So's we're clear here, I cannot either prove nor disprove the existence of god. Nobody can. Just because the vast majority of people do believe that does not make them right. Because there is no evidence for the existence then there is no reason to believe. To then kill in the name of something that there is no evidence for the existence of is categorically wrong. That others would impose that belief and all the threats that go with it is categorically wrong. Alright, believe in the skydaddy if you want to (not you personally, Leo, I understand your position) but do it in your own time and space and do not impinge it on me. To paraphrase Dawkins: "I don't doubt your sincerity, but I think you are delusional". I have also lost my 'spirituality' in that sense too. It does not in anyway stop me from continually doing the 'right thing' even at my own expense. I do it for my greater well being and society's betterment.... I dare say I will be sadly lacking between 3.00 and 5.00pm tomorrow afternoon, but I shall try my best as always. Footnote: what a cracking thread this is, regardless of opinion!
Does not look like you could get a sheet of bronco between our views now Fez. God cannot be proved or disproved; being in a majority just means more people could be wrong; there may be no reason to believe - but there is possibly a childish innocence that tempts us to believe - we want a heavenly parent; killing innocent people is wrong in all circumstances; people who try to impose their beliefs on others are no better than the inquisition; skydaddy's would be better if they could be shown to do something - preferably positive. I enjoy most political, religious and other discussions with polite people so am happy to have my time and space invaded. For once I seem to agree with Dawkins on something. My "spirituality" requires no form of belief from me - simply an enjoyment of certain qualities of being. I have quoted Desiderata before and if you have not read it then take a peek - I like its sentiments. Last but not least there is no evidence that religious people are better or worse or do the "right thing" more or less than good honest atheists I try to be good to others and "do as I would be done by"
I think Leo that religion is being viewed here in a rather one sided way. There are 4 aspects to most religions and also many shades of belief. The first aspect is scripture (and most religions have these) . I would not look for (or find) the ultimate truth in one book - I have read both the bible and the koran (the latter in 2 languages) and find them interesting historical documents - but both containing contradictions - and could easily believe in God without them. That many people hve misinterpreted these books is hardly surprising - it happens also with secular books - would Marx have recognised what happened later in the U.S.S.R. ? I doubt it. The second aspect is the ritual one ie. you pray in a certain position, mumble certain words - wear a beard or a veil (depending on gender !) and you will find God - millions do it this way in all religions. Hundreds of people go to yoga classes and think that if they sit in a full lotus, like the Buddha, for 36 hours that they will become enlightened - this is the same thing. If he became enlightened it was because he was a Buddha - not because he sat in a certain way. This is the A + B + C + D = God approach. The third aspect involves the guidance, or rules, of how your belief should affect your relations to society - ie. ten commandments, Sharia, Yama and Niyama. The fourth involves your own personal relationship to God (be he thought of as external or internal) and whether your belief can be a support to you at times of need. The emphasis can be different from one religious group to another - so the Catholic is more emphasized upon ritual and scriptures whereas the Quaker more upon actions and personal revelation. ' By their actions shall they be known' and so on. For the Quaker scripture and ritual are very secondary elements. You cannot lump all religious belief or actions under one umbrella. What is being very conveniently forgotten here is that although some people are killing in the name of God - others like eg. Malala find that they can forgive - even the heathens who blew half her face away because she wanted to go to school - and forgive, because of their religion. Many are also forgetting that organizations such as Greenpeace and Amnesty International also came from a religious background - that religion was in the forefront in bringing slavery to an end, and having conscientious objection recognized. You are right in saying that simple belief implies a denial of some aspects of intellect - and this is why the subject is so difficult to debate. The core of spirituality implies 3 things: What is in your head - lose it. What is in your heart - open it. And what is in your hand - give it. Why lose what is in your head ? Because it is not your own. Falsely we identify ourselves with our intellect - without realizing that every idea that you have in your brain was planted there, indirectly, by someone else. - And so Ego, develops. True spirituality allows a person to give priority to what their heart has decided - and to trust in that. All too often the intellect only decides what the heart has already decided. To cut a long story short - most people will find logical reasons for eg. not giving money to beggars - not realizing that their heart has already decided the issue ie. they are not givers.
Cologne, I am going to do us both, and this so far excellent thread, a favour and come back to you on this post..... more sober than I am now. I will ask this much as an opening gambit though: you do realise that the evidence for Jesus Christ, as a singular historical figure is tenuous at best? That certain places in the bible where he's supposed to have come from, visited, preached etc. do not exist in archaeological terms? A pity really because such a man, much like Ghandi, would be good for the world. But he would remain just that: a man.
Oh I flopped last night .... sorry! There will be other night when the gods imbibe nectar and everything in heaven is full of revelry So good to witness God's creation today..... I hope we win! Difficult to see our present manager as God's reincarnation eh...... (no offence intended folks)
Interestingly, I was a Srinagar year back and we went to a tomb which was said to be the tomb of Jesus Christ, a spiritual guru who had come to India from the Middle East. Some writings say he went there after he resurrected..... Sort of interesting..... of course belief is everything.... In Hinduism too everything goes....
Some of you may be interested... and this is a great and easy read. A friend of mine from my hippy days ( I did spend some time In an Ashram on the Ganges in the early 70s) has written a great book on the story of Jesus just come out this autumn and it is worth a read. He is not a Christian but looks at Jesus as a teacher whose spiritual message was then made into a religion after he died. I quite like it as I have meditated for years and have really struggled in the past 20 with the institution of religion and personal heavens etc... but have always got high on a personal spirituality.... balanced of course with a good merlot For Christ's Sake: pressing the refresh button on the life of Jesus The book I was talking about a couple of days ago by Stephen Batchelor who was in my class at WGS is this one: Confession of a Buddhist Atheist (Both on Amazon .. for some reason the links wont upload ... but you can cut a paste and read online at Amazon)
And others say that he went to America - surely he couldn't have been in both places at the same time? Not that I believe that such a character ever existed, but I'd be more inclined to think that he came to Scotland - to wreak his revenge on Pontius Pilate, who was, by all accounts, Scottish...
