing it so it must be right) and some people's need for plugging those pesky gaps in knowledge we have (why are we here, how did we get here, why do bad things happen etc).

If there was one religion it might have *some* credibility due to durability and strength of following but even that's not true. I would argue that if there's billions of people believing in one thing and billions of people believing in something completely different all that proves is that billions of people can be wrong and that strength in numbers means nothing in terms of truth.

[Philip Belgrave]

Thank you ,gentlemen, for your fullsome and interesting responses.

Of course, in the end, it's all a matter of faith, and if anyone is looking for a mathematical theorem proving,(or indeed, disproving) that

(a) God exists, and

(b), this,mate, is the religion to follow and all the rest is crap QED

they are going to be disappointed.

Certainly, the established religion in whatever culture you happen to be born into will be used and manipulated for political ends, be it 4th century Rome ,16th-17th century England,or 21st. century Gaza Strip. Throughout history ,humans have always had the propensity to pervert and stuff-up.. Perhaps that explains to a very large extent the search for something bigger and better than ourselves, a Deity.

But who can be sure? I quote Oliver Cromwell (rock-on Red Goblin),

"'I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ,think it possible that you might be mistaken".

And I try to, all the time.

[Mr Mosquito]

Thank you ,gentlemen, for your fullsome and interesting responses.

Of course, in the end, it's all a matter of faith, and if anyone is looking for a mathematical theorem proving,(or indeed, disproving) that

(a) God exists, and

(b), this,mate, is the religion to follow and all the rest is crap QED

they are going to be disappointed.

Certainly, the established religion in whatever culture you happen to be born into will be used and manipulated for political ends, be it 4th century Rome ,16th-17th century England,or 21st. century Gaza Strip. Throughout history ,humans have always had the propensity to pervert and stuff-up.. Perhaps that explains to a very large extent the search for something bigger and better than ourselves, a Deity.

But who can be sure? I quote Oliver Cromwell (rock-on Red Goblin),

"'I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ,think it possible that you might be mistaken".

And I try to, all the time.

Belief in God is not as far fetched as the non believers would have us believe !!!!!! Quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle, wavefunction, condensed matter physics. Science can't even say with any certainty whether we actually exist as energy or matter or both or whether we actually exist at all. Let alone whether or how God exists. Ahem......

The discovery that particles are discrete packets of energy with wave-like properties led to the branch of physics that deals with atomic and subatomic systems which is today called quantum mechanics.

[annred]

Hi,

To add to RuralDean's points, I'm not presuming that you're Christian (you've already said you're mainly agnostic), but I chose this since the majority of people on here so far have used that particular brand and are familliar . I find it hard to understand how if there's hundreds of competing religions that have lasted thousands of years and each with millions of followers they must all have some element of truth in them.

Obviously Christianity, Islam and Judaism have the New Testament as their base, but there's a) a lot of differences between them and b) there's many other religions who differ even more radically.

They all say different things and are all ancient. I was going to say that only if you reduce them down to the most common aspect of a single divine being would you find a commonality that 'must be true', but even then that's not a commonality they all share. Logically this all asserts that longevity is no indication of accuracy since there's no common truth.

I see it as an impossible situation for anyone aligned to any one religion to win - not only is the burden of truth upon one, but one then has to argue that one's religion is true where the others are not true even though there's equal evidence for all - i.e. none.

That's why religion relies upon faith. If you take a slightly different look at it, all faith is is suspending reality, accepting some pretty wild claims that any sane person wouldn't swallow if it wasn't for magnificence of the organisation (large churches, obvious wealth), complex rituals (obfuscating that it's all bollocks) and herd mentality(everyone else is doing it so it must be right) and some people's need for plugging those pesky gaps in knowledge we have (why are we here, how did we get here, why do bad things happen etc).

If there was one religion it might have *some* credibility due to durability and strength of following but even that's not true. I would argue that if there's billions of people believing in one thing and billions of people believing in something completely different all that proves is that billions of people can be wrong and that strength in numbers means nothing in terms of truth.

With all due respect the basis of Judaism and Islam is the old testament, the new testament is the basis of Christianity. I think it is important to remember that the early growth of Christianity took place during constant persecution from the Romans and the Jews. Christianity was also preached to the Saxons in this country by celtic monks during the 5th and 6th centuries while living in poverty and great danger. The "magnificence" of the church came when it was used by the state for political purposes. The one thing the three largest religions have in common is a belief in one God. It is interesting to note that membership in the church is growing in this area in spite of modernism and you might find it worthwhile to read one of the gospels to seek the real basis of the faith of so many people.

[newboy]

With all due respect the basis of Judaism and Islam is the old testament, the new testament is the basis of Christianity. I think it is important to remember that the early growth of Christianity took place during constant persecution from the Romans and the Jews. Christianity was also preached to the Saxons in this country by celtic monks during the 5th and 6th centuries while living in poverty and great danger. The "magnificence" of the church came when it was used by the state for political purposes. The one thing the three largest religions have in common is a belief in one God. It is interesting to note that membership in the church is growing in this area in spite of modernism and you might find it worthwhile to read one of the gospels to seek the real basis of the faith of so many people.

Yeah, my mistake - serves me right for trying to quickly type a response inbetween getting the kids to school and getting to work. By the time I realised the mistake it was too late to edit it.

I can't see anything in what you said that undermined my point though - yes those 3 had the same basic foundation, but lots of other religions have been around for ages too and have millions of followers and have nothing in common with the 3 mentioned. Therefore as a specific counter point to Philip's assertion that longevity gives it credibility, I still argue that since there's counter religions to any one religion that have been around as long (or longer), longevity logically proves absolutely nothing apart from that a lot of people can be very wrong for a very long time.

Re: your last point - I believe that many people have many different bases for faith - some seem to have emotional experiences they credit to God to create/strengthen belief, some have been bought up with it since day one and just don't challenge it, some use it as a means of explaining stuff they don't know, some use it as an emotional crutch for rationalising loss and grief. I've read a lot of the gospels (you've got to try and understand it before you can have a strong opinion) and personally it did nothing for me, but hey, if we all thought the same it would be boring and this thread wouldn't be over 5 pages long!

Although it's obvious during this very long thread that faith is a very individual thing and everyone seems to see it differently, the key thing that suprises me is that very few (if any on here) people take *all* of it absolutely literally. Given that there seems to be varying amounts of scepticism in us all, I'm intrigued why those who do believe still do since they recognise to varying degrees that some of it is clearly not true (particularly OT stuff). How do you reconcile that since the Bible is meant to be Gospel and some of it is clearly false? If there's lots of evidence against what's written as gospel and not much for it, what makes the believers keep on believing? When have you had doubt and how did you overcome it?

I'd also recognise that I've posted far too much on here - apologies if it's gotten monotonous or if I've inadvertantly offended anyone - it just makes such a nice change from LJ posts and I'm interested what others think on this since I can't understand at all why rational humans would belive this stuff, but would genuinely like to understand the different perspectives.

[annred]

Yeah, my mistake - serves me right for trying to quickly type a response inbetween getting the kids to school and getting to work. By the time I realised the mistake it was too late to edit it.

I can't see anything in what you said that undermined my point though - yes those 3 had the same basic foundation, but lots of other religions have been around for ages too and have millions of followers and have nothing in common with the 3 mentioned. Therefore as a specific counter point to Philip's assertion that longevity gives it credibility, I still argue that since there's counter religions to any one religion that have been around as long (or longer), longevity logically proves absolutely nothing apart from that a lot of people can be very wrong for a very long time.

Re: your last point - I believe that many people have many different bases for faith - some seem to have emotional experiences they credit to God to create/strengthen belief, some have been bought up with it since day one and just don't challenge it, some use it as a means of explaining stuff they don't know, some use it as an emotional crutch for rationalising loss and grief. I've read a lot of the gospels (you've got to try and understand it before you can have a strong opinion) and personally it did nothing for me, but hey, if we all thought the same it would be boring and this thread wouldn't be over 5 pages long!

Although it's obvious during this very long thread that faith is a very individual thing and everyone seems to see it differently, the key thing that suprises me is that very few (if any on here) people take *all* of it absolutely literally. Given that there seems to be varying amounts of scepticism in us all, I'm intrigued why those who do believe still do since they recognise to varying degrees that some of it is clearly not true (particularly OT stuff). How do you reconcile that since the Bible is meant to be Gospel and some of it is clearly false? If there's lots of evidence against what's written as gospel and not much for it, what makes the believers keep on believing? When have you had doubt and how did you overcome it?

I'd also recognise that I've posted far too much on here - apologies if it's gotten monotonous or if I've inadvertantly offended anyone - it just makes such a nice change from LJ posts and I'm interested what others think on this since I can't understand at all why rational humans would belive this stuff, but would genuinely like to understand the different perspectives.

Thanks for your reply Newboy its nice to have an intelligent conversation. I find it difficult to agree with you that the new testament, with the exception of Revelations which is written in code, is false. I agree with you however that faith is individual and is difficult to explain to anyone else. In my own case I was a businessman for many years whose main cause of concern was profit per square foot but I felt drawn to faith and my life changed completely.

[newboy]

Thank you ,gentlemen, for your fullsome and interesting responses.

Of course, in the end, it's all a matter of faith, and if anyone is looking for a mathematical theorem proving,(or indeed, disproving) that

(a) God exists, and

(b), this,mate, is the religion to follow and all the rest is crap QED

they are going to be disappointed.

Certainly, the established religion in whatever culture you happen to be born into will be used and manipulated for political ends, be it 4th century Rome ,16th-17th century England,or 21st. century Gaza Strip. Throughout history ,humans have always had the propensity to pervert and stuff-up.. Perhaps that explains to a very large extent the search for something bigger and better than ourselves, a Deity.

But who can be sure? I quote Oliver Cromwell (rock-on Red Goblin),

"'I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ,think it possible that you might be mistaken".

And I try to, all the time.

Hi Philip,

You're right - logic will only take you so far, but without it philosophy, biology, chemistry, physics and maths would get nowhere and I'd argue that those disciplines have advanced mankind much more in the last 2000 years than religion has. I wasn't trying to prove the absence of God with logic, but I certainly was attempting to refute the point about "longevity = credibility" with logic.

And in this case there's a clear argument that proves that the original assertion is flawed. In fact that "longevity = credibility" point is a great example of the kind of "bad thinking" that sustains religion in the first place. Religion (along with most alternative medicines) relies on the person look for positive evidence and ignoring any kind of evidence that contradicts it.

Let's take Christianity as an example - yes millions of people have followed it for thousands of years. If you stop there (like Religion nearly always does) you've got a credible sounding assertion. However if you follow scientific rigour even only loosely and look for contradictory evidence you'll find it all over the place - hence the opposing religions that are all over the place and equal (if not longer) amounts of time.

I guess it all boils down to what you're prepared to accept. Life is finite, so we can't over analyse every fact or opinion we're presented with or we'd get nothing done - the notion of a ration being is largely one of myth - we all tend to do stuff then rationalise it afterwards. However Religion is so pervasive (both in terms of its userbase and level of control) and so wild with its claims that surely it's only right and fair that it's subject to some kind of objective scrutiny?

And as soon as you do that, it tends to fall apart pretty quickly IMHO.

[newboy]

Belief in God is not as far fetched as the non believers would have us believe !!!!!! Quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle, wavefunction, condensed matter physics. Science can't even say with any certainty whether we actually exist as energy or matter or both or whether we actually exist at all. Let alone whether or how God exists. Ahem......

The discovery that particles are discrete packets of energy with wave-like properties led to the branch of physics that deals with atomic and subatomic systems which is today called quantum mechanics.

If I'm reading you right, you're saying that there's some pretty wild stuff being found out by physicists. Since that's pretty wild, therefore we must allow for the possibility of God since that's equally wild?

If so, there's two big problems with what you're saying:

1 - science has found out some stuff that decades ago would seem unnatural or God-like, yet now we take it for granted as a concept - splitting atoms, molecules etc. Hell, even millenia ago man thought the Sun was a God but now we know it's just a giant ball of flame. The point here is that mankind is very quick to assign stuff we don't understand to a mythical deity, especially where there's another man ready to take advantage of that. There's been thousands of years of this where a God was attributed to something but it turned out to be something very explainable and mundane. Doesn't that trend/patter imply quite heavily that there's no God since hundreds of bits of evidence of God's existence have proved to be anything but?

2 - the stuff you mention above has been found out through scientific rigour, where people measure it, recreate it consistently, try and disprove it and open it to peer review. In other words there's genuine attempt to make it objective and proveable. God may be fanciful but those who push the concept forward use the completely opposite approach - relying on bad thinking, obfuscating objectivity through ritual and mysticism, hiding or obstructing scientific rigours and of course faith - which is effectively suspending common sense.

There's a world of difference between the two - in fact they're diametrically opposed. It's almost perverse that you're using science to justify the existence of God.

[Mr Mosquito]

An atheist was walking through the woods.

'What majestic trees!

'What powerful rivers!

'What beautiful animals!

He said to himself.

As he was walking alongside the river, he heard a rustling in the bushes behind him.

He turned to look. He saw a 7-foot grizzly bear charge then walk towards him.

He ran as fast as he could up the path. He looked over his shoulder and saw that the bear was closing in on him.

He looked over his shoulder again and the bear was even closer.

He tripped and fell on the ground.

He rolled over to pick himself up but saw that the bear was right on top of him, reaching for him with his left paw and raising his right paw to strike him...

At that instant the Atheist cried out,

'Oh my God!'

Time Stopped.

The bear froze.

The forest was silent.

As a bright light shone upon the man, a voice came out of the sky.

'You deny my existence for all these years, teach others I don't exist and even credit creation to cosmic accident.'

'Do you expect me to help you out of this predicament?

Am I to count you as a believer?

The atheist looked directly into the light, 'It would be hypocritical of me to suddenly ask you to treat me as a Christian now, but perhaps you could make the BEAR a Christian'?

'Very well,' said the voice.

The light went out. The sounds of the forest resumed. And the bear dropped his right paw, brought both paws together, bowed his head and spoke:

'For what I am about to receive, may the Lord make us truly thankful, Amen.'

[Philip Belgrave]

Hi Philip,

You're right - logic will only take you so far, but without it philosophy, biology, chemistry, physics and maths would get nowhere and I'd argue that those disciplines have advanced mankind much more in the last 2000 years than religion has. I wasn't trying to prove the absence of God with logic, but I certainly was attempting to refute the point about "longevity = credibility" with logic.

And in this case there's a clear argument that proves that the original assertion is flawed. In fact that "longevity = credibility" point is a great example of the kind of "bad thinking" that sustains religion in the first place. Religion (along with most alternative medicines) relies on the person look for positive evidence and ignoring any kind of evidence that contradicts it.

Let's take Christianity as an example - yes millions of people have followed it for thousands of years. If you stop there (like Religion nearly always does) you've got a credible sounding assertion. However if you follow scientific rigour even only loosely and look for contradictory evidence you'll find it all over the place - hence the opposing religions that are all over the place and equal (if not longer) amounts of time.

I guess it all boils down to what you're prepared to accept. Life is finite, so we can't over analyse every fact or opinion we're presented with or we'd get nothing done - the notion of a ration being is largely one of myth - we all tend to do stuff then rationalise it afterwards. However Religion is so pervasive (both in terms of its userbase and level of control) and so wild with its claims that surely it's only right and fair that it's subject to some kind of objective scrutiny?

And as soon as you do that, it tends to fall apart pretty quickly IMHO.

[Philip Belgrave]

Indeed, you can't be expected to suspend your critical facilities only on the subject of religion and leave them to run full rein for the rest of the time.

But perhaps it could be argued that ,where you are dealing with the subject of an infinite God it is hopeless looking for a logical starting point : all we have are the traditions ,myths perhaps, bequeathed us by organized religion. They encapsulate mankind's gropings towards the understanding of , and accommodation with,an unseen power- if such there be.

Again, Red Goblin has touched upon the latest thinking in Quantum Physics, which ,I am told ,argues more for the existence of a Supreme Creator rather than not. I am by no means of expert in such abstract thought so I cannot elaborate, but I can't help thinking that we are only at the kindergarten stage of understanding of how things are, despite our 21st.century apparent scientific sophistication.

Confined by the information given by our five senses, there may be whole dimensions and universes of which we are totally unaware.

[newboy]

Indeed, you can't be expected to suspend your critical facilities only on the subject of religion and leave them to run full rein for the rest of the time.

But perhaps it could be argued that ,where you are dealing with the subject of an infinite God it is hopeless looking for a logical starting point : all we have are the traditions ,myths perhaps, bequeathed us by organized religion. They encapsulate mankind's gropings towards the understanding of , and accommodation with,an unseen power- if such there be.

Again, Red Goblin has touched upon the latest thinking in Quantum Physics, which ,I am told ,argues more for the existence of a Supreme Creator rather than not. I am by no means of expert in such abstract thought so I cannot elaborate, but I can't help thinking that we are only at the kindergarten stage of understanding of how things are, despite our 21st.century apparent scientific sophistication.

Confined by the information given by our five senses, there may be whole dimensions and universes of which we are totally unaware.

Totally agree - there are a multitude of things that we do not know and are currently unimaginable. There could be an all powerful set of life-forms. Equally there could be a flying spaghetti monster. In order to deal with life, we have to some kind of filter as to what we're prepared to believe and deal with.

Some organisations have pushed onto us some ideas which are meant to be absolute and definitive.

However:

- a lot of the "definitive truth" being pushed forward by these organisations is proveably wrong

- the organisations have a history of hiding counter-evidence, interfering with the progress of mankind learning new knowledge and forcibly destroying dissenting voices (fatwahs, inqusitions, scientology style harassment, censorship, ex-communication etc). If they've got nothing to hide why be so aggressive about mankind learning more and raising questions?

- the organisations have differing degrees of cult like behaviour, disempowering people (e.g. confession, subservience to God) and preaching through bad thinking (partial evidence - if any) and complex rituals designed to circumvent rational thought and impose a false sense of gravitas and credibility.

- the organisations have a history of looking out for themselves (incredible wealth and power) and betraying the masses (corruption and the covering up of it, rape)

- the organisations wield a huge amount of power and to varying degrees raise policy in all aspects of life despite being voted for by no-one and having limited (if any, based on which one) answerability either internally or externally

- the organisations prey on the desperate (AA programmes, scientology drugs rehabilitation programmes etc)

- the organisations preach hate - against minorities, against other religions and against non-believers. why be so down on others when your central tenet is supposed to be compassion?

- there are clear motives for religion to be created (power, financial gain)

So as a rational being, whilst acknowledging that most things are possible, but having to deal with reality, what do you do? Why should any rational being accept the organised religions take on events given all of the above, especially when they rely on bad practices to gain credibility when all one asks for is some kind of basic proof?

Given all things being neutral and trying to approach this with an open mind, why should anyone accept and follow the mantra of any organised religion? If you take away all the stuff that causes us to be irrational - herd mentality, desperation, being bamboozled by wealth and power - what is there left apart from some unanswered questions?

And given that, why do the answers that these organisations who have all the above flaws provide have any more credibility that simply saying "we don't know, yet" or "due to life and all it's permuations bad stuff happens to nice people"?

It's almost as if people deep down know that the religious organisations are flawed and spout some pretty mad stuff, but find that preferable to accepting that life is finite and sometimes you get the bad end of a deal through no fault of your own.

Each to their own I guess, but my basic point is that just because anything is possible, one doesn't have to accept that everything told to them is right, especially when the person telling them has both motive for misleading you and historically has been incredibly fallible and wrong.

[newboy]

If anyone's read my posts, I've always said that the CofE was the most liberal of the mainstream religions and the one I can find least fault with. With it's inclusive nature, general lack of dictat over every aspect of people's lives and only minor levels of disempowerment, you could argue that any negatives are outweighed by the positives it brings - a focal point for communities, the community work it carries out, the tolerance towards other faiths and the general lack of corruption.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8504604.stm

Just goes to show how out of touch and medieval even the most liberal church is. Oooh - women - they have wombs and everything! And smell nice. And look better in skirts. Can't be having that.