Are you a believer in god?

Bobbinogs

mmm, I thought Kylie was saving herself for me. Mind you, if she turns up without those gold lame hotpants then you can have her, I do have standards.

briantrumpet

There are simply too many unanswerable questions about an existence in eternity to make the whole thing anything other than ridiculous, not least, what state of consciousness would 'you' return to? Would you return to your immediate pre-death state (the torture of Alzheimer's, maybe?) your state at birth (spending most of your time crying, sh1tting yourself, or asleep), or a mixture of all your various states of consciousnesses? Whoa. I'd rather just be plain dead, thanks.

rick_chasey

We're just meat being shovelled into a grave.

thegreatdivide

Rick Chasey wrote:

We're just meat being shovelled into a grave.

A virus with shoes.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

The average atheist I find disappoints me in their reluctance to admit or even examine the issue of regular existential crises.

It's one of the joys of being an atheist, and is much more intellectually productive than insulting believers.

Never mind admitting existential crises, the default argument seems to be: the story of Creation in the Bible is not literally true, therefore all religion is rubbish.
The Creation of the Earth takes up just the first two or three chapters of the first book of the 39 (or up to 50 depending on your Christian denomination) that make up the Old Testament, plus another 27 books of the New Testament. The Bible is not an 'alternative theory' and is not primarily concerned with explaining how the physical world works, but how people should act toward one another. Discounting religion because a literal interpretation of part of one book of the Bible does not match our current understanding of the formation of the Universe is a bit like suggesting all science is nonsense because it does not have, say, a robust explanation for the existence of art.

rjsterry

Finesilver24 wrote:

Belief is (or should be) based on evidence. Faith is what people 'believe' when they have no evidence.

There is not a single tiny fraction of the evidence of any God; religion is just dark-age mythology which required a 'God' to explain what was previously unexplainable, and people don't want to let go of the comfort blanket and (generally) have their minds altered at an early age so that the concept of a God becomes the norm. But it's all still just blind faith and there is NO PROOF.

I have no proof that Kylie Minogue is going to come to Lincolnshire in the future and marry me, so I can't believe it will happen. But in the absence of evidence, I have faith that she will turn up, and that ridiculous self-delusion keeps me happy and allows me to sleep at night. If you don't believe in my faith, that's your problem, not mine, but I would like some tax breaks and special privileges as a result of having a 'faith'.

I suspect that there are many things that even the most fervent atheist believes without being able to offer any proof.

First.Aspect

rjsterry wrote:

I suspect that there are many things that even the most fervent atheist believes without being able to offer any proof.

Well, I have plenty of unsubstantiated opinions. Mostly related to the economy and US politics. But not really the same thing. No, I think you'd find that people have a general consistency in approach, so you are unlikely to find a fervent atheist who fervently believes in the Yeti, for example. What sort of thing did you have in mind?

fat daddy

rjsterry wrote:

the story of Creation in the Bible is not literally true, therefore all religion is rubbish.

no ..... the story of creation in the bible is not literally true, therefore that religion is rubbish ... there is plenty of other reasons why :-

AAhmadiyya
Aladura
Amish
Anglicanism
Asatru
Assemblies of God
atheism
Baha'i Faith
Baptists
Bon
Buddhism
Candomble
Cao Dai
Cathari
Catholicism
Charismatic movement
Chinese Religion
Christadelphians
Christian Science
Christianity
Church of God
Church of God in Christ
Church of Satan
Confucianism
Conservative Judaism
Deism
Donatism
Dragon Rouge
Druze
Eastern Orthodox Church
Eckankar
ELCA
Epicureanism
Evangelicalism
Falun Gong
Foursquare Church
Gnosticism
Greek Religion
Hare Krishna
Hasidism
Hellenic Reconstructionism
Hinduism
Illuminati
Intelligent Design
Islam
Jainism
Jehovah's Witnesses
Judaism
Kabbalah
Kemetic Reconstructionism
Lutheranism
Mahayana Buddhism
Mayan Religion
Methodism
Mithraism
Mormonism
Nation of Islam
Neopaganism
Neoplatonism
New Age
New Thought
Nichiren
Norse Religion
Olmec Religion
Oneness Pentecostalism
Orthodox Judaism
Pentecostalism
Presbyterianism
Priory of Sion
Protestantism
Pure Land Buddhism
Quakers
Rastafarianism
Reform Judaism
Rinzai Zen Buddhism
Roman Religion
Satanism
Scientology
Seventh-Day Adventism
Shaivism
Shi'a Islam
Shinto
Sikhism
Soto Zen Buddhism
Spiritualism
Stoicism
Sufism
Sunni Islam
Taoism
Tendai Buddhism
Theravada Buddhism
Tibetan Buddhism
Typhonian Order
Umbanda
Unification Church
Unitarian Universalism
Vaishnavism
Vajrayana Buddhism
Vedanta
Vineyard Churches
Voodoo
Westboro Baptist Church
Wicca
Worldwide Church of God
Yezidi
Zen
Zionism
Zoroastrianism

are all rubbish ........ the underlying one being, they cant all be true, therefor the large majority must by default just be made up

rjsterry

fat daddy wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

the story of Creation in the Bible is not literally true, therefore all religion is rubbish.

no ..... the story of creation in the bible is not literally true, therefore that religion is rubbish ... there is plenty of other reasons why :-

AAhmadiyya
Aladura
Amish
Anglicanism
Asatru
Assemblies of God
atheism
Baha'i Faith
Baptists
Bon
Buddhism
Candomble
Cao Dai
Cathari
Catholicism
Charismatic movement
Chinese Religion
Christadelphians
Christian Science
Christianity
Church of God
Church of God in Christ
Church of Satan
Confucianism
Conservative Judaism
Deism
Donatism
Dragon Rouge
Druze
Eastern Orthodox Church
Eckankar
ELCA
Epicureanism
Evangelicalism
Falun Gong
Foursquare Church
Gnosticism
Greek Religion
Hare Krishna
Hasidism
Hellenic Reconstructionism
Hinduism
Illuminati
Intelligent Design
Islam
Jainism
Jehovah's Witnesses
Judaism
Kabbalah
Kemetic Reconstructionism
Lutheranism
Mahayana Buddhism
Mayan Religion
Methodism
Mithraism
Mormonism
Nation of Islam
Neopaganism
Neoplatonism
New Age
New Thought
Nichiren
Norse Religion
Olmec Religion
Oneness Pentecostalism
Orthodox Judaism
Pentecostalism
Presbyterianism
Priory of Sion
Protestantism
Pure Land Buddhism
Quakers
Rastafarianism
Reform Judaism
Rinzai Zen Buddhism
Roman Religion
Satanism
Scientology
Seventh-Day Adventism
Shaivism
Shi'a Islam
Shinto
Sikhism
Soto Zen Buddhism
Spiritualism
Stoicism
Sufism
Sunni Islam
Taoism
Tendai Buddhism
Theravada Buddhism
Tibetan Buddhism
Typhonian Order
Umbanda
Unification Church
Unitarian Universalism
Vaishnavism
Vajrayana Buddhism
Vedanta
Vineyard Churches
Voodoo
Westboro Baptist Church
Wicca
Worldwide Church of God
Yezidi
Zen
Zionism
Zoroastrianism

are all rubbish ........ the underlying one being, they cant all be true, therefor the large majority must by default just be made up

You're still suggesting that a religion - which is a cultural phenomenon - is a set of theories that can be proved or disproved. While there are obviously conflicting views on various matters, both between and within individual religions, this does not mean that it is therefore all rubbish. You could say the same about different schools of political thought. Is all political theory rubbish because Labour and the Conservatives can't both be right. Can you prove that a political ideology is right or wrong, however strongly you feel about it? Some other threads on here would suggest not.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The average atheist I find disappoints me in their reluctance to admit or even examine the issue of regular existential crises.

It's one of the joys of being an atheist, and is much more intellectually productive than insulting believers.

Never mind admitting existential crises, the default argument seems to be: the story of Creation in the Bible is not literally true, therefore all religion is rubbish.
The Creation of the Earth takes up just the first two or three chapters of the first book of the 39 (or up to 50 depending on your Christian denomination) that make up the Old Testament, plus another 27 books of the New Testament. The Bible is not an 'alternative theory' and is not primarily concerned with explaining how the physical world works, but how people should act toward one another. Discounting religion because a literal interpretation of part of one book of the Bible does not match our current understanding of the formation of the Universe is a bit like suggesting all science is nonsense because it does not have, say, a robust explanation for the existence of art.

This would be a valid argument if people were using Noah as an example for why Christianity was a load of fairy tales.
Creation may be a small part of the Bible but it is the foundation upon what the rest is built.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

fat daddy wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

the story of Creation in the Bible is not literally true, therefore all religion is rubbish.

no ..... the story of creation in the bible is not literally true, therefore that religion is rubbish ... there is plenty of other reasons why :-

AAhmadiyya
Aladura
Amish
Anglicanism
Asatru
Assemblies of God
atheism
Baha'i Faith
Baptists
Bon
Buddhism
Candomble
Cao Dai
Cathari
Catholicism
Charismatic movement
Chinese Religion
Christadelphians
Christian Science
Christianity
Church of God
Church of God in Christ
Church of Satan
Confucianism
Conservative Judaism
Deism
Donatism
Dragon Rouge
Druze
Eastern Orthodox Church
Eckankar
ELCA
Epicureanism
Evangelicalism
Falun Gong
Foursquare Church
Gnosticism
Greek Religion
Hare Krishna
Hasidism
Hellenic Reconstructionism
Hinduism
Illuminati
Intelligent Design
Islam
Jainism
Jehovah's Witnesses
Judaism
Kabbalah
Kemetic Reconstructionism
Lutheranism
Mahayana Buddhism
Mayan Religion
Methodism
Mithraism
Mormonism
Nation of Islam
Neopaganism
Neoplatonism
New Age
New Thought
Nichiren
Norse Religion
Olmec Religion
Oneness Pentecostalism
Orthodox Judaism
Pentecostalism
Presbyterianism
Priory of Sion
Protestantism
Pure Land Buddhism
Quakers
Rastafarianism
Reform Judaism
Rinzai Zen Buddhism
Roman Religion
Satanism
Scientology
Seventh-Day Adventism
Shaivism
Shi'a Islam
Shinto
Sikhism
Soto Zen Buddhism
Spiritualism
Stoicism
Sufism
Sunni Islam
Taoism
Tendai Buddhism
Theravada Buddhism
Tibetan Buddhism
Typhonian Order
Umbanda
Unification Church
Unitarian Universalism
Vaishnavism
Vajrayana Buddhism
Vedanta
Vineyard Churches
Voodoo
Westboro Baptist Church
Wicca
Worldwide Church of God
Yezidi
Zen
Zionism
Zoroastrianism

are all rubbish ........ the underlying one being, they cant all be true, therefor the large majority must by default just be made up

You're still suggesting that a religion - which is a cultural phenomenon - is a set of theories that can be proved or disproved. While there are obviously conflicting views on various matters, both between and within individual religions, this does not mean that it is therefore all rubbish. You could say the same about different schools of political thought. Is all political theory rubbish because Labour and the Conservatives can't both be right. Can you prove that a political ideology is right or wrong, however strongly you feel about it? Some other threads on here would suggest not.

No you can not prove a political ideology is right or wrong.

If somebody tells you they have an imaginary friend who created the earth and all the creatures on it less than 10,000 years ago then it is possible to prove them wrong.

Finesilver24

rjsterry wrote:

You could say the same about different schools of political thought. Is all political theory rubbish because Labour and the Conservatives can't both be right. Can you prove that a political ideology is right or wrong, however strongly you feel about it? Some other threads on here would suggest not.

Proclaiming that God exists is a completely different kettle of ballgames to a political ideology. Religions claim that they know the truth about the existence of their god, and this is used to cajole people into behaving in a certain way, lest they come a cropper on judgement day. The structure of Heaven and Hell was devised to keep people in check, and there is NO EVIDENCE of the presence of either.

Political ideology is just a set of principles that, if applied, should achieve a political outcome. No different to economic theory, which is just a theory, but can be modelled. How do we model Heaven?

First.Aspect

Finesilver24 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

You could say the same about different schools of political thought. Is all political theory rubbish because Labour and the Conservatives can't both be right. Can you prove that a political ideology is right or wrong, however strongly you feel about it? Some other threads on here would suggest not.

Proclaiming that God exists is a completely different kettle of ballgames to a political ideology. Religions claim that they know the truth about the existence of their god, and this is used to cajole people into behaving in a certain way, lest they come a cropper on judgement day. The structure of Heaven and Hell was devised to keep people in check, and there is NO EVIDENCE of the presence of either.

Political ideology is just a set of principles that, if applied, should achieve a political outcome. No different to economic theory, which is just a theory, but can be modelled. How do we model Heaven?

Sounds rather a lot like a political ideology to me.

Vote "God Party" - we will levy taxes on the land in exchange for promises we can't keep.

surrey_commuter

First Aspect wrote:

Finesilver24 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

You could say the same about different schools of political thought. Is all political theory rubbish because Labour and the Conservatives can't both be right. Can you prove that a political ideology is right or wrong, however strongly you feel about it? Some other threads on here would suggest not.

Proclaiming that God exists is a completely different kettle of ballgames to a political ideology. Religions claim that they know the truth about the existence of their god, and this is used to cajole people into behaving in a certain way, lest they come a cropper on judgement day. The structure of Heaven and Hell was devised to keep people in check, and there is NO EVIDENCE of the presence of either.

Political ideology is just a set of principles that, if applied, should achieve a political outcome. No different to economic theory, which is just a theory, but can be modelled. How do we model Heaven?

Sounds rather a lot like a political ideology to me.

Vote "God Party" - we will levy taxes on the land in exchange for promises we can't keep.

Yep that analogy backfired!! One side says Vote Leave and you can enter a heaven where any evil is magicked away. The other side says vote Leave and you go straight to hell.

surrey_commuter

Surrey Commuter wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

Finesilver24 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

You could say the same about different schools of political thought. Is all political theory rubbish because Labour and the Conservatives can't both be right. Can you prove that a political ideology is right or wrong, however strongly you feel about it? Some other threads on here would suggest not.

Proclaiming that God exists is a completely different kettle of ballgames to a political ideology. Religions claim that they know the truth about the existence of their god, and this is used to cajole people into behaving in a certain way, lest they come a cropper on judgement day. The structure of Heaven and Hell was devised to keep people in check, and there is NO EVIDENCE of the presence of either.

Political ideology is just a set of principles that, if applied, should achieve a political outcome. No different to economic theory, which is just a theory, but can be modelled. How do we model Heaven?

Sounds rather a lot like a political ideology to me.
Hi
Vote "God Party" - we will levy taxes on the land in exchange for promises we can't keep.

Yep that analogy backfired!! One side says Vote Leave and you can enter a heaven where any evil is magicked away. The other side says vote Leave and you go straight to hell.

Check out "Wiggins is a cheat" in pro race and tell me me you can not see the religious connotations in the arguments around the central figures of Brailsford/Wiggins

BelgianBeerGeek

You can read the bible and find all kinds of things that fit your world view. Holy books are like that, I suppose.
Are they the exact facts? Who knows, which is part of the inscrutatabilty of religions, and why they can be perverted to suit extremists everywhere.
That does not mean god does not exists. What if god existed within you, right now?
(I am not an evangelist, have an extremely sour outlook re. The planet and all who exist on it, but the ability to do great things are within and around all of us). That could be greatness at work.
Yep, altruism can be scientifically explained. But, really?

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

fat daddy wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

the story of Creation in the Bible is not literally true, therefore all religion is rubbish.

no ..... the story of creation in the bible is not literally true, therefore that religion is rubbish ... there is plenty of other reasons why :-

AAhmadiyya
...
Zoroastrianism

are all rubbish ........ the underlying one being, they cant all be true, therefor the large majority must by default just be made up

You're still suggesting that a religion - which is a cultural phenomenon - is a set of theories that can be proved or disproved. While there are obviously conflicting views on various matters, both between and within individual religions, this does not mean that it is therefore all rubbish. You could say the same about different schools of political thought. Is all political theory rubbish because Labour and the Conservatives can't both be right. Can you prove that a political ideology is right or wrong, however strongly you feel about it? Some other threads on here would suggest not.

No you can not prove a political ideology is right or wrong.

If somebody tells you they have an imaginary friend who created the earth and all the creatures on it less than 10,000 years ago then it is possible to prove them wrong.

Well it was 4004 BC, according to Bishop Ussher, but that 17th century calculation is based on various assumptions and the actual text doesn't make a specific claim. The English translation uses the word day in the passage covering the creation of the Earth, but there is considerable debate as to the accuracy of this translation from (ancient) Hebrew.
If you take a literal reading of the KJV, then sure, that is easy to disprove, but there are plenty of people who are quite happy to accept Genesis as allegorical and find their faith quite compatible with our current understanding of the the Universe, evolution, etc.

confused@BR

Speaking as an old man with a white beard, I would like to say

DON'T TRUST US

There, I feel better now.

Finesilver24

Surrey Commuter wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

Finesilver24 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

....
Proclaiming that God exists is a completely different kettle of ballgames to a political ideology. Religions claim that they know the truth about the existence of their god, and this is used to cajole people into behaving in a certain way, lest they come a cropper on judgement day. The structure of Heaven and Hell was devised to keep people in check, and there is NO EVIDENCE of the presence of either.

Political ideology is just a set of principles that, if applied, should achieve a political outcome. No different to economic theory, which is just a theory, but can be modelled. How do we model Heaven?

Sounds rather a lot like a political ideology to me.

Vote "God Party" - we will levy taxes on the land in exchange for promises we can't keep.

Yep that analogy backfired!! One side says Vote Leave and you can enter a heaven where any evil is magicked away. The other side says vote Leave and you go straight to hell.

You selectively quoted me. The key element is that religions claim to know that there is a God and know what he wants.

Finesilver24

rjsterry wrote:

Well it was 4004 BC, according to Bishop Ussher, but that 17th century calculation is based on various assumptions and the actual text doesn't make a specific claim. The English translation uses the word day in the passage covering the creation of the Earth, but there is considerable debate as to the accuracy of this translation from (ancient) Hebrew.

But where did these dates come from in the first place? We can argue all day (however long that is!) about whether the Bible has been correctly translated, but the question still remains that the information in it came from where? As these accounts were written is a period of human ignorance, illiteracy and a very narrow world view, it's likely that they are not accurate. I thought the Ten Commandments refer to God creating everything in 6 days then having a day off, which is why Christians should honour the Sabbath. Is there confusion over this? Should they be working for six millennia then having a long break? Presumably the person that wrote the account of the Ten Commandments was familiar with the original Old Testament, not the later KVJ. The Bishop was an idiot that made the cardinal sin of trying to reason the rubbish in the bible into more modern pseudo-science, and in doing so highlighted its flaws and failings. The same flaws and failings that are also used to justify different behaviours and prejudices.

The thing that astounds me is the utter arrogance of 'believers' that claim to know the mind and will of their God, when they hold different views to other 'believers' in the same church/religion, and that they have the audacity to preach it to others. Dark-age drivel reinforced by modern-day (senti)mentalists. I don't murder people because I don't think it's right (and it's illegal), not because it might offend a 'God' (the same one that happily killed other tribes to support the Israelites) and might not get to a made-up afterlife.

How would you feel if Govt Policy was heavily influenced by Astrology? If Mystic Meg sat in the House of Lords (like the CofE Bishops do) to ensure that the 'messages from the planets' were correctly taken into account in UK law? Jupiter is rising in Ursa Major, so there will be no Flu Jabs this year, sorry. This week's 'forbidden fruit' is guava because mars is visible, and next week you can't eat oranges because it's a new moon. Bacon sandwich, anyone?

laurentian

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

fat daddy wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

the story of Creation in the Bible is not literally true, therefore all religion is rubbish.

Well it was 4004 BC, according to Bishop Ussher, but that 17th century calculation is based on various assumptions and the actual text doesn't make a specific claim. The English translation uses the word day in the passage covering the creation of the Earth, but there is considerable debate as to the accuracy of this translation from (ancient) Hebrew.
If you take a literal reading of the KJV, then sure, that is easy to disprove, but there are plenty of people who are quite happy to accept Genesis as allegorical and find their faith quite compatible with our current understanding of the the Universe, evolution, etc.

Regarding the creation, The Book of Genesis says:
In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth,
[1:2] the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.
[1:3] Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.
[1:4] And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.
[1:5] God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
[1:6] And God said, "Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."
[1:7] So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so.
[1:8] God called the dome Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.
[1:9] And God said, "Let the waters under the sky be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so.
[1:10] God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
[1:11] Then God said, "Let the earth put forth vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it." And it was so.
[1:12] The earth brought forth vegetation: plants yielding seed of every kind, and trees of every kind bearing fruit with the seed in it. And God saw that it was good.
[1:13] And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.
[1:14] And God said, "Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years,
[1:15] and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth." And it was so.
[1:16] God made the two great lights - the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night - and the stars.
[1:17] God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth,
[1:18] to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.
[1:19] And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.
[1:20] And God said, "Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the dome of the sky."
[1:21] So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, of every kind, with which the waters swarm, and every winged bird of every kind. And God saw that it was good.
[1:22] God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth."
[1:23] And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.
[1:24] And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures of every kind: cattle and creeping things and wild animals of the earth of every kind." And it was so.
[1:25] God made the wild animals of the earth of every kind, and the cattle of every kind, and everything that creeps upon the ground of every kind. And God saw that it was good.
[1:26] Then God said, "Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth."
[1:27] So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
[1:28] God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth."
[1:29] God said, "See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food.
[1:30] And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so.
[1:31] God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

- I've simply cut and pasted this from the internet - not sure what version of the bible this is from.

Science says, that there was nothing, then the big bang, then the formation of suns and planets including earth. Then seas and water, then plant life (amoeba, ferns etc), then animals (although no specific mention of dinosaurs), then humans.

Notwithstanding the timescales involved (day 1, day 2 etc.) and given that the book was written thousands of years ago by semi literate, non-scientific people, I've often wondered how they got the order of things spot on.

This is a genuine question from a "neutral" standpoint

rjsterry

Finesilver24 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Well it was 4004 BC, according to Bishop Ussher, but that 17th century calculation is based on various assumptions and the actual text doesn't make a specific claim. The English translation uses the word day in the passage covering the creation of the Earth, but there is considerable debate as to the accuracy of this translation from (ancient) Hebrew.

But where did these dates come from in the first place? We can argue all day (however long that is!) about whether the Bible has been correctly translated, but the question still remains that the information in it came from where? As these accounts were written is a period of human ignorance, illiteracy and a very narrow world view, it's likely that they are not accurate. I thought the Ten Commandments refer to God creating everything in 6 days then having a day off, which is why Christians should honour the Sabbath. Is there confusion over this? Should they be working for six millennia then having a long break? Presumably the person that wrote the account of the Ten Commandments was familiar with the original Old Testament, not the later KVJ. The Bishop was an idiot that made the cardinal sin of trying to reason the rubbish in the bible into more modern pseudo-science, and in doing so highlighted its flaws and failings. The same flaws and failings that are also used to justify different behaviours and prejudices.

The thing that astounds me is the utter arrogance of 'believers' that claim to know the mind and will of their God, when they hold different views to other 'believers' in the same church/religion, and that they have the audacity to preach it to others. Dark-age drivel reinforced by modern-day (senti)mentalists. I don't murder people because I don't think it's right (and it's illegal), not because it might offend a 'God' (the same one that happily killed other tribes to support the Israelites) and might not get to a made-up afterlife.

How would you feel if Govt Policy was heavily influenced by Astrology? If Mystic Meg sat in the House of Lords (like the CofE Bishops do) to ensure that the 'messages from the planets' were correctly taken into account in UK law? Jupiter is rising in Ursa Major, so there will be no Flu Jabs this year, sorry. This week's 'forbidden fruit' is guava because mars is visible, and next week you can't eat oranges because it's a new moon. Bacon sandwich, anyone?

Believers would not see a difference between what is right and what is according to God's will. On the point about Bishops in the House of Lords, can you give me an actual recent example of the effect their views have had on a particular bill, and how this is different from any other member of the Lords (who may or may not have religious beliefs)? It strikes me as a complete non-issue. If your problem is the grounds for their inclusion in the Lords, then there are plenty more peers there on some pretty thin justification.

ballysmate

I would not only kick the clergy out of the HofL but I would separate State and Religion completely. The Queen should not be Defender of the Faith.

Alex99

Stevo 666 wrote:

I don't but keep an open mind - all I need is some verifiable evidence of the existence of the supreme being like a youtube clip of him.

Same here. I'm technically agnostic, but practically atheist. I'm not sure what proof I require to convince me that God is real, but importantly, an all-knowing god would know. Ho ho.

tangled_metal

If God imposed the same judgement on Godself (is it himself or herself?) as God imposes on us, would God get into heaven?

Usual religious carp and assumptions applied/accepted for the sake of discussion. It's just an amusing thought that cropped up in my head. The most deserving and holiest of men, on entering heaven, putting that proposition to God. Only for God to think about it then suddenly getting flung out of heaven having accidentally judged himself. Leads to an interesting thought (to me at least) that if he did this then would the religious ideas of good and evil then be the same? God is good, devil is bad but they're in the same place....hell!

I think religion is just so full of amusing contradictions. The religious types are too. Whether dangerous (Daesh) or harmless (amish), they're just so contradictory. Wrong to kill Muslims but what exactly are isis doing? Not killing Muslims by any chance. The more strongly someone believes in a religion the more strongly they come across as ridiculous. Better to just not believe in anything too strongly. Applies to politics too!

florerider

Dawkins, the one person who really needs God to exist to have any meaning to his life.

Alex99

florerider wrote:

Dawkins, the one person who really needs God to exist to have any meaning to his life.

Over my head. What do you mean?

slowbike

The thing about God(s) is that the only thing we know is what we have written about him/them - various people have come forward to proclaim they've been "told" or even "the son of" .. but this is just normal people.

There could be a God or even Gods - or there might not - chances are that relgion is wrong about much of what God is - or isn't.

So, quite simply - I do not have faith - I see no need to worship or pray to something that may or may not exist as I do not believe any religion is true.

As I see it, religion on earth is a control method - allowing the few to control the masses - not that that is always a bad thing - religion can do great things - but it can just as easily destroy - usually in the name of the same God - is that God's fault? No - it's the fault of the humans casting their interpretation of religious scripts.
Would this world be better off without religion? I doubt it - people are people - some like to help, others like to cause chaos, others prefer pain and suffering (someone elses) - and most of us are like sheep - very easy to lead.
If religion didn't exist then other groups would dominate - just look at the cycling world - competitiveness between cycling clubs & teams ...

Alex99

Slowbike wrote:

The thing about God(s) is that the only thing we know is what we have written about him/them - various people have come forward to proclaim they've been "told" or even "the son of" .. but this is just normal people.

There could be a God or even Gods - or there might not - chances are that relgion is wrong about much of what God is - or isn't.

So, quite simply - I do not have faith - I see no need to worship or pray to something that may or may not exist as I do not believe any religion is true.

As I see it, religion on earth is a control method - allowing the few to control the masses - not that that is always a bad thing - religion can do great things - but it can just as easily destroy - usually in the name of the same God - is that God's fault? No - it's the fault of the humans casting their interpretation of religious scripts.
Would this world be better off without religion? I doubt it - people are people - some like to help, others like to cause chaos, others prefer pain and suffering (someone elses) - and most of us are like sheep - very easy to lead.
If religion didn't exist then other groups would dominate - just look at the cycling world - competitiveness between cycling clubs & teams ...

I think the world would be better off without religion. It is generally a barrier to constructive reasoned discussion, can be a diversion from more genuinely useful ways to live a good life and certainly can be a driving force for otherwise good people to do bad things.

florerider

I don't believe in football
I don't worship footballers
Football is opium for the masses intended to keep the lower classes in their place.
Football generates tribal violence
I have no faith in a media that can not differentiate news from football.
I refuse to be ruled by football.