Off Topic The Politics Thread

[sb_73]

Yes, we're agreed on the Catholic Church. It has not reached the 21st Century, not nearly.

On the codification issue so far as Christianity is concerned, I think you understate the watershed created by Christ's life and teaching. The Old Testament laid out the 10 Commandments but nonetheless there was a human kindness and selflessness missing, that Christ introduced. The message spread like wildfire because people wanted it, but once Christianity coalesced into a religion and thus a powerful tribe (later powerful tribes) the whole thing was open to abuse.

Oh dear. Are you saying that there was no human kindness, compassion or selflessness pre Christ? And Christianity spread like wildfire after Constantine made it the official religion of the Roman Empire in 313, for political reasons. Before then it was a sect like dozens of others. If he had chosen Mithras perhaps we would all be worshipping fire and bulls.

Here's a bit of alleged teaching from Jesus
Jesus told him, "If you want to be perfect, go and sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
I.e don't work, don't look after your family, up sticks and wander around.

 

[Lawrence Jacoby]

Excellent news today, as the highest number ever of British people declare themselves to be of 'no religion' - 53%. 21% have no belief, and 13% appear to be agnostic. I suppose the rest of those with no religion have personal beliefs but avoid organised religion, or more likely don't spend any time thinking about it. The number with no religion rises to 71% of 18-24 year olds. Hysterically, half of those who identify with an organised religion aren't sure if they believe in God.

The future is bright, the future is rational. No matter how many ****ing faith schools the taxpayer funds.

I think about or to God every day because i firmly believe we have all become too clever

There has to some belief in all of us I again firmly believe

If not how and what do we believe is right and correct?

Cannot understand how all of a sudden all religions are naff ... if you traditionally study any of them then the common denominator is goodness

I am happy yo live my life knowing that I am just an ant

The only hope for society IMO is that a religious return will save us

Lets discuss as i am sure a few will pull this list apart but are not the moral behind each of the ten?

1. You shall have no other gods before me.
2. You shall not make idols.
3. You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
5. Honor your father and your mother.
6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10. You shall not covet.

 

[Steelmonkey]

I should make clear to everyone at this point that I love these debates and will stretch it out forever if possible. For those that may find my points upsetting or infuriating please put me on ignore (I'm guessing many already have).

Let's take god out of the equation and say that I believe that there is a giant pink elephant with fairy wings living on the other side of the universe. You haven't seen any evidence that it doesn't exist, therefore is it safe to assume that it does?

Surely faith is all about the absence of evidence Willy? If you have evidence for something you don't need faith. If I were to suddenly say, on the basis of the evidence, I now believe in a Christian God, no personal revelation needed, I'm not sure I should be taken seriously, as I wouldn't have faith.

At present there can be no definitive yes/no about the prime mover of existence - it may be that science can someday show what caused the Big Bang, but that just pushes the argument back a step (what caused the thing which caused the Big Bang etc etc ad infinitum). It may be that these things can never be explained in terms which our limited intellects can grasp. But not being able to understand something does not equate to 'God must have done it then'. And even if you think that the prime mover is God, like the deists believe, it does not follow that God has any particular interest in humanity, let alone individual humans.

I agree that the creationist argument you highlight is weak (and doubtless why you chose it!) and no self respecting, or vaguely competent, debater would use it. All the creationist stuff shows is that there are some people who have been indoctrinated into still believing something which is patently stupid.

Personal faith is a personal matter. Pretty obviously I don't have any, but I would never attempt to deny someone who has had a personal revelation, which I cannot experience (however sceptical I may be about it) the journey that it takes them on. I do wonder why people born in say, a country with a Christian tradition, tend to have revelations which lead them to a Christian God though. What I object to is people inflicting their personal faith on others, selling their revelations second hand to others, setting up rules (eat fish on Friday!) and organisations, and indoctrinating others, especially children - in other words religion.

I don't think personal belief will necessarily decline, because as long as there is the human urge to search for meaning, and the human fear of death, it offers a solution. And that's fine with me, just don't ask me or my kids (or your kids) to agree, and don't set up schools and churches to spread the word. Keep it personal. Organised religion on the other hand should decline, its primary purpose in the olden days was to build stories to enable collective actions amongst large groups of people. We have other vehicles for this now - countries, companies etc. See Yuval Harari's 'Sapiens' for the full argument.

Excellent post Stan I only wish I had the grasp of vocabulary that you do to get the point across.

One of the many issues I have with religion is the apparent inability of those that have "faith" to accept the fact that there are large portions of our society that now have none. I have been personally harrassed by such bigots on several occassions (mainly by members of the Catholic faith), even in my own house. Religion is such a divisive tool, pitting neighbour against neighbour, nation against nation, and it's removal would probably lead to much more harmony in the world.

Personal faith, kept to oneself, is fine but the indoctrination of generation after generation needs to stop in my opinion, replaced with ethical, humanity training for the greater good of all.

 

[GoldhawkRoad]

Oh dear. Are you saying that there was no human kindness, compassion or selflessness pre Christ? And Christianity spread like wildfire after Constantine made it the official religion of the Roman Empire in 313, for political reasons. Before then it was a sect like dozens of others. If he had chosen Mithras perhaps we would all be worshipping fire and bulls.

Here's a bit of alleged teaching from Jesus
Jesus told him, "If you want to be perfect, go and sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
I.e don't work, don't look after your family, up sticks and wander around.

Stan, will you stop prefacing your replies with Er..., Oh Dear and Nearly there! It's a bit arrogant and rather patronising. We know you have a brilliant intellect and posters like Frome follow you unquestioningly. So you can play it down to some effect!

Your post is tongue in cheek, so there's not much to respond to. The fact is that you and I and all on this board are fashioned by Christianity - you don't want to admit it and it seems to be eating you up!

 

[sb_73]

Stan, will you stop prefacing your replies with Er..., Oh Dear and Nearly there! It's a bit arrogant and rather patronising. We know you have a brilliant intellect and posters like Frome follow you unquestioningly. So you can play it down to some effect!

Your post is tongue in cheek, so there's not much to respond to. The fact is that you and I and all on this board are fashioned by Christianity - you don't want to admit it and it seems to be eating you up!

Sorry for winding you up. I am arrogant and patronising, and also self aware. Ignore the style and look at the content. My post wasn't tongue in cheek, it was pointing out a fact about the spread of Christianity, which I think is true of all major religions, that they grow rapidly once a powerful ruler adopts them. And I was stunned by your assertion that we wouldn't have kindness, selflessness etc without Christ.

Christianity or living in a country which was once Christian isn't eating me up at all, but if it helps you the think it does, be my guest. I'll turn the other cheek

 

[GoldhawkRoad]

Sorry for winding you up. I am arrogant and patronising, and also self aware. Ignore the style and look at the content. My post wasn't tongue in cheek, it was pointing out a fact about the spread of Christianity, which I think is true of all major religions, that they grow rapidly once a powerful ruler adopts them. And I was stunned by your assertion that we wouldn't have kindness, selflessness etc without Christ.

Christianity or living in a country which was once Christian isn't eating me up at all, but if it helps you the think it does, be my guest. I'll turn the other cheek

Thanks, and I'll take your word for it that you aren't being eaten up.

Here are the reasons Edward Gibbon gave in The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire for the historic early spread of Christianity:

"(1) The inflexible, and, if we may use the expression, the intolerant zeal of the Christians, derived, it is true, from the Jewish religion, but purified from the narrow and unsocial spirit which, instead of inviting, had deterred the Gentiles from embracing the law of Moses.

(2) The doctrine of a future life, improved by every additional circumstance which could give weight and efficacy to that important truth.

(3) The miraculous powers ascribed to the primitive church.

(4) The pure and austere morals of the Christians.

(5) The union and discipline of the Christian republic, which gradually formed an independent and increasing state in the heart of the Roman Empire."

It's the point in number (4) that I was getting at generally, though clearly it was not the only reason why pagans turned to Christianity

 

[West London Willy]

I should make clear to everyone at this point that I love these debates and will stretch it out forever if possible. For those that may find my points upsetting or infuriating please put me on ignore (I'm guessing many already have).

Let's take god out of the equation and say that I believe that there is a giant pink elephant with fairy wings living on the other side of the universe. You haven't seen any evidence that it doesn't exist, therefore is it safe to assume that it does?

Surely faith is all about the absence of evidence Willy? If you have evidence for something you don't need faith. If I were to suddenly say, on the basis of the evidence, I now believe in a Christian God, no personal revelation needed, I'm not sure I should be taken seriously, as I wouldn't have faith.

At present there can be no definitive yes/no about the prime mover of existence - it may be that science can someday show what caused the Big Bang, but that just pushes the argument back a step (what caused the thing which caused the Big Bang etc etc ad infinitum). It may be that these things can never be explained in terms which our limited intellects can grasp. But not being able to understand something does not equate to 'God must have done it then'. And even if you think that the prime mover is God, like the deists believe, it does not follow that God has any particular interest in humanity, let alone individual humans.

I agree that the creationist argument you highlight is weak (and doubtless why you chose it!) and no self respecting, or vaguely competent, debater would use it. All the creationist stuff shows is that there are some people who have been indoctrinated into still believing something which is patently stupid.

Personal faith is a personal matter. Pretty obviously I don't have any, but I would never attempt to deny someone who has had a personal revelation, which I cannot experience (however sceptical I may be about it) the journey that it takes them on. I do wonder why people born in say, a country with a Christian tradition, tend to have revelations which lead them to a Christian God though. What I object to is people inflicting their personal faith on others, selling their revelations second hand to others, setting up rules (eat fish on Friday!) and organisations, and indoctrinating others, especially children - in other words religion.

I don't think personal belief will necessarily decline, because as long as there is the human urge to search for meaning, and the human fear of death, it offers a solution. And that's fine with me, just don't ask me or my kids (or your kids) to agree, and don't set up schools and churches to spread the word. Keep it personal. Organised religion on the other hand should decline, its primary purpose in the olden days was to build stories to enable collective actions amongst large groups of people. We have other vehicles for this now - countries, companies etc. See Yuval Harari's 'Sapiens' for the full argument.

OK, there's a few things there that I didn't actually say. When you say "You haven't seen any evidence that it doesn't exist, therefore is it safe to assume that it does?", that misinterprets what I said about absence of evidence, which works both ways. And whilst the creationist argument I cited was deliberately weak, it is one that people make, along with missing links, carbon dating, and a whole raft of things I'm not going to get into. Suffice to say, there are arguments both ways and both sides truly believe there is evidence that supports their view.

Faith isn't about absence of evidence. It may be about absence of proof, which is a very different thing. But pretty much every person who says they have a faith would cite evidence which led them to hold that faith, which works for them on a personal level, whether or not it works for anyone else. And I've found that those who offer the most evidence tend to be the people with a faith, whereas those without any faith (the ones that many, you included I believe, would term the intelligent, scientific ones) seem to offer the lack of any acceptable evidence as their main argument.

Some undoubtedly choose Pascal's Wager as the best path through life. It's not a question that we will get any definitive answer to - certainly not in this lifetime.

 

[rangercol]

I should make clear to everyone at this point that I love these debates and will stretch it out forever if possible. For those that may find my points upsetting or infuriating please put me on ignore (I'm guessing many already have).

Let's take god out of the equation and say that I believe that there is a giant pink elephant with fairy wings living on the other side of the universe. You haven't seen any evidence that it doesn't exist, therefore is it safe to assume that it does?

Surely faith is all about the absence of evidence Willy? If you have evidence for something you don't need faith. If I were to suddenly say, on the basis of the evidence, I now believe in a Christian God, no personal revelation needed, I'm not sure I should be taken seriously, as I wouldn't have faith.

At present there can be no definitive yes/no about the prime mover of existence - it may be that science can someday show what caused the Big Bang, but that just pushes the argument back a step (what caused the thing which caused the Big Bang etc etc ad infinitum). It may be that these things can never be explained in terms which our limited intellects can grasp. But not being able to understand something does not equate to 'God must have done it then'. And even if you think that the prime mover is God, like the deists believe, it does not follow that God has any particular interest in humanity, let alone individual humans.

I agree that the creationist argument you highlight is weak (and doubtless why you chose it!) and no self respecting, or vaguely competent, debater would use it. All the creationist stuff shows is that there are some people who have been indoctrinated into still believing something which is patently stupid.

Personal faith is a personal matter. Pretty obviously I don't have any, but I would never attempt to deny someone who has had a personal revelation, which I cannot experience (however sceptical I may be about it) the journey that it takes them on. I do wonder why people born in say, a country with a Christian tradition, tend to have revelations which lead them to a Christian God though. What I object to is people inflicting their personal faith on others, selling their revelations second hand to others, setting up rules (eat fish on Friday!) and organisations, and indoctrinating others, especially children - in other words religion.

I don't think personal belief will necessarily decline, because as long as there is the human urge to search for meaning, and the human fear of death, it offers a solution. And that's fine with me, just don't ask me or my kids (or your kids) to agree, and don't set up schools and churches to spread the word. Keep it personal. Organised religion on the other hand should decline, its primary purpose in the olden days was to build stories to enable collective actions amongst large groups of people. We have other vehicles for this now - countries, companies etc. See Yuval Harari's 'Sapiens' for the full argument.

I agree fully with you with regards to organised religions and faith schools. Neither should exist imo.

The creation of the universe is a subject that is widely disagreed on more than ever among the scientific community. Was the big bang the collapse of a previous universe? Are there multiple universes? Was the big bang two universes colliding? Is the big bang theory correct at all? Are there parallel universes? Is any of what we call reality actually real at all? Are there different dimensions?

OR

Was the birth of the universe actually started by an intelligent force of some kind. I tend to go with this, which means I believe in a God of sorts I suppose. However, I absolutely don't believe in a religious God that is benevolent or has any love for anything in the universe. Far more likely that our universe is a test tube that a giant scientist has given a big shake containing all the building blocks required and that scientist is now sitting back and observing what is happening.

I really struggle with any theory that says the universe started from "nothing".

 

[rangercol]

Stan, will you stop prefacing your replies with Er..., Oh Dear and Nearly there! It's a bit arrogant and rather patronising. We know you have a brilliant intellect and posters like Frome follow you unquestioningly. So you can play it down to some effect!

Your post is tongue in cheek, so there's not much to respond to. The fact is that you and I and all on this board are fashioned by Christianity - you don't want to admit it and it seems to be eating you up!

Funnily enough, once Stan and I agreed that he's a patronising git (with an excellent intellect) we seemed to get along much better!

 

[Lawrence Jacoby]

I believe that keeping faith personal may be the latest way for people to accept that we are not that clever but they can't lose face ...vanity

Goodness is designed to be spread and shared. The fact that people are uncomfortable with this means to me that there is a shadow over them

To hold faith in something that can't be proved by bloody science is the only reason I carry on

 

[sb_73]

Thanks, and I'll take your word for it that you aren't being eaten up.

Here are the reasons Edward Gibbon gave in The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire for the historic early spread of Christianity:

"(1) The inflexible, and, if we may use the expression, the intolerant zeal of the Christians, derived, it is true, from the Jewish religion, but purified from the narrow and unsocial spirit which, instead of inviting, had deterred the Gentiles from embracing the law of Moses.

(2) The doctrine of a future life, improved by every additional circumstance which could give weight and efficacy to that important truth.

(3) The miraculous powers ascribed to the primitive church.

(4) The pure and austere morals of the Christians.

(5) The union and discipline of the Christian republic, which gradually formed an independent and increasing state in the heart of the Roman Empire."

It's the point in number (4) that I was getting at generally, though clearly it was not the only reason why pagans turned to Christianity

Gibbon is an interesting bloke, a strong critic of organised religion. But he was writing in the 18th century, with limited research sources. His thinking may well be correct, but current estimates (and I suppose it's all pretty hard to be accurate about) reckon that, prior to the Constantine edict, Christianity was growing slower than Mormonism did in the 19th century and also slower than atheism did in the 20th (though if this includes the sudden forced conversion of the populations of the Soviet Union, China and the Eastern bloc it's not very fair). And the latter two without the mass conversions of entire cities in an instant claimed by the early Christians. Regardless of what we agree or disagree about it's interesting stuff.

OK, there's a few things there that I didn't actually say. When you say "You haven't seen any evidence that it doesn't exist, therefore is it safe to assume that it does?", that misinterprets what I said about absence of evidence, which works both ways. And whilst the creationist argument I cited was deliberately weak, it is one that people make, along with missing links, carbon dating, and a whole raft of things I'm not going to get into. Suffice to say, there are arguments both ways and both sides truly believe there is evidence that supports their view.

Faith isn't about absence of evidence. It may be about absence of proof, which is a very different thing. But pretty much every person who says they have a faith would cite evidence which led them to hold that faith, which works for them on a personal level, whether or not it works for anyone else. And I've found that those who offer the most evidence tend to be the people with a faith, whereas those without any faith (the ones that many, you included I believe, would term the intelligent, scientific ones) seem to offer the lack of any acceptable evidence as their main argument.

Some undoubtedly choose Pascal's Wager as the best path through life. It's not a question that we will get any definitive answer to - certainly not in this lifetime.

Let's see your evidence then Willy. Of course people who have a personal, unshareable, unverifiable experience will have faith. What I am interested in is evidence that can be tested. I am absolutely unmoved by any demand that the onus is equally on unbelievers to provide evidence, we aren't claiming anything cf the pink elephant.

Pascals Wager is a weird one, because although it seems completely logical, it assumes you can fool God into believing that you believe in him for the 'right' reasons when supposed self interest has driven you to make an expedient choice. If God wants people like that in his/her/it's club I'd be surprised. If there is a god I would hope that those of us who have managed to live our short allotted span without him will be granted an eternity of oblivion as we expect rather than an eternity of torture for having the temerity, in our vanity and ignorance, of not believing, or an eternity of whatever heaven is.

 

[KooPeeArr]

I find the whole argument to be a bit stupid, to be fair. There's absolutely no way, given the sum of our knowledge, to determine with any certainty either way whether God exists or doesn't exist. It then becomes a matter of faith as to whether you believe He does or indeed that he doesn't. So at best everyone on the entire planet is a left- or right- leaning agnostic.

Agnosticism is a belief as much as fervent theism or atheism are.

In fact, it's probably the weakest of the three since it carries no conviction beyond the fact that somebody will have first asked the question "do you think that something or someone is behind all this" and that a positive answer either way cannot be emphatically proven or disproven. That means that a God's or the Gods' pseudo existence only came about because of that question being asked (and, to an agnostic, there was nothing before that).

It also does mean that you're agnostic towards SB's pink elephant idea and my recently constructed whim that everything was created 250 years ago since there is nobody living to refute it. You would have to allow for the possibility of leprechauns and the tooth fairy (although we can rule out its status as a charitable benefactor in some cases).

Being agnostic is fine but preaching a position of indecisiveness seems a bit strange and completely anti-progress to me.

 

[Staines R's]

No Gods, No Masters !

 

[sb_73]

I agree fully with you with regards to organised religions and faith schools. Neither should exist imo.

The creation of the universe is a subject that is widely disagreed on more than ever among the scientific community. Was the big bang the collapse of a previous universe? Are there multiple universes? Was the big bang two universes colliding? Is the big bang theory correct at all? Are there parallel universes? Is any of what we call reality actually real at all? Are there different dimensions?

OR

Was the birth of the universe actually started by an intelligent force of some kind. I tend to go with this, which means I believe in a God of sorts I suppose. However, I absolutely don't believe in a religious God that is benevolent or has any love for anything in the universe. Far more likely that our universe is a test tube that a giant scientist has given a big shake containing all the building blocks required and that scientist is now sitting back and observing what is happening.

I really struggle with any theory that says the universe started from "nothing".

You are a Deist Col. You are in good company, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, Leonardo da Vinci, Mark Twain, Jules Verne, Abraham Lincoln, Voltaire, Isaac Newton, John Locke............who I am to argue with that lot? My only comment would be that a God which kicked everything off and then ignored it has much the same impact on our individual lives as the same thing happening with no God. And we remain united in our view of religion.

 

[West London Willy]

Gibbon is an interesting bloke, a strong critic of organised religion. But he was writing in the 18th century, with limited research sources. His thinking may well be correct, but current estimates (and I suppose it's all pretty hard to be accurate about) reckon that, prior to the Constantine edict, Christianity was growing slower than Mormonism did in the 19th century and also slower than atheism did in the 20th (though if this includes the sudden forced conversion of the populations of the Soviet Union, China and the Eastern bloc it's not very fair). And the latter two without the mass conversions of entire cities in an instant claimed by the early Christians. Regardless of what we agree or disagree about it's interesting stuff.


Let's see your evidence then Willy. Of course people who have a personal, unshareable, unverifiable experience will have faith. What I am interested in is evidence that can be tested. I am absolutely unmoved by any demand that the onus is equally on unbelievers to provide evidence, we aren't claiming anything cf the pink elephant.

Pascals Wager is a weird one, because although it seems completely logical, it assumes you can fool God into believing that you believe in him for the 'right' reasons when supposed self interest has driven you to make an expedient choice. If God wants people like that in his/her/it's club I'd be surprised. If there is a god I would hope that those of us who have managed to live our short allotted span without him will be granted an eternity of oblivion as we expect rather than an eternity of torture for having the temerity, in our vanity and ignorance, of not believing, or an eternity of whatever heaven is.

Well, as I said that it's impossible to prove one way or another, your declaration of no God wouldn't stand up to the level of valid testing you demand of others. So opting out of providing any evidence as you are really means that nobody need offer you any either. Do you have any evidence that God doesn't exist that you would confidently share in the belief it would alter people's views? Of course not. Asking it from people who think God exists isn't really playing fair, mate.

 

[sb_73]

Well, as I said that it's impossible to prove one way or another, your declaration of no God wouldn't stand up to the level of valid testing you demand of others. So opting out of providing any evidence as you are really means that nobody need offer you any either. Do you have any evidence that God doesn't exist that you would confidently share in the belief it would alter people's views? Of course not. Asking it from people who think God exists isn't really playing fair, mate.

Ok, first let's establish what kind of God we are talking about.

A prime mover, deist God, which kicked off the universe, but has sat back uninvolved since then, or an omniscient, omnipresent, loving God who takes an interest not only in the human race, but in humans as individuals? Or some other version.

The first one I won't offer any evidence against, as I think we've agreed, it's a reductive, unresolvable argument. The others I'll have a go at. But perhaps not tonight, it's getting late.

 

[durbar2003]

Well, as I said that it's impossible to prove one way or another, your declaration of no God wouldn't stand up to the level of valid testing you demand of others. So opting out of providing any evidence as you are really means that nobody need offer you any either. Do you have any evidence that God doesn't exist that you would confidently share in the belief it would alter people's views? Of course not. Asking it from people who think God exists isn't really playing fair, mate.

Grenfell!

 

[kiwiqpr]

You must log in or register to see images

 

[Stroller]

Bugger, missed all the religion stuff. Here's my take...

There is no Creator, no Almighty, no Supreme Being - no God. How do I know? Well I don't KNOW of course, but I'm pretty confident. I have FAITH in my view being correct. I don't believe we are part of a plan, but that we exist as the result of an amazing, wonderful accident. Religion, all of it, is dangerous nonsense in my opinion, and the sooner humanity rids itself of its tyranny the better the world will be.

 

[kiwiqpr]

Where's your evidence for that