An Old Question On 200,000 Dead's Lips

[Glaswegian]

Clodhopper wrote: Other days I get down on my knees and thank God for the wonder and beauty of His Creation.
Clodhopper wrote: Ooof! I'm away on hol tomorrow, I've just finished packing and organising and am tired.
How was Jesus Camp, Clod? Did they feed you?

[gmc]

I wouldn't be so smug glaswegian, you and I live in a country where religious education is the only compulsory subject taught in schools and where we allow segregation on religious grounds. We could give the world lessons in bigotry.

YouTube - Glasgow Orange Walk 2008 - The Tunnel

This was on the same page - love the irony

YouTube - David Guetta feat. Kelly Rowland - When Love Takes Over

at least we can laugh at ourselves.

YouTube - Last Call

[Clodhopper]

Fox News = Oxymoron. I'm always suspicious when the interviewer does more talking - well, ranting - than the interviewee. Plonker.

But while I tend to agree with you about the dangers of fundamentalist religion - of any variety - I don't see the moderates as being in the same category. There are many people who derive great comfort from their religion and do their best to do good in the world as a result of it. To use a political analogy, it is as if you are saying all socialists are Stalinists, all Stalinists are bad, so all socialists are bad.

I also think this "respect for belief" thing is getting slightly twisted. I don't think we have to respect other people's beliefs; but we do have to respect their right to believe just as the religious have a duty to respect your right not to believe or my uncertainty in the matter. Anyone can argue and persuade; no-one may force.

[Glaswegian]

gmc;1325683 wrote: I wouldn't be so smug glaswegian, you and I live in a country where religious education is the only compulsory subject taught in schools and where we allow segregation on religious grounds. We could give the world lessons in bigotry.

YouTube - Glasgow Orange Walk 2008 - The Tunnel


What we are seeing in the above video has nothing to do with religious bigotry, gmc. It is merely the annual procession of the Glasgow Budgerigar Breeders Society. In case you doubt this then look closely and you will see a budgie perched happily on one of the roof rafters in the tunnel - a green budgie, I might add.

gmc wrote: at least we can laugh at ourselves.

YouTube - Last Call
Brilliant :wah:

[Clodhopper]

How was Jesus Camp, Clod?


Well, I'm told he walked a bit funny...probably didn't cut his nails.

Did they feed you?


Yep. Loaves and fish. My brother has a big appetite, so we requested 5,000 portions. The Bass was lovely. MMMMmmmm. Definitely had a halo.

Why I like the Anglican Church:

YouTube - Eddie Izzard-Cake or Death

[Glaswegian]

Clodhopper;1325696 wrote: Why I like the Anglican Church:

YouTube - Eddie Izzard-Cake or Death
The Anglican Church appears moderate in comparison with many other Christian churches, Clod. But it still has a few head cases. I know that Ann Widdecombe has left the Anglican Church. But in spite of her bulk and the severity of her madness she is still only one individual.

When floods devastated the North of England a couple of years ago, leaving many families homeless, the then Bishop of Carlisle - Graham Dow - said that this catastrophe was Divine punishment brought on by increasing sexual permissiveness and pro-gay legislation in society.

Anglican head cases can be read about here:

Floods are judgment on society, say bishops - Telegraph

On the subject of Ann Widdecombe - she took part in a marvellous debate about whether the Catholic Church is a force for good in the world. One of her opponents in the debate was Stephen Fry, who was quite outstanding. You can watch Stephen Fry and Ann Widdecombe (thankfully minus suspenders) go head to head here:

YouTube - Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry versus The Catholics, 1 of 5



ANN WIDDECOMBE: DEVOUT CATHOLIC



On her way to mass


(Photo courtesy of Catholic Women Today)

[gmc]

I remember she held a press conference to announce her decision to convert to join the catholic church. as if anyone actually cared.

Fascinating though, you can see they will never agree with each other and the kind of religious fervour that leads to so much terror in the world. It's the same with the current sex scandals concerning the church. Never mind the facts the church can do no wrong and people should not be allowed to criticise. It seems you can admit your mistakes and go to heaven but the church has never been wrong.

posted by clodhopper

I also think this "respect for belief" thing is getting slightly twisted. I don't think we have to respect other people's beliefs; but we do have to respect their right to believe just as the religious have a duty to respect your right not to believe or my uncertainty in the matter. Anyone can argue and persuade; no-one may force.


Good point.

[Glaswegian]

Shimon;1325394 wrote: Please read Exodus 5:22 - 6:9 with a open heart and mind,and if you dont understand,then in its time you will,the fact that you say an imaginary god explains alot about your reasoning.
I’ve always found the Exodus tale of the Israelites gaining their freedom from slavery in Egypt through Moses and God absurd even on its own terms - even just as a whopping yarn, Shimon. When I said earlier that the tale contains a major weakness I was referring to those parts of it in which we are told that God hardens the hearts of Pharaoh and the Egyptians so that they will be unwilling to let the Israelites go. Viz.

‘I will harden his [Pharaoh’s] heart, so that he will not let the people go’ (Exodus 4: 21)

‘I have hardened his [Pharaoh’s] heart and the heart of his officials, in order that I may show these signs of mine among them, and that you may tell your children and grandchildren how I have made fools of the Egyptians…so that you may know that I am the Lord’ (Exodus 10: 1-2)

‘I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians so that they will go in after them [into the parted Red Sea after the Israelites]; and so I will gain glory for myself over Pharaoh and all his army…And the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord…’ (Exodus 14: 17-18)

It is very clear what God is doing here, isn’t it? He is hardening the hearts of Pharaoh and the Egyptians thereby making them even more unwilling to free the Israelites than they were already. More than this - He has gone out of His way to preclude any possibility of a change of heart on the part of Pharaoh and the Egyptians thereby ensuring that they will not let the Israelites go. For example, He has determined that the Egyptian army will go into the parted Red Sea after the Israelites, and He tells Moses of this in advance of its happening.

Now, what does God do after He has hardened the hearts of Pharaoh and the Egyptians? He punishes Pharaoh and the Egyptians, and destroys many of them. And why does He do this? Just so as He can glorify Himself in the eyes of His people.

How could God do this to the Egyptians after interfering with their free will in the way that He did? How could He treat them in such a cruel and merciless fashion after tampering with their capacity to act as free moral agents? How could He hold the Egyptians responsible for refusing to let the Israelites go when He Himself did so much to bring this refusal about?

If this God exists then he is a malignant dwarf of a god. Nay - worse.

[Glaswegian]

Clodhopper;1325685 wrote: I also think this "respect for belief" thing is getting slightly twisted. I don't think we have to respect other people's beliefs; but we do have to respect their right to believe just as the religious have a duty to respect your right not to believe or my uncertainty in the matter. Anyone can argue and persuade; no-one may force.
I recognise the right of every human being to believe what they want to believe. And that recognition holds for all beliefs - absolutely and without exception.

The right to believe is not being challenged anywhere in this thread, Clod. Not as far as I can see. But what is being challenged are beliefs - specifically, religious beliefs because they are absurd, pernicious and often lethal.

I recognise the right of an individual to hold religious beliefs. But that does not mean I must respect these beliefs or refrain from challenging them. Indeed, I think one has a moral duty to challenge them given the fact that they have been a source of enormous suffering and damage for the human race.

Thus, if a man were to inform me that he believed in ‘the Rapture’, or ‘Satan’, or ‘Papal infallibility’, or that ‘Jesus rose from the dead’ I would respect his right to hold these beliefs. But I would know, in virtue of his holding them, that he was a fool or someone whose grip on reality was a cause for concern, and - if I desired to - I would tell him so and the reason why.

And that’s all I’m doing here - telling so and the reasons why.

[Shimon]

In the early 90’s I thought exactly like you. The whole thing, to me, sounded crazy. The stories sounded like mass murder, incest, and every kind of evil you could think of. It caused me to loose what little faith I had. The orthodox religion made no sense to me at all. I hated the way organized religion would make a person feel. I lost my faith.

At the time I was working for the Rabbinical Council of America and meet a Rabbi who began to teach me true Kabbalah not only restoring my faith but made it all fit.

The Torah is like a self help book for the soul. But, If read literally it reads like a history book. Not a word in Torah is about our physical world. It has to be read from the level or understanding of sod.

The exodus to the spiritual world is a slow process. we can live in the Land of Israel, provided we match its spiritual level. Im not taking about the physical land on earth. The exile to Egypt occurs when one loses one’s vessels of bestowal, It happens in every soul. When they fall under the rule of the vessels of reception. This state lasts quite a while during one’s progression in spirituality. This is the state we are in today. But when I realize that material pleasures drive my soul away from God, I begin to perceive them as an obstacle, as something evil that goes against me. Then, a battle starts within me.

A war breaks out between both desires: on the one hand Moses and Aaron and on the other, Pharaoh. One cannot tell who overcomes whom, because Pharaoh’s magicians perform the same miracles as the Creator. Therefore, the escape from nature’s rule is only possible after the Creator strikes ten times (the 10 plagues of Egypt) The ten strikes show man that Pharaoh’s rule is a hateful thing, intolerable. Then man himself wants to escape from the Pharaoh (our human ego) inside of you that is opposite to the Creator so that I may detach from it, that I may reach a state where Pharaoh or the ego,the will to receive for oneself with no thought of giving to others, he himself will say: Go! You’ve brought me enough pain!

It is much more involved than this short post . But you are right Glaswegian If I were to read the Torah literally and not understand the language of branches, I would and did feel exactly the same as you. In 6-9 Moses was asking god why he let our people suffer that was the point I was getting at,not the entire Exodus

[Glaswegian]

gmc wrote: But why do we pander to those who believe in a stone age mythology? If they stuck to the message of the late JC it wouldn't be so bad but it seems it is the vindictive god that people prefer.


It’s a common misconception that Jesus Christ represents a moral improvement on the psychotic ogre who passes for ‘God’ in the Old Testament. Because he certainly doesn’t. If you look behind the mask of ‘gentle Jesus’ in the New Testament you will discover a being that is infinitely worse than Jehovah - for He was only an insecure lout of a God.

What we witness in Jesus is the ultimate despot - a despot whose cruelties and horrors have become completely refined and from which there is no escape for those on the receiving end of them. Let me remind you of what it says about ‘gentle Jesus’ in the New Testament:

‘God deems it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you…when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance upon those who do not know God and upon those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might…’ 2 Thessalonians 1: 6-9

There is a world of difference between the cantankerous and brutish Jehovah of the Judaic tradition and the Jesus of the New Testament. When Jehovah ate you up and shat you out He was finished with you. After that you went to Sheol - a place very much like the Greek Hades - and lived there forever as a sort of shadowy fart. But this is not what you can expect from Jesus if you fail to acknowledge him as Lord. No. From him the punishment is implacable and without end. From him you can expect cruelty and suffering which has been escalated to a whole new level. For he will ensure that you burn in the fires of Hell for all eternity.

[Glaswegian]

Shimon wrote: The Torah is like a self help book for the soul. But, If read literally it reads like a history book. Not a word in Torah is about our physical world.
If not a word in the Torah is about the physical world, Shimon, then it contains nothing which bears any relation to the world we live in, nothing which corresponds to any actual event or person in history. In that case the following is not factually true, and did not happen:

‘On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram and said, "To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates - the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites."’ Genesis 15: 18-21

Do you agree?

[fae]

I am not religious,,,,, but,,,, I still think that religion has had a more positive influence,, marginally,, on the evolution of societies than a negative one,,, It is the root of much goodness and the 'ten commandments' have been a basic rule in the formation of the most compassionate of modern moral values....as for natural disasters... thats what they are,, natural... If I believe in anything, it is that life is an experience that we have to deal with. whatever it throws at us.. a gift with which to experience and learn,, everything..

[Glaswegian]

Shimon;1325394 wrote: I have thought long and hard about your statment,

The Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson who's younger brother, DovBer, was shot to death and thrown into a mass grave during occupation of Dnepropetrovsk in the fall of 1941 said the following:

" Our outrage, our incessant challenge to G-d over what has occurred -- this itself is a most powerful attestation to our belief in Him and our faith in His goodness. Because if we did not, underneath it all, possess this faith, what is it that we are outraged at? The blind workings of fate? The random arrangement of quarks that make up the universe? It is only because we believe in G-d, because we are convinced that there is right and there is wrong and that right must, and ultimately will, triumph, that we cry out, as Moses did: "Why, my G-d, have you done evil to Your people?!"
The above comments by Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson are not just absurd, Shimon. They are disgraceful too. Because what he is saying is that one must believe in God in order to be outraged by the Holocaust.

Do you seriously believe, as Rabbi Schneerson does, that the only people who have been morally revolted by the Holocaust are those who believe in God? That only they have cried out for an answer and sought desperately to make sense of it? Do you seriously believe, as he does, that the only people capable of knowing that there is right and there is wrong are these same believers? Please tell me you recognise that Rabbi Schneerson’s comments are devoid of all credibility. Please tell me you recognise that Rabbi Schneerson is an impertinent fool.

Let me offer in response to Rabbi Schneerson’s comments ones which are different - ones which are altogether plausible and sane. They come from the Jewish theologian, Richard Rubenstein. Viz.

‘How can Jews believe in an omnipotent, beneficent God after Auschwitz? Traditional Jewish theology maintains that God is the ultimate, omnipotent actor in the historical drama. It has interpreted every major catastrophe in Jewish history as God’s punishment of a sinful Israel. I fail to see how this position can be maintained without regarding Hitler and the SS as instruments of God’s will. The agony of European Jewry cannot be likened to the testing of Job. To see any purpose in the death camps, the traditional believer is forced to regard the most demonic, anti-human explosion of all history as a meaningful expression of God’s purposes. The idea is simply too obscene for me to accept.’ Extracted from After Auschwitz: Radical Theology and Contemporary Judaism (1966).

Unlike Rabbi Schneerson, Rubenstein lives in the real world. He does not pin his hopes on an imaginary ally in the sky. He writes:

‘When I say we live in the time of the death of God, I mean that the thread uniting God and man, heaven and earth, has been broken. We stand in a cold, silent, unfeeling cosmos, unaided by any purposeful power beyond our own resources.’ (ibid.)

Do you find this prospect too shocking, Shimon, too frightening? Is this what makes you take refuge in the comforting fantasies of Kabbalah?

[Shimon]

Wow ,Glaswegian.

I read Richard Rubenstein's book After Auschwitz while in Seminary many years ago.Richard Rubenstein,is or was a very intelligent man,I still have it around here somewhere, Most Rabbi's think his struggle to find meaning in the Holocaust is commendable, but unlike you, most people believe they can think what they want. Most Jews, not all mind you,believe in the theology of Maimonides. He was kind of big thinker.

Rambam said there are three kinds of evil or suffering in the world. The first are bad things that happen as a side effect of the way God created the world this would include things like earthquakes and cancer. The second type of evil is the evil people do to each other like wars and murder. The third type of evil are bad things people do to themselves abusing drugs, eating too much, etc.

So for Rambam, the evil of the Holocaust is a by product of free will. God does not create evil. But what did he know?

The Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Schneerson was the most repected Rabbi of his time,(or so we thought) sad to think he didnt have your insight to what the truth is.

because he was addressing Jews it was safe to think they believe in God.Nevermind I dont have your keen insight.

Silly Jews ,But they just didnt have your sound reasoning.I only wish I had heard your words 40 yrs ago.And to think I wasted 5yrs of my life in Seminary and 30yrs study when all I had to do was insult others for thinking differantly than you do. Go figure.

[Glaswegian]

Shimon wrote: Most Jews, not all mind you,believe in the theology of Maimonides. He was kind of big thinker.
I know that Maimonides was instrumental in channelling Aristotle’s teachings back into medieval Europe after they had been lost to its scholars for centuries. And we are indebted to him for that. Did you know that Maimonides ‘described the punishment of the detestable Nazarene heretic [Jesus] as one of the greatest achievements of the Jewish elders, insisted that the name Jesus never be mentioned except when accompanied by a curse, and announced that his punishment was to be boiled in excrement for all eternity.’?

Shimon wrote: Rambam said there are three kinds of evil or suffering in the world. The first are bad things that happen as a side effect of the way God created the world this would include things like earthquakes and cancer. The second type of evil is the evil people do to each other like wars and murder. The third type of evil are bad things people do to themselves abusing drugs, eating too much, etc.

So for Rambam, the evil of the Holocaust is a by product of free will. God does not create evil.
I’ll come back to this later, Shimon.

Shimon wrote: The Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Schneerson was the most repected Rabbi of his time,(or so we thought) sad to think he didnt have your insight to what the truth is.

because he was addressing Jews it was safe to think they believe in God.
Even if Rabbi Schneerson was only addressing Jews who believe in God, my earlier criticism of him still holds. For what he is saying is this: It is only because they believe in God that these Jews are outraged by the Holocaust, and that without this belief they would not be. In other words, their outrage is dependent on belief in God. What is wrong with these Jews? Are they incapable of feeling outrage at the Holocaust on ethical grounds alone? Are they so morally bankrupt?

~o0o~


Would you like to respond to what I said earlier in the thread, Shimon? Viz.

Glaswegian wrote: If not a word in the Torah is about the physical world, Shimon, then it contains nothing which bears any relation to the world we live in, nothing which corresponds to any actual event or person in history. In that case the following is not factually true, and did not happen:

‘On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram and said, "To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates - the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites."’ Genesis 15: 18-21

Do you agree?

[Glaswegian]

fae;1326093 wrote: I am not religious,,,,, but,,,, I still think that religion has had a more positive influence,, marginally,, on the evolution of societies than a negative one,,, It is the root of much goodness and the 'ten commandments' have been a basic rule in the formation of the most compassionate of modern moral values....as for natural disasters... thats what they are,, natural... If I believe in anything, it is that life is an experience that we have to deal with. whatever it throws at us.. a gift with which to experience and learn,, everything..
I'll respond to your post sometime over the weekend, fae.

[Glaswegian]

fae;1326093 wrote: I am not religious,,,,, but,,,, I still think that religion has had a more positive influence,, marginally,, on the evolution of societies than a negative one,,, It is the root of much goodness and the 'ten commandments' have been a basic rule in the formation of the most compassionate of modern moral values...


In comparison to the average child of today, fae, the ancient Israelites were ignorant and superstitious yokels. If you want an image which captures how cravenly they stood in relation to Jehovah then think of the shrieking and whimpering apes grovelling before the mysterious monolith in Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey. This might help you to understand why the Ten Commandments are so disappointing as a moral code, and why they had nothing whatsoever to do with 'God' but had everything to do with primitive and fearful minds.

If the Decalogue was thought up by the 'Creator of the Universe' then we would expect it to be the most remarkable moral code ever produced. But it is such an anti-climax, such a damp squib of a code. To modern minds, the Decalogue is bland beyond belief, and is as laughably parochial as camel-dung. The abject failure of the moral imagination which it represents is precisely what we would expect from a benighted and barbaric stone age desert tribe. In order to appreciate just how crass and limited the Ten Commandments are all you have to do is compare them against any modern set of desiderata - for example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Leaving aside Jehovah’s megalomaniacal ravings about being worshipped as the one and only true 'God' - do you think it was absolutely necessary for Him to appear in person to tell the Israelites that they mustn’t kill or steal? Surely they cannot have been so stupid and depraved that they needed to be told that from on high. Since long before the Israelites, every human society which has appeared on this earth has very quickly figured out those two rules of conduct for itself. Any society which fails to do this won’t even get off the ground. It suffers meltdown presto.

The fact that the Ten Commandments had nothing to do with God but were wholly the work of a primitive and brutish horde becomes glaringly obvious when we consider the punishments which are to be meted out for breaking these commandments. For example, what is the punishment for failing to honour one’s parents? Death. What is the punishment for committing adultery? Death. What is the punishment for working on the Sabbath? Death. What is the punishment for taking the Lord’s name in vain? Death. Etc., etc., etc.

The great English rationalist, Thomas Paine, was correct when he wrote: ‘Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon than the word of God. It…has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind.’

[Saint_]

Glaswegian;1292510 wrote: sheer senselessness of it all.

Unquestionably, misery, pain and death fill this world on a scale which is simply unimaginable. What I am interested to know is how Christians and other monotheists account for this state of affairs? How do they reconcile it with their belief in a merciful and loving God who cares about his creation?


Your question implies that you, yourself do not believe in God. With no faith, this will be difficult for you to understand, but I'll give it a go.

Imagine that you are a thread in a great Tapestry hanging in a castle. You see other threads around you of many colors, some get frayed, some get broken. From your vantage point you cannot see the beautiful, intricate and awe-inspiring pattern of the tapestry, so you assume that there is no purpose to your life.

The same is true for humanity. Many of the things that you assume are terrible and horrible by looking only at the act itself are in fact actually far-reaching events of profound greatness. Here's an example:let's say you step off a curb and twist your ankle, or even break your leg. You might see this a a bad or even tragic thing. But what you don't know is that because you broke you leg, you weren't able to get on a bus in time and missed it. On that bus was a person whom you would have met and had a relationship. The relationship would have gone bad and you would have wound up losing everything you had. Your house would have been burnt down, you would have lost everything, you would have turned to a life of crime, then accidentally killed someone in a getaway. You finally would have ended up in prison for life.

It works the other way too. Let's go back to the broken leg. Now this time, because you miss the bus, you meet someone else. They come along while you are hurt and help you out. You fall in love and marry them. You have a wonderful life and two beautiful children. Eventually one of your children grows up and becomes a doctor. They invent a treatment or drug that helps millions of people live healthier, happier lives. Eventually one of those people saved by your child's medicine becomes a great leader and changes the face of history and humanity forever.

All because of a broken leg.

When they say, "God moves in mysterious ways" they aren't joking, kiddo. Have Faith.

Now, let me ask you a question, How do you deal with the vagaries and tragedies of life with no faith?

[Saint_]

Glaswegian;1326528 wrote: IWhenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon than the word of God. It…has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind.’


As most atheists, you choose to pick apart the written works instead of moving beyond to the spiritual works. If you doubt a Creator, I suggest you go outside at night, far from any city...

and look up.

[Glaswegian]

Saint_;1326530 wrote: Now, let me ask you a question, How do you deal with the vagaries and tragedies of life with no faith?
Easy. I rely primarily on my own resources, Saint. I get by with a little help from my friends too.

I'll respond to the rest of your post when I can.

[gmc]

Saint_;1326538 wrote: As most atheists, you choose to pick apart the written works instead of moving beyond to the spiritual works. If you doubt a Creator, I suggest you go outside at night, far from any city...

and look up.


For some reason I can't use smileys and since much is lost in translation please don't this as just being sarcastic. It fact it's very difficult to talk about religion without sounding sarcastic - or having it taken that way, and if you'll excuse me anwering a question directed at glaswegian

Living, as does glaswegian, in scotland I can tell you that most of the time the sky is overcast - you may want to read more in to that than there is. In the north it doesn't actually get dark at all in the summer instead we have something called the gloaming. I don't know if you are familiar with the term.

Scotland In The Gloaming

I've seen skies like that on many an occasion. I've also watch the thunderheads build up and watched storm fronts come in over the atlantic.

The thing is I know why the sky is sometimes red at night, why it is sometimes red in the morning, why it is purple and gold and why the clouds are different shapes. Knowing why doesn't make it any less awesome or me appreciate being alive any less. I also know what causes earthquakes and drought and I don't think they or diseases, drought or any of the things that happen are a sign of god's displeasure.

Like most religious people you come out with twee phrases like go

I suggest you go outside at night, far from any city..]

and look up.


As if that explains everything, it doesn't.

Nor does god moves in mysterious ways - have faith.


You might consider it the work of god that all these people died in haiti and take solace in the belief that it is all designed to bring you closer to god because he moves in mysterious ways perhaps even that they deserved it for some transgression (certainly some of the godly see it that way). Children born in a third world country no doubt deserve their fate, being born with some genetic disease - like cystic fibrosis- meaning they will die early is god's will which is why there is righteousness is preventing the kind of research that might find a cure, after all it plays the part of godand interferes with the will of god to interfere like that. Good job the godly lost that argument when it comes to doing the research that has led to our knowledge of the causes and treatment of disease and to preventing things like cholera and polio and - and yes it was put forward as a serious reason to just let people die- because it was the will of god and those who disagreed were blasphemers going to hell.

posted by saint

Now, let me ask you a question, How do you deal with the vagaries and tragedies of life with no faith?


How can you deal with the vagaries and tragedies of life and have the arrogance ( for want of a better word) to believe it is all for your benefit. Oh I know -- god moves in mysterious ways. If god made the night sky he also made death disease and destruction you may believe that proves god exists. I find such a belief absurd.

posted by glaswegian

The great English rationalist, Thomas Paine, was correct when he wrote: ‘Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon than the word of God. It…has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind.’


the reaction he got rather proved that the age of reason had not yet arrived. Still not sure it has.

[Saint_]

gmc;1326567 wrote: For some reason I can't use smileys and since much is lost in translation please don't this as just being sarcastic. It fact it's very difficult to talk about religion without sounding sarcastic.


It's your lack of faith that makes it difficult. I don't have any trouble not sounding sarcastic.

The thing is I know why the sky is sometimes red at night


You missed my point, I meant look at the stars and the galaxies. You looked too low to Earth and too close to yourself. Exactly your problem concerning religion.

As if that explains everything, it doesn't.


You missed the point again, God is unimaginably intricate, large, and complex. He can't be explained in terms we understand, just as a two-year-old can't explain or even understand quantum physics. But that two-year-old, like us, can look around and see that the Universe works with a pattern.

You might consider it the work of god that all these people died in haiti and take solace in the belief that it is all designed to bring you closer to god


I didn't say that. I said that neither you, nor I, know the complete circumstances, repercussion and results of that earthquake.

they deserved it for some transgression


You and I both know that I said nothing of the kind, nor implied it, and being inflammatory does not do you justice.

Children born in a third world country no doubt deserve their fate, being born with some genetic disease - like cystic fibrosis- when it comes to doing the research that has led to our knowledge of the causes and treatment of disease and to preventing things like cholera and polio


And yet it was religious men and women who did exactly what you accused them of not doing, found a cure. Perhaps you proved my point there. people who have religion care about others. It's the basic message of Christ. how is that a bad thing?

How can you deal with the vagaries and tragedies of life and have the arrogance ( for want of a better word) to believe it is all for your benefit.


Again you are mistaken, I believe that it is for the benefit not for myself, but for all mankind and the entire Universe itself. You think too small.

Here's a passage from when Nomad and I had this conversation many years ago. maybe it'll clarify things:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nomad

Why are we here ?

To become intelligent. The single greatest survival trait is intelligence, It is better and more powerful than any other trait such as fangs or speed. Therefore, where ever life begins, it will evolve towards intelligence eventually. Therefore the reason for the Universe is to create intelligence. The real question is why does the Creator want life to be intelligent?

Quote:

On Earth that is. Is there a reason ?

Yes. Earth lies in the "life belt". In our orbit, we are not too close to the Sun or too far away. It's not too hot or cold to sustain carrbon-based life here. The early self-replicating molecules found that they could sustain reproduction here. The more complex the form, the better it's chance for survival. Therefore life evolved into humans.

Quote:

Is it a fluke ?

No...The speed of light is 6.0 X 10^6 mph., the acceleration of gravity is 32 ft.^2, and the distance around a circle (or your atom or a planet, or a galaxy) divided by the distance across it is 3.1415926... These constants are set and have been set since creation. Change just one number by one digit and the entire Universe would cease to exist. So, no. It's no fluke, there is a plan to the Universe.

Quote:

If God exists, why are we on this tiny blue planet

suspended in a vast and seemingly endless void of harsh

uninhabitable cosmos ?

Now you are asking the right question. Why does life exist at all? Since it's obvious that life exists to create intelligence, then the real question is "Why does life need to be intelligent?" No one has this answer, although I have a suspicion. I suggest that since "God lives in the birds and the bees, the rocks and the trees," He experiences his creation through us. Most religious people would agree that an omniscient God would see, hear and experience everything an intelligent human does. Perhaps we are how God lives...He lives through us.

Quote:

Do we have a unified purpose ?

Once, long, long ago, you and I and everyone else were in the center of a star. That is the only place where heavy atoms like carbon and iron can be made. That star blew up and the dust cloud it made eventually condensed into this solar system. From those very atoms, your mother's body broke down the food molecules that she ate and made your body. That seems pretty unifying to me, but it's still just a unified history, not a purpose.

Quote:

An individual purpose ?

Absolutely. Like the threads in a great tapestry, you and I cannot know our actual purpose or the repercussions of everything we do each day. But the beauty of the mathematics of creation suggests that there is a very clear purpose.

Let me put it this way. When you throw a stone into the water, you make ripples. When hundreds of stones are thrown, the ripples cross and recross making fantastic patterns. These patterns are just like our lives. You help a little old lady across the street today. Because of that, she doesn't get hit by a car. She now has a child. That child grows up to invent a cure for cancer. Without your individual purpose of helping her across the street, her son could never realize his individual purpose of inventing a cancer cure.

Quote:

Is this a test ?

Most likely, yes. If you abscribe to the theory that there is a purpose to the universe, then there is a purpose to every part of the universe, including you. If you do not fulfill your purpose, you fail the test.

Quote:

How are we doing ?

You'll know every detail. Exactly which lives you affected, how much, and when. Every nuance of the millions of decisions that you made throughout your lifespan will be made clear to you....

when you die.

[gmc]

posted by saint

It's your lack of faith that makes it difficult. I don't have any trouble not sounding sarcastic.


I posted that because, to be honest, I get fed up during these discussions of religious people taking umbrage because someone does not hare their beliefs so instead of discussing they throw the toys out the pram and demand respect for and the right to impose their religion on others. I can respect someone's right to belief what they want I do not respect their claim to moral certitude. I have even been told by someone on this forum I have no right to discuss religion because I am not religious. Glad to see you are not like that.

You missed my point, I meant look at the stars and the galaxies. You looked too low to Earth and too close to yourself. Exactly your problem concerning religion.


No I didn't miss your point, I also know to some extent how the stars and galaxies came in to existence although we have still to work out the full explanation. I do not, however, believe is is the work of god. Nor do i believe I need to worship him or it or her in a certain way and get others to do the same in order to keep him happy and find such a notion ridiculous.

The obvious question - who made god and the equally obvious answer he has and always shall be just does not convince me at all.

posted by saint

You and I both know that I said nothing of the kind, nor implied it, and being inflammatory does not do you justice.




I know you didn't nor did I make any such claim. It was a general observation that some see the hand of god in everything that happens so therefore of something happens - like in haiti it is because they have offended god in some way. It is a primitive and absurd belief that we should not take seriously or lend any credence to - yet it seems many do, not you perhaps, but there are those who do so. If god has a purpose it's easy to believe he is punishing transgressors when tragedy strikes.

And yet it was religious men and women who did exactly what you accused them of not doing, found a cure. Perhaps you proved my point there. people who have religion care about others. It's the basic message of Christ. how is that a bad thing?




Yet there were many, equally religious who sought to prevent them believing it being against the will of god and were prepared to fear and terror to stop them. We progress despite religion not because of it. At least we live in an age where you can be openly non-religious.

Again you are mistaken, I believe that it is for the benefit not for myself, but for all mankind and the entire Universe itself. You think too small.


There may or may not be purpose, I don't know, but I do know that the answer is not in religion and the belief in some kind of super being. You are the one that claims there is such a being and purpose to it all. You can't prove there is any more it any more than I can prove there isn't. both beliefs are irrational and all we can probably do is agree to disagree and keep discussing it anyway. But since you make the claim the onus is on you to prove it not the other way around, It is an endlessly fascinating subject I don't care or mind what you believe what I find depressing is the baleful influence religion has had and is still having on life on this planet and the insistence of the religious they have a right to do as they will and prevent even children form learning to think for themselves.

Here's a passage from when Nomad and I had this conversation many years ago. maybe it'll clarify things:




I know all the arguments and can probably put a case from both sides of the debate. Actually I know quite a few religious people that can do the same, I also know quite a few religious people that prefer to use a club and silence those who do not share their belief and would question it. Sadly they seem to be rather influential in the world today. The glee with which some saw the misery of Haiti as a sign that god exists is appalling. Equally appalling is the way in which some look forward to the end of times when all the non-believers get their comeuppance, even you can't claim they are entirely sane - is it religion that makes them so?

When those bombers flew the planes in to the twin towers was it an act of faith, delusion, or insanity? Or is it part of his divine plan and you're not supposed to ask questions like that?

[Glaswegian]

Saint_ wrote: Your question implies that you, yourself do not believe in God. With no faith, this will be difficult for you to understand, but I'll give it a go.

Imagine that you are a thread in a great Tapestry hanging in a castle. You see other threads around you of many colors, some get frayed, some get broken. From your vantage point you cannot see the beautiful, intricate and awe-inspiring pattern of the tapestry, so you assume that there is no purpose to your life.

The same is true for humanity. Many of the things that you assume are terrible and horrible by looking only at the act itself are in fact actually far-reaching events of profound greatness. Here's an example:let's say you step off a curb and twist your ankle, or even break your leg. You might see this a a bad or even tragic thing. But what you don't know is that because you broke you leg, you weren't able to get on a bus in time and missed it. On that bus was a person whom you would have met and had a relationship. The relationship would have gone bad and you would have wound up losing everything you had. Your house would have been burnt down, you would have lost everything, you would have turned to a life of crime, then accidentally killed someone in a getaway. You finally would have ended up in prison for life.

It works the other way too. Let's go back to the broken leg. Now this time, because you miss the bus, you meet someone else. They come along while you are hurt and help you out. You fall in love and marry them. You have a wonderful life and two beautiful children. Eventually one of your children grows up and becomes a doctor. They invent a treatment or drug that helps millions of people live healthier, happier lives. Eventually one of those people saved by your child's medicine becomes a great leader and changes the face of history and humanity forever.

All because of a broken leg.
I’m sure there are religionists who will sigh happily when they read this little homily of yours, Saint, and actually fall for it. But this is not surprising. After all, what do religionists not fall for!

Lurking within your homily is a view of evil and suffering which is revolting and obscene. Allow me to put on gloves so I can hold it up to the light.

The view contained in your homily is an instantiation of the ‘Soul-Making Theodicy’. This theodicy - which rests on the crassest theological mental acrobatics imaginable - can be set out as follows:

The evil and suffering which afflict the human race are not really evil and suffering at all. To think that evil and suffering actually exist is to be under an illusion. For evil and suffering are not what they appear to be. No. They are really forms of Goodness in disguise, Divinely ordained tests, which God sends our way in order to benefit us - specifically, for the sake of our moral improvement. Therefore, we should not be disheartened by the evil and suffering which crushes and destroys the lives of countless human beings - nor the evil and suffering which blights the existence of every other species as well - because God has made this the best of all possible worlds, a fitness suite for ‘souls’, and everything in it works for the best. Furthermore, as a species we should never want to be rid of the evil and suffering which fills the world, not even the most infinitesimal fraction of it. Because this would be the height of folly and ingratitude on our part. For evil and suffering are really forms of Goodness - covert forms - which God has devised and permitted for the sake of our moral improvement.

Thus, when babies were thrown alive into furnaces during the Holocaust this was good for their moral improvement, and for the moral improvement of those who did the throwing, and for the moral improvement of those who witnessed the babies’ hellish incineration or who heard their screams of agony. Likewise, when children are abducted, raped, tortured and murdered this is good for their moral improvement and for the moral improvement of their families, and for the moral improvement of the abductor-rapist-torturer-murderer. When men, women and children died slowly of suffocation under the rubble of collapsed buildings in Haiti this was good for their moral improvement too, and for the moral improvement of the relatives who dug out their putrefying corpses. Even the three thousand people who were killed in New York City on 9/11 as a result of either leaping to their deaths from the twin towers or being obliterated inside the buildings when they collapsed, were also morally improved by this atrocity, as were all those who witnessed it on the surrounding streets or on television screens around the world. When thousands of human beings in this world die slow, agonising deaths of starvation every moment of every day this - I think you’re catching on here - is good for their moral improvement, and for the moral improvement of ourselves should we ever happen to hear about it. Ad infinitum…

From time immemorial, the evil and suffering which inundates this world have devastated and destroyed the lives of countless millions of human beings, and to espouse the view - as you do, Saint - that this is all for the best is morally repugnant in the extreme. The ‘Soul-Making Theodicy’ is theology at its most foulest, and should be understood as a pathetic attempt by the religionist to preserve his belief in a loving and merciful God at any cost. Think of it as the religious ostrich putting its head not so much in the sand as up its own arse in the face of evil and suffering.

Saint_ wrote: When they say, "God moves in mysterious ways" they aren't joking, kiddo. Have Faith.
I'll respond to this religious mush with something I posted earlier in the thread when hoppy simpered it. Viz.

hoppy wrote: God moves in mysterious ways.
Glaswegian wrote: This is the classic religious cop out.

When the religionist’s belief system starts to look decidedly weak, when it threatens to unravel before his eyes, when it is in danger of collapsing under a mountain of contradictory evidence - what does the religionist do?

He adopts the most pious air he can and then drivels: ‘Ah, but it is a mystery.’

Freud was right - ‘Where questions of religion are concerned, people are guilty of every possible sort of dishonesty and intellectual misdemeanour.’


~o0o~


Saint_ wrote: Now, let me ask you a question, How do you deal with the vagaries and tragedies of life with no faith?
Now, let me ask you a question: How is it that you are unable to deal with the vagaries and tragedies of life without faith? Why are you unable to stand on your own two feet and deal with them using your own resources as every self-respecting adult does? Surely you cannot be so craven and infantile that you are incapable of handling life without believing in a Big Pacifier called ‘God’?

[Clodhopper]

For some reason I can't use smileys...


You have been tried and convicted in absentia for the crime of being Scottish but insufficiently dour. If your dourness rating does not improve from "generally miserable" to "living pucker" you'll lose your upper case, too.

[gmc]

Clodhopper;1326814 wrote: You have been tried and convicted in absentia for the crime of being Scottish but insufficiently dour. If your dourness rating does not improve from "generally miserable" to "living pucker" you'll lose your upper case, too.


:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

Problem solved. I had the wee free laughter checker on.

[Saint_]

Glaswegian;1326811 wrote: religious mush :wah:

Now, let me ask you a question: How is it that you are unable to deal with the vagaries and tragedies of life without faith? Why are you unable to stand on your own two feet and deal with them using your own resources as every self-respecting adult does? Surely you cannot be so craven and infantile that you are incapable of handling life without believing in a Big Pacifier called ‘God’?


Tsk tsk. Name calling? You seem upset. You should try some religion, if for no other reason than it will calm you and give you a bigger picture of life.

As to your question, fair enough: I've tried your way and found it distasteful and unfulfilling. The idea that the Universe is random and capricious (and as a mathematician I can tell you that there are amazing and beautiful patterns to the Universe that imply otherwise!) is abhorent. It gives no comfort to me, and never has, to think that life is useless, vapid, and without meaning. Your view is that we are born, we live, we breathe, we eat, we ****, we die, the end. All striving, all creation, all imagination is meaningless and futile in your world view. Life is just a transient puff of smoke. How depressing.

What is the point of living at all in that case?

Of course you may argue that your life, itself, is enough but of course that view is incredibly selfish and arrogant. You are the most important thing in the Universe?

I not only think this is not true, but I KNOW it's not true. How you ask? Simple. I've died before. I know for a fact that life exists outside the body. I'll tell you that story some time



The last point is the most critical of all: I feel better knowing that there is meaning to Creation. Since I know that the souls (life-force if you'd prefer) of those gone still exist, life has much more continuity and meaning for me than for you. Whether you believe that or not, you and your kind try to take away something that gives comfort to dying and sick people. Something that gives hope and joy to the living. Whether you believe it's true or not,



To me... that's wrong.

[gmc]

Saint_;1326884 wrote: :wah:



Tsk tsk. Name calling? You seem upset. You should try some religion, if for no other reason that it will calm you and give you a bigger picture of life.

As to your question, fair enough: I've tried your way and found it distasteful and unfulfilling. The idea that the Universe is random and capricious (and as a mathematician I can tell you that there are amazing and beautiful patterns to the Universe that imply otherwise!) is abhorent. It gives no comfort to me, and never has, to think that life is useless, vapid, and without meaning. Your view is that we are born, we live, we breathe, we eat, we ****, we die, the end. All striving, all creation, all imagination is meaningless in your world view.

What is the point of living at all in that case?

Of course you may argue that your life, itself, is enough but of course that view is incredibly selfish and arrogant. You are the most important thing in the Universe?

I not only think this is not true, but I KNOW it's not true. How you ask? Simple. I've died before. I know for a fact that life exists outside the body. I'll tell you that story some time



The last point is the most critical of all: I feel better knowing that there is meaning to Creation. Since I know that the souls (life-force if you'd prefer) of those gone still exist, life has much more continuity and meaning for me than for you. Whether you believe that or not, you and your kind try to take away something that gives comfort to dying and sick people. Something that gives hope and joy to the living. Whether you believe it's true or not,



To me... that's wrong.


I trust glaswegian will excuse me butting in.

let me remind you of the original question

Unquestionably, misery, pain and death fill this world on a scale which is simply unimaginable. What I am interested to know is how Christians and other monotheists account for this state of affairs? How do they reconcile it with their belief in a merciful and loving God who cares about his creation?


All he's doing is rephrasing it in slightly more aggressive terms.

posted by saint

As to your question, fair enough: I've tried your way and found it distasteful and unfulfilling. The idea that the Universe is random and capricious (and as a mathematician I can tell you that there are amazing and beautiful patterns to the Universe that imply otherwise!) is abhorent. It gives no comfort to me, and never has, to think that life is useless, vapid, and without meaning. Your view is that we are born, we live, we breathe, we eat, we ****, we die, the end. All striving, all creation, all imagination is meaningless in your world view.

What is the point of living at all in that case?

Of course you may argue that your life, itself, is enough but of course that view is incredibly selfish and arrogant. You are the most important thing in the Universe?




I suppose what you are saying is your faith gives you comfort and I'm pleased that it does so for you. I have no issues with faith but I do with religion. Perhaps if you could separate faith from religion all would be well. I often think faith does not need religion and indeed religion is more likely to get in the way of it since you spend your time trying to work out which religion is right. At least now I won't get burned as a heretic for saying that out loud.

But then if you believe in a life after death and your current life really sucks then suicide must seem a good option. So the christian faith teaches that suicide is a sin, dying for your faith is a good act and at various times slaughtering non believers was a sure way to heaven much as some islamic extremists are brainwashed in to believing nowadays.

posted by saint

Whether you believe that or not, you and your kind try to take away something that gives comfort to dying and sick people. Something that gives hope and joy to the living. Whether you believe it's true or not,


I don't know what glaswegian's kind is since he has not laid out any kind of belief system. He is an atheist and obviously takes comfort from that and you don't need to be told what is OK to believe if you are an atheist. You also tend not to get upset if someone points out atheism is also irrational since you can't prove god doesn't exist - all you can claim is it is very very unlikely.

But he's talking about faith and asking why you believe as you do and you seem to be suggesting that religion and it's influence should not be challenged. How does someone not sharing your faith lessen yours? No one wants to take it away from you but it seems increasingly religion is making a comeback and it's influence on society is a detrimental one. Sectarian violence is the fault of religion and the insistence that there is only one true faith and way to worship and it's not a case of live and let live. I grew up in a town where all the children went to the same school and got on well together. All it took was for religious schooling to be introduced and suddenly one group couldn't play with the other. I am heartily opposed to faith schools and so are most intelligent people yet it looks like in the UK we are going to be having more of them. what hope peaceful integration of different religions immigrants now. Give it another generation and there will be blood on the streets caused by sectarianism. It was dying out in scotland but the godly will have their way and soon they will be calling for all to worship properly and demanding the right to brainwash children.

ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'


Why not add in but let others worship as they please? Personally I have no problem understanding someone who says they have faith but they are not christian or muslim or ----take your pick. I know many who would take issue with that - you can only have faith if it is the same as theirs otherwise it is a false god therefore you are enemy.

TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'




Fighting over that one has caused the death of millions. All in the name of civil and religious liberty for all. One side didn't want to be told how to worship and the other wanted them to worship as told for the good of their souls.

THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'




Well don't then but why get so annoyed with those who do?

posted by saint

I not only think this is not true, but I KNOW it's not true. How you ask? Simple. I've died before. I know for a fact that life exists outside the body. I'll tell you that story some time




That probably makes you a heretic somewhere or other, not sure what the current position on re-incarnation is.

YouTube - ‪Eye2EyeIIV's Channel‬‎

I'm one of the wrong kinds of people, mind you - if you hear an aberdonian you could believe they are talking in tongues

YouTube - ‪Chewin the Fat Star Trek (aberdonian style)‬‎

If you listen to glaswegian's early religious education you might better understand where he is combing from.

YouTube - ‪Billy Connolly -The Crucifixion Part1 - see you Judas, Your getting oan ma tits‬‎ :sneaky:

It's an endlessly fascinating discussion is it not?

[Glaswegian]

Glaswegian wrote: religious mush
Saint_;1326884 wrote: :wah:
Glaswegian wrote: Now, let me ask you a question: How is it that you are unable to deal with the vagaries and tragedies of life without faith? Why are you unable to stand on your own two feet and deal with them using your own resources as every self-respecting adult does? Surely you cannot be so craven and infantile that you are incapable of handling life without believing in a Big Pacifier called ‘God’?
Saint_ wrote: Tsk tsk. Name calling?
Why are you being so sensitive, Saint? Next you’ll be bleating that I’ve insulted your religious beliefs.

When I described the following statement of yours…

Saint_ wrote: “God moves in mysterious ways”


…as religious mush - I did so because that is precisely what it is: religious mush. When the words "God moves in mysterious ways" dribble out of the mouth of a religionist they are not so much a confession of ignorance as they are a cop out. As I said before, the religionist tends to resort to them when his belief system is in danger of collapsing under a mountain of contradictory evidence. For example, what does the Catholic priest say when he is told that there is no physical change whatsoever in the bread and wine of the Eucharist after they have been blessed by him? He simpers: ’Ah, but it is a mystery.’

Complete and utter mush.

Glaswegian wrote: Now, let me ask you a question: How is it that you are unable to deal with the vagaries and tragedies of life without faith? Why are you unable to stand on your own two feet and deal with them using your own resources as every self-respecting adult does? Surely you cannot be so craven and infantile that you are incapable of handling life without believing in a Big Pacifier called ‘God’?
Saint_ wrote: Tsk tsk. Name calling?
If it’s any comfort to you, I think every adult who is incapable of handling life without believing in a Big Pacifier called ’God’ is craven and infantile - not just you.



Saint_ wrote: As to your question, fair enough: I've tried your way and found it distasteful and unfulfilling.
Here, your reason for embracing belief in God appears extremely capricious. It sounds no better than this: ‘I tried oysters and hated them. So I went for the duck pate instead.’ On the basis of what you say directly above, I would contend that you do not believe in God. Rather, you make-believe in God. For your belief is not born of conviction but of whimsy.

Saint_ wrote: The idea that the Universe is random and capricious (and as a mathematician I can tell you that there are amazing and beautiful patterns to the Universe that imply otherwise!)
This is interesting. Could you expand on it?

Saint_ wrote: It gives no comfort to me, and never has, to think that life is useless, vapid, and without meaning. Your view is that we are born, we live, we breathe, we eat, we ****, we die, the end. All striving, all creation, all imagination is meaningless and futile in your world view. Life is just a transient puff of smoke. How depressing.

What is the point of living at all in that case?
Come on now, Saint. Abandon this self-deception. You know very well that there are countless atheists who lead happy and fulfilling lives.

Saint_ wrote: Of course you may argue that your life, itself, is enough but of course that view is incredibly selfish and arrogant. You are the most important thing in the Universe?
How can you be so hypocritical and blind, Saint? You are the one who is incredibly selfish and arrogant. Because it is you who thinks that the Creator of the Universe cares about you personally. It is you who thinks that the universe was created with you in mind.



Here, I’m going to restate something I posted elsewhere in this forum. Viz.

The religionist believes that he is in direct communication with the Creator of the Universe. He believes that his own life is of such importance that the Creator takes a personal interest in his thoughts, feelings and actions. He believes that it is not enough for the Creator merely to take a personal interest in his thoughts, feelings and actions but that the Creator also loves him, and loves him unceasingly. He believes that by employing the right prayers, incantations and body language he can exert an influence over the Creator’s dealings with him. Therefore, one should never be taken in by the religionist’s ‘humility’. For behind this false humility lurks the most monumental egotism, arrogance and conceit.

Saint_ wrote: I not only think this is not true, but I KNOW it's not true. How you ask? Simple. I've died before. I know for a fact that life exists outside the body. I'll tell you that story some time
Why prevaricate? Tell the story now. I’m sure other people in this forum would like to hear it as well.



Saint_ wrote: The last point is the most critical of all: I feel better knowing that there is meaning to Creation. Since I know that the souls (life-force if you'd prefer) of those gone still exist, life has much more continuity and meaning for me than for you. Whether you believe that or not, you and your kind try to take away something that gives comfort to dying and sick people. Something that gives hope and joy to the living. Whether you believe it's true or not,



To me... that's wrong.
I don’t think it’s wrong to disabuse religious believers of their delusions. I think it’s good - for them and me. After all, these delusions are harmful - lethal even.

[Glaswegian]

gmc;1326903 wrote: If you listen to glaswegian's early religious education you might better understand where he is combing from.

YouTube - ‪Billy Connolly -The Crucifixion Part1 - see you Judas, Your getting oan ma tits‬‎ :sneaky:
Ah, dear Mr Connolly! My old RE teacher. We all adored him in class. He eventually went on to lecture with the Department of Religious Studies at Glasgow University. You can watch him deliver an enthralling lecture on religion at the university here:

YouTube - ‪Billy Connolly Discussing religion‬‎

[gmc]

Glaswegian;1327001 wrote: Ah, dear Mr Connolly! My old RE teacher. We all adored him in class. He eventually went on to lecture with the Department of Religious Studies at Glasgow University. You can watch him deliver an enthralling lecture on religion at the university here:

YouTube - ‪Billy Connolly Discussing religion‬‎


OK The wee free laughter checker is back and I can't work out how to turn it off so assume a laughing smiley. I remember when the crucifixion sketch came out it had the unco guid spluttering in their tea and the rest of us falling off the chair laughing.

I was once at a burn's supper where the entertainment was a teuchter band from northern lreland who were coming out with sectarian joke after sectarian joke and their only response was a kind of appalled shocked silence broken only by choking noises as people tried not to laugh. The the local catholic priest stood up and stared on the ian paisley jokes. Honestly it was one of the funniest double acts I have ever seen. Maybe if we laugh more at the differences we might stop taking them so seriously. If you think about it it is the faithful who can't laugh at themselves and take themselves seriously that are causing all the problems, yet they seem to find pleasure in the misery of others and see it as a sign god is working in a mysterious way.

How many atheists does it take to change a light bulb?

Two. One to actually change the bulb, and the other to videotape the job so fundamentalists won’t claim that god did it.


What do you get when you cross an atheist with a Jehovahs Witness?…. Someone who knocks at your door for no apparent reason.


I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said, "Stop! Don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!" He said, "Like what?" I said, "Well, are you religious or atheist?" He said, "Religious." I said, "Me too! Are your Christian or Buddhist?" He said, "Christian." I said, "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?" He said, "Protestant." I said, Me too! Are your Episcopalian or Baptist? He said, "Baptist!" I said, "Wow! Me too! Are your Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord? He said, Baptist Church of God!" I said, "Me too! Are your Original Baptist Church of God or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?" He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God!" I said, "Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die, heretic scum!" and pushed him off.

[Glaswegian]

Saint_;1326538 wrote: If you doubt a Creator, I suggest you go outside at night, far from any city...

and look up.


'Looking up at the stars, I know quite well

That for all they care, I can go to hell.’ (W. H. Auden)

This is Auden contemplating his place in the universe, and his response is honest and mature.

In contrast, the following response…

‘The eternal silence of these infinite spaces makes me afraid.’ (Blaise Pascal)

…is completely infantile.

It is this kind of childish terror in the face of the infinite which causes religionists like yourself, Saint, to suck greedily on the Big Pacifier called ‘God’.

[Glaswegian]

gmc;1327027 wrote: I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said, "Stop! Don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!" He said, "Like what?" I said, "Well, are you religious or atheist?" He said, "Religious." I said, "Me too! Are your Christian or Buddhist?" He said, "Christian." I said, "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?" He said, "Protestant." I said, Me too! Are your Episcopalian or Baptist? He said, "Baptist!" I said, "Wow! Me too! Are your Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord? He said, Baptist Church of God!" I said, "Me too! Are your Original Baptist Church of God or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?" He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God!" I said, "Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die, heretic scum!" and pushed him off.
A gem. :wah:

[Glaswegian]

Shimon wrote: Most Jews, not all mind you,believe in the theology of Maimonides. He was kind of big thinker.

Rambam said there are three kinds of evil or suffering in the world. The first are bad things that happen as a side effect of the way God created the world this would include things like earthquakes and cancer.
Glaswegian wrote: I’ll come back to this later, Shimon.


So, according to Rambam, things like earthquakes and cancer are a side effect of the way God created the world. What kind of a God is it that creates earthquakes and cancer and a thousand other natural evils as side effects? I think even you must know, Shimon. It is a useless, incompetent, bungler of a God, isn’t it? And one who is utterly malicious to boot. How else are we to think of Him? I mean, what happened to this God’s supposed omniscience? Didn’t He know that when He got down to the business of creating the world that side effects like earthquakes, cancer and their hellish ilk would have the most appalling consequences for the human race? Surely He must have known this in advance. And what about this God’s supposed omnipotence? Why didn’t He use it to preclude these horrendous side effects from happening in the first place? And why doesn’t He use His omnipotence to rid the world of them now?

This God would have been better not turning up for work.

You say that Rambam ‘was kind of a big thinker’. Maybe so. But as far as the above example of his thinking goes, atheists in my part of the world would say that he was just a big bam.

[Clodhopper]

Just a thought, but is there any way in Scots Law that you could summon American religious figures to answer questions about provoking State terrorism, in front of a Scottish Select Committee?

(Don't press the button. Don't press the button. Don't press the button... oh bugger.)

[Glaswegian]

Clodhopper;1327962 wrote: Just a thought, but is there any way in Scots Law that you could summon American religious figures to answer questions about provoking State terrorism, in front of a Scottish Select Committee?
There is one British religious figure who should be summoned before any American ones, Clod - and that is Tony Blair. This religionist ought to be in front of a Parliamentary Select Committee right now answering questions as to why he has provoked state terrorism in British schools in the form of exposing children to the teachings of fundamentalist Christianity.

More about this later…

[Clodhopper]

Must admit that I think that the teaching of RE in schools as I've witnessed it has been pretty good. Kids appear to get a grounding in what all the major religions are about in their moderate form, which is a good thing in a society where all these religions are practised. Has Blair enforced Creationism, or something?

[gmc]

Clodhopper;1328024 wrote: Must admit that I think that the teaching of RE in schools as I've witnessed it has been pretty good. Kids appear to get a grounding in what all the major religions are about in their moderate form, which is a good thing in a society where all these religions are practised. Has Blair enforced Creationism, or something?


He has encouraged an increase in the number of faith based schools in England and Wales. They are incredibly divisive in society seperating kids because of their religion and encourage bogotry. If they teach creationism or not i don't know. My wife taight biology in an inner london school for a while - she was required to teach that not everybody agrees with the theory of evolution , whether that is still the case or not I don't know. We lend creedence to fairy stories as if they were true. You also now have the academies that will in effect operate like selective secondary schools to the detriment overall of the education system. At least that is the experience in other countries where it has been tried. Free education for all but a bit better for these kids seems to be the way of it.

Scotland has a seperate education system that was always a bit more egalitarian than the english one but catholic schools have always been a feature in scotland - now we have muslim schools as well. Bigotry is atill a major problem in scotland and will only cease top be when we stop this nonsense of seperate schools. As a non catholic i object to the funding of any religious schools by the state.

RE is the only compulsory subject in scotland - to the extent that if there is not enough time for say science subjects - it is supposed to take precedence. It usually takes a parent reading the riot act for common sense to prevail. It's one of the reasons you will find most scots capable of arguing endlessly about religion and are ready to do so. Another is you can't study scottish history without coming across the wars between catholics and protestants and the effect on our history. (scotland, for instance in the 18th century had the highest literacy rate in europe). Each year there is a debate about whether orange marches should be allowed as they incirte religious hatred. But at another level it commemorates the defeat of a catholic monarch that believed in the divine right of kings and wanted to restore his throne and established the right of the people to rule themselves with a monarch's power curtailed in what is now the UK. You'll find that aspect gets glossed over and the reasons behind the The Act of Settlement and the Protestant Succession carefully not mentioned and even now it is a political hot potato. With all sides doging the issue.

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/comm ... -00683.pdf

In November 2009 the then Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, stated that the Act of Settlement was “outdated” and that he would consult all members of the Commonwealth on the matter “in due course”. In January 2010 the then Deputy Prime Minister, Harriet Harman, stated that “the discussions are continuing”, but the then Government was “sure that progress will be made”. A Parliamentary answer given by the Coalition Government Minister, Mark Harper, in June 2010, however, stated that “There are no current plans to amend the laws on succession”. In an Adjournment Debate in July 2010 the Minister stated that “we are not saying that there should not be change. We are simply saying that, if we are to undertake change, we need to do it in a careful and thoughtful way”. This note considers the main issues raised by any attempt to change the succession to the Crown and recent Government statements on the matter.




It is an important subject and should be taught but if the religious believe that a thirteen/ fourteen year old can be a christian/catholic whatever then they should also accept that by that age they are equally capable of rejecting religion as a waste of time.

[Glaswegian]

Clodhopper;1328024 wrote: Must admit that I think that the teaching of RE in schools as I've witnessed it has been pretty good. Kids appear to get a grounding in what all the major religions are about in their moderate form, which is a good thing in a society where all these religions are practised. Has Blair enforced Creationism, or something?


"For a very small sum of money ... you can peddle the most appalling garbage"

Tony Blair enabled the appalling garbage of ‘creationism’ to be peddled in British schools. Blair’s government sought to subsidise state schools by the following means:

Rich benefactors were encouraged to put up a relatively small sum of money (£2 million, for example) and in return for this they got £20 million of tax payers money for the school, plus running costs and salaries in perpetuity. The £2 million investment also bought the benefactor the right ‘to control the ethos of the school, the appointment of a majority of the school governors, the policy for the exclusion or inclusion of pupils, and much else.’

One of these rich benefactors was the devout Christian car salesman, Sir Peter Vardy, who was personally encouraged by the equally devout Christian, Tony Blair, to get involved in schools. Vardy has now set up a chain of schools in England in which the appalling garbage of ‘creationism’ is inculcated in children’s minds. You can read about this infamy here:

Revealed: Blair's link to schools that take the Creation literally - UK Politics, UK - The Independent

[Clodhopper]

Yik. A thoroughly nasty bunch.

[Glaswegian]

gmc;1328041 wrote: He has encouraged an increase in the number of faith based schools in England and Wales. They are incredibly divisive in society seperating kids because of their religion and encourage bogotry.


The harm done to children, and to wider society, by faith based schools is discussed in the following video: YouTube - Faith Schools And Children's Rights

[gmc]

Try these UK based ones - and I bet you thought it was just in the US you got these nutters. No it's for real and it's not a spoof.

On a happier note after 2012 maybe they will all go away.

It's Scientology that getm me. Hubbard was quite open about it being a made up religion - yet people believe in it.

[Glaswegian]

gmc;1328041 wrote: My wife taight biology in an inner london school for a while - she was required to teach that not everybody agrees with the theory of evolution


However, I’m sure the wise lady always qualified this teaching by saying: ‘But note, boys and girls, the people who don’t agree with the theory of evolution…

LIVE IN LUNATIC ASYLUMS LIKE THIS...'

[Glaswegian]

gmc;1328056 wrote: It's Scientology that getm me. Hubbard was quite open about it being a made up religion - yet people believe in it.
Whenever I come across titanic nonsense like Scientology, I always think of Joseph Goebbels’ maxim: ‘The more outrageous a lie is, the more likely it is to be believed.’ This maxim highlights an unsettling truth about human credulity, and makes it easier to understand how something as indescribably ridiculous as Scientology can actually be believed. The unsettling truth is that the human race has a penchant for titanic nonsense - a large portion of it does anyway.

Regarding Scientology, I don’t think its beliefs and dogmas are any more outrageously ridiculous than those of Christianity, Islam, Judaism and many other religions. For example, compare the following teaching of Scientology…

‘Xenu was, according to the founder of Scientology and science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard, the dictator of the "Galactic Confederacy" who, 75 million years ago, brought billions of his people to Earth in a DC-8-like spacecraft, stacked them around volcanoes and killed them using hydrogen bombs. Official Scientology dogma holds that the essences of these many people remained, and that they form around people in modern times, causing them spiritual harm.’

…with this teaching of Christianity:

'Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon. And the dragon and his angels fought back, but he was defeated, and there was no longer any place for them in heaven. And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world – he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.'

The fact that there are Christians who view the second of these scenarios as true and the first as nonsensical in the extreme is simply due to 2,000 years of Christian brainwashing. If they lived in a culture in which Scientology was the dominant religion for this length of time then their view would be exactly reversed.

~o0o~


Joseph Goebbels certainly knew a thing or two about lying. He once said: ‘If one is to lie, then one should lie big.’



DR. JOSEPH GOEBBELS: NAZI PROPAGANDA MINISTER


]'If one is to lie, then one should lie big.’

~o0o~


L. Ron Hubbard: Founder of Scientology




Followed Dr. Goebbels’ advice

[Clodhopper]

Conspiracy theories; wacky cults; astrology... some people will believe almost anything.

[gmc]

Site Home | GOD TV

Sorry, just realised I forgot to put in the link. Telepathy as a means of communication is much overrated

I look at this carp and wonder how anyone can actually fall for this nonsense.

[Glaswegian]

Saint_ wrote: When they say, "God moves in mysterious ways" they aren't joking, kiddo. Have Faith.
'And don't tell me God works in mysterious ways,' Yossarian continued…'There's nothing so mysterious about it. He's not working at all. He's playing. Or else He's forgotten all about us. That's the kind of God you people talk about - a country bumpkin, a clumsy, bungling, brainless, conceited, uncouth hayseed. Good God, how much reverence can you have for a Supreme Being who finds it necessary to include such phenomena as phlegm and tooth decay in His divine system of creation? What in the world was running through that warped, evil, scatological mind of His when He robbed old people of the power to control their bowel movements?’ From Catch-22 by Joseph Heller

[Glaswegian]

gmc;1328344 wrote: Site Home | GOD TV

I look at this carp and wonder how anyone can actually fall for this nonsense.
One of the reasons why the nonsense which is Religion has persisted for so long is because it feeds off the inertia of too many individuals who have saw through it. Many of those who have discerned Religion for what it is - namely, a steaming pile of horse-sh*t - are reluctant to openly describe it as such, and even to admit this truth to themselves. For to do so is to acknowledge something rather awful and shameful about the human race. Viz. the overwhelming majority of human beings who have appeared on this earth have been abject idiots for having believed in Religion. Rather than acknowledge this painful truth, we prefer to keep quiet about Religion. It is our unwillingness to denigrate so many human generations as ignorant fools which gives Religion its great historical advantage.

[Saint_]

Glaswegian;1329978 wrote: It is our unwillingness to denigrate so many human generations as ignorant fools which gives Religion its great historical advantage.


On the contrary, religion is largely responsible for the civilizing influence that has made this future possible. What terrible anarchy and chaos would exist, for example, if causes like Nazism had not been defeated by the forces of religion?