You might want to rethink that - pedlars of the Bible use it to support views on the subjugation of women, black people, homosexuals, ****ers, non-Jews, Jews and people who like to party. The last one is a shame really as there are also evolutionary advantages in being creative and playful, the book you refer to and it's inherent doctrine doesn't even reflect some of the more positive and inspirational aspect of our human nature. In this case it is much more serious than this: it's a highly pernicious doctrine that has poisoned our thinking and blighted our human progress for centuries. Thankfully, the ridiculous 'theories' seem to be finally waning. At least in Europe we have the separation and freedom FROM RELIGION between Church and State, (therefore placing degrading and decadent doctrines that have sanctioned mass genocide and wholesale ethnic cleansing) where they ought to be -no longer relevant in a well functioning liberal democracy. THANK GOD! And hey God! You're getting creamed in this thread, if you're THAT good why don't you 'give' Rebel a half decent argument, or why don't you just sign in (ought to be dead easy for you to do this given your general skillset) and give us your thoughts please?
Well I got the reference at least. The point I was going to make concerns the stories of people being healed through prayer. This has a simple root in the placebo effect. It has been shown through research that if you expect to get better, and believe you have taken/done something to make you better, then you have an increased chance of recovery. If you are convinced a God will make you better,and pray constantly, then it is your belief in getting better, and the positivity in your thoughts, that helps you to recover. Sometimes this is just enough, combined with medical knowledge today, to help one person in a million (or higher) beat an incurable cancer through praying, and those of a religious persuasion try and use it as a miracle, and evidence of God. Unlikely yes, but a lot of unlikely things happen!
A couple of things 1) You are confusing Faith with Religion B) separation of Church and state in Europe?...umm.....Who is the head of State in Britain? iii) I haven't made any arguments for the existence of God. Not one. If God gave me a half decent argument, then he/she would be weakening it by a half. If people are able to refute my arguments, then go right ahead. If people want to cite their low self esteem as proof there is no God, then they can get to ****.
But I'm not confused (you may be) - what's your point? The Queen opens parliament and endorses the Prime Minister (theoretically she can refuse, though this would never happen), beyond that and indeed inclusive of that, her role is entirely benign which makes your point highly pedantic and I have been trying to encourage a better standard of debate than this. I the good ol' US of A the roles of the 2 are merged and confused (Thomas Jefferson must be spitting fury in his grave). I have already stated that the standard of the debate from the religionist's side has been poor (or 'weak'). Any half decent argument -try ontology for instance, would improve you argument as I'm not so sure you have one. So what exactly is your point? -not here in the context of these statements, I mean overall, what exactly is your stated position? (other than being a pedant) I do not have a low self-esteem at all thanks: "then they can get to ****"? Well on that evidence, I'm not sure the converse is true, however, as I'm basically in quite a good mood I will make it easier for you. Premise: there is a spiritual dimension to life, true or false? I assume your position in this debate would argue this to be true
It reads as though there is no demarkation between organised religion and a persons individual faith. The Bible can be used to support many of the converse arguments to those you suggested. And part of the Prime Ministers duties is to appoint the Archbishop of Canterbury meaning that the holder of the position of Prime Minister has to support the monarch in their position of defender of the faith...and the Faith is? Saying it has no 'real' effect is just not true. If there is an impediment to fulfilling the role of PM because of their beliefs, then I am afraid it isn't benign. I don't think evangelising to people who don't want to be evangelised to is a good tactic in a debate at all. Do you really think folk wanted to know what I thought about the idea of amputees saying their prayers (there are literally thousands of pages on "why do bad things happen to good people" on the internet) or do you think it was a set up to take the piss out of someone with a belief. It is why I have relied solely on things I know to be true and not the things I believe to be true. In the context of where the discussion developed into. My ONLY point was that there was a historical figure called Jesus. Then when people started talking about Biblical contradictions as absolute proof that there was no God, My position was that this didn't prove anything of the sort. I didn't mean you. the GTF bit was in reference to asking me to defend a theological position. Like i say. People have google. They can't ask for fact, be presented with the facts and then push me into an existentialist argument just because they aren't armed with the knowledge to push back on my arguments. I make a strong argument and I get met with laughy-face smiley. Why is that? Is it because the position I have adopted is ludicrous? So ludicrous that it is the position of many scholars far more educated than I. I would broadly accept your premise.
I've stumbled across this thread by accident, but while I'm here I might as well give my opinion on the matter. Islam and Christianity and Judaism very-much share the same roots, and all the texts assosiated with these religions have been written and adapted (many times over the centuries) by "man". On top of that the interpretations of these [adapted] texts differ from one preacher to another who use them to exert their own beliefs onto others. The point I'm making here is that any religious teachings, in my opinion, have little or nothing to do with any 'God' watching over us. My view on this mattter is that I like to think that there is a God, and that he appreciates the fact that I live my life without trying to harm anyone. However, this belief comes from within and not from books written and adapted by man.
On the subject of creationism and ****e...in the unlikely event that you work in my office, stay away from trap 2, it's just been annihilated
I attend a church each week and think your above statement is full of wild assertions which are untrue. In the last 1980s the AIDs epedemic was rife in the gay community in England. It was widely misunderstood and many thought this new disease was dangerous and contagious. As a result, those who contracted HIV/AIDs were treated awfully in hospitals and paper boys (as one example) would not enter the room and instead would simply throw the newspaper into a room with AIDs patients in it. So, how did my church respond to this awful situation? They set up a charity called ACET. Aids, Care, Education, Training. It's simple aim was to care for the gay community and help in any way they could. They've since gone on to work in over 20 countries across the world. All born out of a belief that God loves gay people. Just as much as any other breathing human being. Check out the ACET website if you don't believe me: http://www.acet-international.org/History/history.html Sure, the Catholic Church has its issues with homosexuals, but it's best not to try and tar one grouping (in this case christianity), with one bursh. If we did that we could take the worst examples of democracy and soon end up making it look awful (ie the USA in the eyes of many). We could point towards the worst nations to have ever practiced disbelief in God (Stalin's Russia, Communist China today etc) and claim that all Athiests are bad/evil. This is so obviously not true but it is the danger of assuming that one school of thought within a larger grouping represent everyone. Why do you think Christianity makes women second class citizens? I think it was revolutionary in putting women on an equal footing with men in a culture and society that thought the opposite. There are plenty of Biblical examples of women who were/are looked up to as heros (Ruth, Esther, Mary etc) which was abnormal for the prevailing cultures of the day. Men were commanded by Paul (the Apostle), to love their wives "like Christ loved the Church." In other words, to love them so much they were prepared to die for them! Not so second class eh? Jesus himself was radical in that he was close to Mary and Mary which was frowned upon by the Jewish heirachy at the time. He spoke to a Samarian Women at a well. Jews were strictly not supposed to speak to women in public, or to Samarians. He broke racial and gender boundries because he didn't care about the incorrect social norms! And there are plenty of other examples I will share with you if you wish. You may not believe in the truth of the above stories (Ruth et al. or Paul's letters) but the important fact is that Christians do and as such to claim they (as one amorphous mass) see women as second class is wrong.
Also, just to correct on point made above. Someone asked why there are 'still monkeys' here today if evolution is true. The answer to that question is that evolution does not teach that we came from monkeys. That is a common misconception. Instead we have shared ancestor. Very different. More like being cousins than dad and son.
You go to Church? Didn't Jesus say prayer was a private matter and should be done alone away from the public eye?
RebelBhoy when you have me and Myrtle agreeing on something (you being a pedant), which we hardly ever do. Your case may well be lost.
Genocides have been committed in the name of democracy (see Vietnam), but does that in itself make the concept of democracy wrong? No. The same goes for communism. And what about science? If we're going to cherry pick the worst bits of science, how about eugenics in the C20th? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization Or the creation of the atomic bomb? The atomic bomb in itself doesn't make science bad or evil, it's how humans choose to use it! All that citing atrocities comitted in the name of religion (or any other system of belief) does is indicate that humans will abuse any system of belief or government in their thirst for power. This machiavellian thirst for power is in some ways more scary than the whatever has been used as an excuse for such geo-political power struggles. Some people call that thirst the innate Darwinian nature to compete. Others original sin. Some see it as both.
