# More Religious Nuts



## darkside (25 June 2009)

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=830145

What is it about religion that makes people believe it justifies any level of cruelty.


----------



## Bobby (25 June 2009)

*Re: More Religious Nut's*

*Religion is just a form of mental sickness, an excuse for so many forms of arbitrary debauchery, sad that it still continues to manifest such FILTH even in first world socialites today *


----------



## refined silver (25 June 2009)

Lenin, Stalin, Beria, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, tortured and murdered millions and were militant atheists. 

Very poor logic to pretend religion is the root of all wrong.


----------



## Muschu (26 June 2009)

*Re: More Religious Nut's*



Bobby said:


> *Religion is just a form of mental sickness, an excuse for so many forms of arbitrary debauchery, sad that it still continues to manifest such FILTH even in first world socialites today *




There are extremes of bigotry at both ends of the spectrum it would appear.


----------



## Bobby (26 June 2009)

refined silver said:


> Lenin, Stalin, Beria, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, tortured and murdered millions and were militant atheists.
> 
> Very poor logic to pretend religion is the root of all wrong.




Well said , they sure did , guess god was enjoying the entertainment of those fine gentlemen , seems god
loves to see this sort of stuff again & again .    

Pleased you mentored Beria , that sicko was one of the worst individuals to have ever existed !


----------



## wayneL (26 June 2009)

zzz...zzz...zzz...zzz

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attitude_polarization


----------



## refined silver (26 June 2009)

Bobby said:


> Pleased you mentored Beria , that sicko was one of the worst individuals to have ever existed !




I agree. Its actually hard to fathom that sort of evil. 

I remember reading an article by a secular academic stating that with the loss of the "devil" from popular belief, there was also a loss of ability to fully describe the evil behind certain truly shocking things.


----------



## Joe Blow (26 June 2009)

*Re: More Religious Nut's*



Bobby said:


> *Religion is just a form of mental sickness, an excuse for so many forms of arbitrary debauchery, sad that it still continues to manifest such FILTH even in first world socialites today *




Bobby, I expect ASF members to show a little more sensitivity to the beliefs of others than you have demonstrated in this post.

You may not agree with the religious views of others but that is no reason to denigrate them in this way.


----------



## GumbyLearner (26 June 2009)

There are plenty of wacko religious nuts out there.

I found the Season 13 Episode 3 of South Park entitled "Margaritaville"
quite a good parody on the topic.

Here's the link

http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/220760/


----------



## ivant (26 June 2009)

It is always more difficult to prove a negative. Saying that something doesn't exist is one sure way to never win an argument. How do you know?

Some examples:
1. I don't believe in the holocaust. 
2. I don't believe the world is round. 
3. I don't believe there are aliens. 
4. I don't believe in God. 
5. I believe that technical analysis doesn't work. 
6. No such thing as black swans.
I can go on.

The point is, believe or not believe, those things above are hard to disprove. How can you know God doesn't exist?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (26 June 2009)

wayneL said:


> zzz...zzz...zzz...zzz
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attitude_polarization




lol
Wayne you woke me up with your snoring.

gg


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (26 June 2009)

wayneL said:


> zzz...zzz...zzz...zzz
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attitude_polarization




Is that the same as confirmation bias, or do you have to be a believer.

gg


----------



## johenmo (26 June 2009)

Yeah - what is it about religion that makes people (e.g. Mother Teresa) go and devote her life to those less fortunate?

You can find examples for everything.  Sounds a bit like gun debate - gunas are dangerous...not they're not, it's those who use them... yes they are..etc.

Joe -perhaps you can kill off threads like these and just refer the ranter/raver to the existing threads.

Have a good day everyone.


----------



## darkside (26 June 2009)

ivant said:


> It is always more difficult to prove a negative. Saying that something doesn't exist is one sure way to never win an argument. How do you know?
> 
> Some examples:
> 1. I don't believe in the holocaust.
> ...




ivan , i just re read my post , and the story , perhaps you could clarify where it's mentioned God doesn't exist , apart from the obvious! but if anything this could help you lay testimony that he does, and this is just another way of expressing his love and maybe the priests involved in this disgusting act of torture just didn't have enough faith.


----------



## darkside (26 June 2009)

johenmo said:


> Yeah - what is it about religion that makes people (e.g. Mother Teresa) go and devote her life to those less fortunate?
> 
> You can find examples for everything.  Sounds a bit like gun debate - gunas are dangerous...not they're not, it's those who use them... yes they are..etc.
> 
> ...




Johenmo , perhaps you could become a moderator , that way you can decide what threads stay and go , or if you don't like the look of the thread , don't read it, see the options are numerous. I somehow don't think the rest of the posters on ASF want to be told what posts they can and cant subscribe to by you, but i could be wrong , it would'nt be the first time. !


----------



## nomore4s (26 June 2009)

ivant said:


> How can you know God doesn't exist?




How can you know he/she/it does?

But I do agree it is an arguement neither side will ever win.


----------



## darkside (26 June 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> There are plenty of wacko religious nuts out there.
> 
> I found the Season 13 Episode 3 of South Park entitled "Margaritaville"
> quite a good parody on the topic.
> ...




Haha , i just finished watching it , that cracked me up, when art imitates life , it's a funny show , but sometimes very true.


----------



## wayneL (26 June 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Is that the same as confirmation bias, or do you have to be a believer.
> 
> gg



Hi GG

I'm no psychologist, and many have argued that I may need the services if one :, but my view is that confirmation bias is a necessary prerequisite for attitude polarization.


----------



## Old Mate (26 June 2009)

nomore4s said:


> How can you know he/she/it does?
> 
> But I do agree it is an arguement neither side will ever win.




Simple logic proves that at least the Christian version of God does not exist. And it's probably only a matter of time before science proves it somehow. I'm not saying there's definately no super powerful being up there, (I don't think there is though,) I'm just saying he/she/it isn't anything like most religions claim he/she/it is.


----------



## peterh (26 June 2009)

Old Mate said:


> Simple logic proves that at least the Christian version of God does not exist. And it's probably only a matter of time before science proves it somehow. I'm not saying there's definately no super powerful being up there, (I don't think there is though,) I'm just saying he/she/it isn't anything like most religions claim he/she/it is.




I would be interested in hearing your simple logic proving that the Christian God doesn't exist.


----------



## wayneL (26 June 2009)

Old Mate said:


> Simple logic proves that at least the Christian version of God does not exist. And it's probably only a matter of time before science proves it somehow. I'm not saying there's definately no super powerful being *up there*, (I don't think there is though,) I'm just saying he/she/it isn't anything like most religions claim he/she/it is.




This is the "Dude in the Sky" meme. Our Abrahamic religions have us all thinking about a separate, individual being most likely with a long white beard, floating around in the sky, tut tutting and taking notes and throwing lightning bolts around.

If there is a "God" or whatever, it could be something else, 1001 other possibilities.

One can let go of the dude in the sky meme and not be an atheist. It opens up a whole infinity of possibilities.


----------



## Green08 (26 June 2009)

Why does it have to be the guy in the sky? or a guy? or a human? or a thing? or only a thing?

Why do people need to believe in anything? 

Can't they find belief in themselves? 

Alot of insecure people out there.


----------



## bellenuit (26 June 2009)

> Simple logic proves that at least the Christian version of God does not exist. And it's probably only a matter of time before science proves it somehow.




'fraid not. Even though I do not believe in God, from my knowledge of science, I understand that it is not possible to prove something doesn't exist. You can prove it is extremely unlikely or improbable, but you cannot prove something doesn't exist. This is something Richard Dawkins also concedes.


----------



## Old Mate (26 June 2009)

> I would be interested in hearing your simple logic proving that the Christian God doesn't exist.




There's just so many contradictions and flaws in the Christian beliefs. Eg: the whole hey he's all powerful, yet he can't banish the devil and eradicate the world of all evil. Christians will reply oh it's all part of his plan or something. What does an all powerful being need a plan for? What possible contigency could occur in the future that he needs to plan for right now? 

And do you remember how your parents used to tell you to be good and santa will bring you presents, but if you're bad the boogie man will come get you. Now that you're older you realise that's stuff they made up to make you behave, (hopefully) yet adult Christians buy the same BS. Be good and go to a magical perfect place and live for eternity, but if you're bad you will suffer in hell. Seriously, just think about how stupid that sounds. 

Plenty of other reasons I can expand on if you like.



> This is the "Dude in the Sky" meme. Our Abrahamic religions have us all thinking about a separate, individual being most likely with a long white beard, floating around in the sky, tut tutting and taking notes and throwing lightning bolts around.
> 
> If their is a "God" or whatever, it could be something else, 1001 other possibilities.
> 
> One can let go of the dude in the sky meme and not be an atheist. It opens up a whole infinity of possibilities.




A very good point Wayne.



> Why does it have to be the guy in the sky? or a guy? or a human? or a thing? or only a thing?
> 
> Why do people need to believe in anything?
> 
> ...




My feelings exactly. Well said.



> 'fraid not. Even though I do not believe in God, from my knowledge of science, I understand that it is not possible to prove something doesn't exist. You can prove it is extremely unlikely or improbable, but you cannot prove something doesn't exist. This is something Richard Dawkins also concedes.




Yeah I suppose you're right actually. People need to realise that there is no need to belief in this being we refer to as God. Why do we have to go to church every Sunday and worship this supremely insecure being in order to be a good person and not be punished for all eternity?

By the way I don't mean to offend anyone in this thread, I just belive quite passionately in that religion shouldn't have a place in the world anymore.


----------



## refined silver (26 June 2009)

To prove the Christian God doesn't exist is very difficult. 

To prove God doesn't exist you'd have to simultaneously search every place in the universe and if you could do this and found no God, then you'd only have shown he doesn't exist in the physical universe, which proves nothing. 

The God of the Bible, or the Jewish and Christian God claims to have created the universe apart from Himself, hence he exists "outside" of the universe. (He can also enter and act inside this universe thus adding a new element -(the miraculous) to the usual governance of the physical laws of the universe.)

He also claims to consist of physically differently "stuff" to the universe. The universe is material and created, the God of the Bible claims to be immaterial (Spirit) and uncreated.

Hence to prove His non-existence is slightly beyond us at present.

A more useful line of inquiry is the historical Person of one Jesus of Nazereth or Jesus Christ. If you can prove that the physical resurrection did not occur then the whole Christian religion and all it's claims on truth come tumbling down.


----------



## Timmy (27 June 2009)

bellenuit said:


> 'fraid not. Even though I do not believe in God, from my knowledge of science, I understand that it is not possible to prove something doesn't exist. You can prove it is extremely unlikely or improbable, but you cannot prove something doesn't exist. This is something Richard Dawkins also concedes.




Zactly.



refined silver said:


> If you can prove that the physical resurrection did not occur then the whole Christian religion and all it's claims on truth come tumbling down.




Zactly.

I mean believing in the religious claptrap because you can't prove its not right is just silly.  The burden of proof is the wrong way around.

I can't really prove Teletubbies don't exist, can I?  Doesn't mean I am going to spend my life waiting for the thing that can produce endless amounts of custard to manifest itself on Earth.  

Mmmmmmmmmmm, custard.


----------



## inenigma (27 June 2009)

refined silver said:


> Lenin, Stalin, Beria, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, tortured and murdered millions and were militant atheists.
> 
> Very poor logic to pretend religion is the root of all wrong.




You forgot Hitler.


----------



## darkside (27 June 2009)

inenigma said:


> You forgot Hitler.




No he didn't forget Hitler, he chose not to include him, as Hitler justified his fight for the German people and against Jews by using Godly and Biblical reasoning. 

 One of his most revealing statements makes this quite clear:  "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

  Once again , as in the theme of this thread, what makes people use religion to justify torture  and murder. !!!!


----------



## trainspotter (27 June 2009)

GOD does exist !!! It is called the USD. Printed on every note is "In GOD we trust" and the US dollar is currently the world's 'reserve' currency until China can get it's way. The Dollar Index fell 0.7 percent to 79.83. The restatement of Governor Zhou Xiaochuan’s proposal in March added to speculation that China will diversify its currency reserves, the world’s largest at more than $1.95 trillion. Chinese investors, the biggest foreign owners of U.S. Treasuries, reduced holdings by $4.4 billion in April to $763.5 billion after Premier Wen Jiabao expressed concern about the value of dollar assets.


----------



## beamstas (27 June 2009)

> 'fraid not. Even though I do not believe in God, from my knowledge of science, I understand that it is not possible to prove something doesn't exist. You can prove it is extremely unlikely or improbable, but you cannot prove something doesn't exist. This is something Richard Dawkins also concedes.




Exactly
It can't be proved gravity exists, but many people believe in it.


----------



## trainspotter (27 June 2009)

beamstas said:


> Exactly
> It can't be proved gravity exists, but many people believe in it.




Hmmmmm ... not sure on this one beamstas .... last time I tried to fly unaided a very peculiar thing happened ... a trip to hospital after jumping off the roof when I was 9 thinking I was Superman ... sure made me a big believer in gravity.


----------



## refined silver (27 June 2009)

darkside said:


> No he didn't forget Hitler, he chose not to include him, as Hitler justified his fight for the German people and against Jews by using Godly and Biblical reasoning.




I did forget Hitler actually plus a whole host of others.

Hitler was vehemently anti-Christian, and occasionally used Christian terms when necessary to appeal to/appease certain sections of the population, just like Stalin in the middle of WWII reinstuted much of the Russian Orthodox church for a while to help rally people to a cause.

Hitler had some mystical beliefs about the Aryan nation which were actually rooted in Hinduism. The swastica is still a sacred symbol in Hinduism and is still in many temples.


----------



## beamstas (27 June 2009)

trainspotter said:


> Hmmmmm ... not sure on this one beamstas .... last time I tried to fly unaided a very peculiar thing happened ... a trip to hospital after jumping off the roof when I was 9 thinking I was Superman ... sure made me a big believer in gravity.




Gravity is a theory
A theory cannot be *proven* until every single possible outcome for every single item in the universe has been tested. Until then we can only presume gravity is true but we cannot prove it is true.

You have proved gravity _for that test_!


----------



## darkside (27 June 2009)

refined silver said:


> I did forget Hitler actually plus a whole host of others.
> 
> Hitler was vehemently anti-Christian, and occasionally used Christian terms when necessary to appeal to/appease certain sections of the population, just like Stalin in the middle of WWII reinstuted much of the Russian Orthodox church for a while to help rally people to a cause.
> 
> Hitler had some mystical beliefs about the Aryan nation which were actually rooted in Hinduism. The swastica is still a sacred symbol in Hinduism and is still in many temples.





WTF ,, Hitler was Anti - Christian ,,, where did you study history, as a young boy, Hitler's main goal was to become a priest not to be a meglamaniac killing all and sundry. Read the Mein Kampf so much of it uses Biblical quotes and sayings to justify his means. 

Much of his philosophy came from the Bible, and more influentially, from the Christian Social movement. (The German Christian Social movement,  resembles the Christian  movement in America today.) 

And the swastika was carved into the monestery's coat of arms that he walked past daily , it's well documented that was where he first spied it and then decided on it as a tower of strength.


----------



## trainspotter (27 June 2009)

beamstas said:


> Gravity is a theory
> A theory cannot be *proven* until every single possible outcome for every single item in the universe has been tested. Until then we can only presume gravity is true but we cannot prove it is true.
> 
> You have proved gravity _for that test_!




OOOOOOOOPS !! I will let Newton know his LAW OF GRAVITY is a theory and just that ... a theory. In the meantime I will give up jumping off roofs. "I reject your sense of reality and replace it with my own" springs to mind about now. HA HA !


----------



## beamstas (27 June 2009)

Here you go
http://adamkemp.newsvine.com/_news/...ature-of-science-why-gravity-is-just-a-theory

Anyway, my point still stands, relegion will never be proven or disproven, until we either A) See God, B), Search everywhere possible and still not come to a complete conclusion. 

Faith has to account for the gap between.


----------



## trainspotter (27 June 2009)

So I am to suddenly believe a man called Adam Kemp that has posted HIS theory which does not agree with a universally accepted law that is fundamental for physicists to base their mathmatics on?? 

I am thinking that Newton's Law of Gravity has been proven pretty conclusively and adhered to by the scientists and people who inhabit this planet. Try jumping off a roof and you will get my point. This is not a test.

Religion is proven. Faith is proven. God is still yet to come to the party.


----------



## spooly74 (27 June 2009)

beamstas said:


> Here you go
> http://adamkemp.newsvine.com/_news/...ature-of-science-why-gravity-is-just-a-theory



A theory is the highest accolade that can be given to a scientific claim. Gravity is not a theory. It is part of our observable reality. Mant theories attempt to describe it.

The language used in that article from Adam Kemp reminds me of many Creationist arguments. They take the precise, articulate language of Science and try and use it as a weapon against itself. It's intellectually retarded.



> Anyway, my point still stands, relegion will never be proven or disproven, until we either A) See God, B), Search everywhere possible and still not come to a complete conclusion.
> 
> Faith has to account for the gap between.




I see Religion, simply, as a history of people that have had faith. What's to prove?

Where does one's Faith reside?


----------



## Bobby (27 June 2009)

*Re: More Religious Nut's*



Joe Blow said:


> Bobby, I expect ASF members to show a little more sensitivity to the beliefs of others than you have demonstrated in this post.
> 
> You may not agree with the religious views of others but that is no reason to denigrate them in this way.




One of the things I like about you Joe is that you had the guts to leave that post up & not to delete it  !

Guess the reason could be The verisimilitude reasoning you have always asked of your ASF members .  

Regards Bobby  .


----------



## darkside (27 June 2009)

Last edited by Bobby : Today at 10:21 PM. Reason: Spelling verismilitude - ouch !  

I struggled to pronounce it let alone spell it , good work !!!!!


----------



## Sean K (27 June 2009)

refined silver said:


> To prove the Christian God doesn't exist is very difficult.



I disagree. If you do a thorough research into how the 'one God' came about it's clear he's just made up. Just like Marduk, Zues, Ra, Inti, and all the other ancient mythological beings. God is a myth. It's all right there in front of us, just read a bit of ancient history. The idea unfolds right before you like a fairy tale. It's quite amazing how simple it is actually.


----------



## Sunder (27 June 2009)

Old Mate said:


> There's just so many contradictions and flaws in the Christian beliefs. Eg: the whole hey he's all powerful, yet he can't banish the devil and eradicate the world of all evil. Christians will reply oh it's all part of his plan or something. What does an all powerful being need a plan for? What possible contigency could occur in the future that he needs to plan for right now?
> 
> Yeah I suppose you're right actually. People need to realise that there is no need to belief in this being we refer to as God. Why do we have to go to church every Sunday and worship this supremely insecure being in order to be a good person and not be punished for all eternity?
> 
> By the way I don't mean to offend anyone in this thread, I just belive quite passionately in that religion shouldn't have a place in the world anymore.




Unfortunately, most people don't reject the God of the bible - they reject the God of their own making.

"If I were God, I'd destroy all evil. Therefore, if there was a God, He'd destroy all evil. Since there is evil, there is no God". Great logic working one direction, doesn't really work the other way.

The bible never claims that God wanted to destroy all evil in this world, nor is there any account of when he tries, and fails, so it's hardly logical that we consider it a contradiction that he hasn't. Evil existed even in paradise, and God did nothing about it except warn Adam and Eve away from the knowledge of it. 

Why do we need to worship a "supremely insecure" God? Well, that might be the God of your imagination, but not the God of the bible. If you're ever in the mood for some bloodthirsty action, have a good read of Judges. There are plenty of times where God says to his people "If you want to do things your way, go right ahead" - and by the next generation, they've gotten themselves into such a mess, they call back on God. God never says "Don't leave, I'll give you more blessings/land/wine/milk/honey/cookies". Any time anyone doesn't want to worship Him, He lets them go - but the consequences are always laid out in front of them, and come to pass.

Worship of God doesn't change God; it doesn't give Him what He wants, except insofar that what He wants, is to give us what we want. Worshipping God puts us in our place as a created being - A creation that has a purpose and has been designed to live in a particular way. 

We're not designed to allow a member of society to murder one another, because we were designed for an interlinked community, and the death of one person is designed to evoke loss in many others. 

We are not designed to have "5 year renewable marriage contracts" or open marriages, because most people crave security, and there needs to be a stable secure environment to bring up children in.  

The list goes on. There may have been some odd ceremonial laws, but no moral law of God is purely arbitary - they're all designed for society's stability and happiness, if not always an individual's happiness. 

Our system of society is so heavily influenced God and Christian values, we think we don't need God, because we have everything He's given us. Would you prefer to live in a country with a longer history of being Atheist? Russia, perhaps? What about more traditional tribal spirituality? Do you like Africa? How about a country that has been Bhuddist? Would you like China's human rights records here? Or would you like to go live in Iran at the moment? Sharia law is bringing Iran into the 21st century, no? Can you think of a country that does not have a recent Christian influence, that is a better place to live than America, Britian, Europe or Australia, which has?

Can a person be good without God? Of course, but our nature is against it. Can a person be bad with God? Of course, we're all fallen people. But make no mistake - our laws and our values come from our Christian heritage. Rather than say society has no more need of God, I'd rather say society doesn't know how much it needs God until He's gone.


----------



## Sean K (27 June 2009)

Sunder said:


> But make no mistake - our laws and our values come from our Christian heritage.



And where did the Christian heritage come from?

This is the problem religion has. Our values and morals did not just drop out of the sky as you would have us believe. They were established over thousands, no millions, of years of co-habitation. To think that they were gifted to us through a touch of a finger from a man in the sky is just plain kooky to say the least.

All religion has done is carve these morals in stone, for good, and bad....


----------



## beamstas (27 June 2009)

Gravity is a precise meausre. Dropping yourself off a building only proves you accelerated faster than a speed of 0. It doesn't prove gravity.

It's just one example of something that can't be 100% proven, such as the existance or non-existance of god. You can either accept that he exists, using whatever you believe in, or accept that he doesn't exist becuase of science. Neither is known 100% to be correct until one is proven. 

You can't tell me gravity has been proven to be 100% correct, becuase it's impossible. We can only assume by many observations that it is there and will continue to exist for as long as our observations of gravity are continually proven to be correct.


----------



## Sunder (27 June 2009)

kennas said:


> And where did the Christian heritage come from?
> 
> This is the problem religion has. Our values and morals did not just drop out of the sky as you would have us believe. They were established over thousands, no millions, of years of co-habitation. To think that they were gifted to us through a touch of a finger from a man in the sky is just plain kooky to say the least.




And yet, civilisations just as old, or older, seem to be worse off than the ones who have a Christian heritage. Shouldn't they have developed to be better than the younger civilisations?

Doesn't it make sense that without a moral compass, we devolve simply back to survival of the fittest and nothing more? Where people in power, abuse that power for their own gain on a social level, and people gratify their own desires at other's expense, at a personal level?


----------



## Green08 (27 June 2009)

As you can't change people. Each to their own.

But for F Sake!  Stop killing each other!!  Geez I though a basic concept for religion was tolerance and love.  Must be a selective process for the committed.


----------



## trainspotter (27 June 2009)

beamstas .. I bow to your superior knowledge on gravity and its peculiar nature of wanting to stop my unaided flying. You are right ... gravity is not proven ... it is the earth that sucks !

where: 
F is the magnitude of the gravitational force between the two point masses, 
G is the gravitational constant, 
m1 is the mass of the first point mass, 
m2 is the mass of the second point mass, and 
r is the distance between the two point masses. 

Assuming SI units, F is measured in newtons (N), m1 and m2 in kilograms (kg), r in meters (m), and the constant G is approximately equal to 6.673Ã—10−11 N m2 kg−2. The value of the constant G was first accurately determined from the results of the Cavendish experiment conducted by the British scientist Henry Cavendish in 1798 ... ooooooooooops ... Does this mean gravity has been proven?


----------



## Sunder (27 June 2009)

Green08 said:


> Geez I though a basic concept for religion was tolerance and love.




What in the world gave you that idea???

Not all religions are peaceful. Judaism, the basis of both Christianity and Islam is definitely not. 

Christianity is meant to be in the "forebearance" stage. According to core Christian beliefs, God has revealed Himself as much as He is intending to, and has told us He is coming back. He is, and as a consequence, we are, meant to be forebearing upon all non-believers, to give them every opportunity to repent. 

Confusing Old Testament Judaism, where God's people were told to wipe out every trace of impurity, and New Testament, where God tells us to be tolerant of non-believers, is why so many people seem to think "fundamental" Christianity is violent and bloodthirsty. The Old Testament is included in the bible as history, not as the covenant and law Christians are meant to follow now.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (27 June 2009)

Religion, at least some religions value nuts and berries quite highly.

I just thought I should mention it.

Perhaps the title of the thread should be changed to "More Religious Nuts and Berries"

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Pagan-Wiccan-Religion-3207/Diet.htm

gg


----------



## Sean K (27 June 2009)

Sunder said:


> and New Testament, where God tells us to be tolerant of non-believers, is why so many people seem to think "fundamental" Christianity is violent and bloodthirsty.



Crusades.
Spanish Inquisition.
Forced conversion during conquest and colonial rule.
Destruction of indigenous cultures.
Witch hunts.
etc etc


----------



## Green08 (27 June 2009)

> What in the world gave you that idea???




Ok I have not read the bible or any religous piece. I know they update them I would have thought that if "god" said something it would be ingraved in stone and never changed.

Agree with Kennas, It is made up as the religion process and needs certain goals to be achieved.

We watched the History Channel on the 7 deadly sins, that was interesting they were made up, 8 at first, changed, Dante came up with the levels in Purgatory, Catholics introduced confession.  

I can see there blood thirsty, territorial self gratifing nuts. Have been and always will be.


----------



## Sunder (28 June 2009)

kennas said:


> Crusades.
> Spanish Inquisition.
> Forced conversion during conquest and colonial rule.
> Destruction of indigenous cultures.
> ...




And your point is?

Because Christians have engaged in some violent activities in the past, the core of the religion is violent?? The bible doesn't teach it, unless you bring an OT command into NT times. That doesn't make Christianity violent - that just makes some *mistaken* Christians in particular times violent.


----------



## Sunder (28 June 2009)

Green08 said:


> Ok I have not read the bible or any religous piece. I know they update them I would have thought that if "god" said something it would be ingraved in stone and never changed.




The translation of the bible changes, not the content. i.e, removing thee, thou, and thine and replacing with... err, you, you and yours in different contexts. 

The bible has never been "changed". The Old Testament is identical to the Talmud, and "substantially similar" to parts of the Koran. 

It's just that Christians added the New Testament, there was no revision of the OT to make it consistent with the NT, unlike the Koran, which altered the OT to fit the new writtings of Mohommad. (All speculative, but of course, strong evidence points to it)


----------



## Sean K (28 June 2009)

Sunder said:


> And your point is?
> 
> Because Christians have engaged in some violent activities in the past, the core of the religion is violent??



'Some violent activities'. lol 

I thought you were saying Christianity had the wood on Islam and Judaism. 

Point is, it does not.

All those activites above were church sanctioned or at least tacitly supported.


----------



## Sunder (28 June 2009)

kennas said:


> 'Some violent activities'. lol
> 
> I thought you were saying Christianity had the wood on Islam and Judaism.
> 
> ...




We've already brought up the violent activities of Atheists, so no need to cover that ground... Should we ban atheism as well?

In terms of biblical texts, the bible does indeed have the "the wood" on Islam and Judaism as the peaceful religion, if I am understanding what you are trying to say.

Out of the three Abrahamic religions, Christianity is the only one to renounce the need to "clean" the impure. Islam still calls for jihad against non-believers, and Judaism hasn't had any "updates".

And edit after your edit: And I agree *CHURCH* sanctioned. It's not biblically sanctioned. In fact, many verses of the new testament prohibit that kind of activity.


----------



## Bobby (28 June 2009)

Suder , Please tell us your religious beliefs .
^That way its easier to fathom your responses to others


----------



## spooly74 (28 June 2009)

beamstas said:


> Gravity is a precise meausre. Dropping yourself off a building only proves you accelerated faster than a speed of 0. It doesn't prove gravity.



Precise? Is it the same on the Moon, or Uranus?
Your're accelerating right now reading this in your chair. Moving through space and time. It's real. It exists. Prove gravity does not exist 100% please.


> It's just one example of something that can't be 100% proven, such as the existance or non-existance of god.



God will never bee proven.
Everyone must have a certain amount of agnostisism with their belief, or lack of, in a God. How much they admit too, depends on the person.


Sunder said:


> Doesn't it make sense that without a moral compass, we devolve simply back to survival of the fittest and nothing more?



Make perfect sense. Mankind developed religion as an essential mechanism to evolve, not devolve. Not just mankind, Neanderthals too. Maybe monkeys would develop a religion given enough time. 
Oh wait ......


----------



## Sunder (28 June 2009)

Bobby said:


> Suder , Please tell us your religious beliefs .
> ^That way its easier to fathom your responses to others




I'm an Evangelical Christian, if that means anything to you.

If it doesn't, it means I only believe what is written in the bible, and not the teachings of the church.

The church, like any other long lived organisation is full of terrible stories of abuse of it's power over its congregants and going against the very values it purportedly stands for, in the name of religion, but truly in the name of greed and power, because inherently, humans are sinful.


----------



## Sean K (28 June 2009)

spooly74 said:


> God will never bee proven.



Maybe not the one in the Bible, but I'm open to what else might be out there, or pop up on the radar one day. I'd like something else to drop in just to put the religious nuts at peace. They'll actually have something real to pray to instead of a fairy tale. Really, very embarrassing when you think of it. All that praying to .... nothing.


----------



## spooly74 (28 June 2009)

kennas said:


> Maybe not the one in the Bible, but I'm open to what else might be out there, or pop up on the radar one day.



Fair enough. If pushed, I'd classify myself as an agnostic atheist too  maybe


----------



## So_Cynical (28 June 2009)

beamstas said:


> Gravity is a precise meausre. Dropping yourself off a building only proves you accelerated faster than a speed of 0. It doesn't prove gravity.
> 
> You can't tell me gravity has been proven to be 100% correct, becuase it's impossible. We can only assume by many observations that it is there and will continue to exist for as long as our observations of gravity are continually proven to be correct.




I reckon that if u throw your self off a building 100 times u will end up believing 100% in gravity.


----------



## Bobby (28 June 2009)

Sunder said:


> I'm an Evangelical Christian, if that means anything to you.
> 
> If it doesn't, it means I only believe what is written in the bible, and not the teachings of the church.
> 
> The church, like any other long lived organisation is full of terrible stories of abuse of it's power over its congregants and going against the very values it purportedly stands for, in the name of religion, but truly in the name of greed and power, because inherently, humans are sinful.




Thanks for the response , I won't bag you for your beliefs , your guide posts
all set out for you as a Evangelical , you are all trained up correct . 

Mine are so different to you , hope you can respect my atheism then ?


----------



## GumbyLearner (28 June 2009)

Here's another great South Park - All About the Mormons?

http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/103933


----------



## bellenuit (28 June 2009)

beamstas said:


> Gravity is a precise meausre. Dropping yourself off a building only proves you accelerated faster than a speed of 0. It doesn't prove gravity.
> 
> It's just one example of something that can't be 100% proven, such as the existance or non-existance of god. You can either accept that he exists, using whatever you believe in, or accept that he doesn't exist becuase of science. Neither is known 100% to be correct until one is proven.
> 
> You can't tell me gravity has been proven to be 100% correct, becuase it's impossible. We can only assume by many observations that it is there and will continue to exist for as long as our observations of gravity are continually proven to be correct.




Beamstas,

You really have got this wrong. You can prove that something exists, but you cannot prove that something doesn't exist.

One instance is sufficient to prove something exists, but a gazillion non-instances doesn't prove something doesn't exist. To take a trivial example: Just because no one has ever seen a naturally pink elephant does not prove that pink elephants do not exist. There could be colonies of them in undiscovered parts of the world, and if not found there they could be in other planets in our galaxy, and if not found there etc. etc. However, if one naturally pink elephant were to emerge from a rain forest tomorrow, that would be sufficient proof that they exist. 

The other argument that many use (not you) against science is that something "is just a theory". The most common example being "that evolution is just a theory". The word "just" being used to suggest that it is no better an explanation than any other theory of how life came to be what it is today. 

There are 2 important points that they do not understand (or in many cases deliberately choose to ignore). Firstly, the theory is the explanation of HOW  the phenomenon occurs, not THAT the phenomenon occurs. Secondly, a "theory" is the best explanation that science has come up with for HOW the phenomenon occurs and it is an explanation that science has not yet found a fault in. If faults are found in the theory, then it is no longer accepted as the theory of how the phenomenon occurs and is replaced by the new theory that supersedes it, or if there is no new theory, the phenomenon goes back to becoming "not understood".

When scientists talk about the theory of evolution, they are talking about the best explanation for the phenomenon they know as species evolving. They know species evolve. Evolution is a fact. Viruses that are at one stage treatable but eventually morph into super viruses that are immune to drugs are one proof of evolution. There are hundreds of examples of evolution in medicine alone. Much of modern medicine is based on the ACTUALITY of evolution. But when science talks about the theory of evolution, what they are talking about is the best explanation of how this known phenomenon occurs. That's where you get into Darwin's natural selection etc. 

The same goes for Gravity. Gravity exists. We know bodies attract each other and baring other factors will move towards each other. The theory part is an explanation of why this occurs.


----------



## beamstas (28 June 2009)

Even Scientists are starting to turn their back on Darwin. Watched a dvd on it the other week, they are starting to find some serious flaws in his theory.


----------



## trainspotter (28 June 2009)

And Darwin's theory is? I'm gonna do a Pauline Hanson ... "Please explain?"

The fundamental principle of evolution by natural selection is even more solid today than when it was proposed by Darwin. Today we have supporting evidence from molecular biology and genetics that Darwin did not have. 

What Darwin did not get right was the mechanism of the transmission of genetic information. Nevertheless, the transmission of random changes to the next generation and the non-random selection processes based on strictly local conditions is still the fundamental principle of natural selection. This is the most central principle of biology, and all of the evidence supports it.

Swine flu can cross from animals to humans and mutates to survive ...as an example that might be relevant.

I just love it when Creationists come out with their speil about some omniscient God that made the world/universe/and all the known black holes in 6 days and rested on the 7th. Go and read psalm 137 and tell me how wonderful a God is that celebrates dashing the heads of babies against rocks. Pfffffffffffffftttt


----------



## wayneL (28 June 2009)

Whoa there trainspotter... a huge non-sequitur there.

A doubter of the Darwinian model of evolution may not be a creationist in the Abrahamic/Christian/whatever model.

Refer to my post re "Attitude Polarization" of a few days ago.

Darwinian evolution relies on the principle of natural selection. There is science that ponders the possibility of another reality that does not include standard creationist dogma. 

The immediate straw man fallacy is that someone who questions natural selection is therefore a young earth creationist. That is an unintelligent supposition that may or may not be accurate.


----------



## Timmy (28 June 2009)

trainspotter said:


> I just love it when Creationists come out with their speil about some omniscient God that made the world/universe/and all the known black holes in 6 days and rested on the 7th.




This is such B/S.

On the 7th day he created Holdens, or Harleys, or something.

Don't question me on this, I've seen the stickers.


----------



## spooly74 (28 June 2009)

beamstas said:


> Even Scientists are starting to turn their back on Darwin. Watched a dvd on it the other week, they are starting to find some serious flaws in his theory.



hmmmmmmm. What DVD? What scientists and what serious flaws?

If your going to start questioning scientific claims your going to have to do more than talk opinion, you going to have to put in some hard work. 
Ready?

Still waiting for some answers on gravity. Ready?


----------



## Old Mate (28 June 2009)

Sunder, I agree with you, our society is better off because of Christian origins. The church used to act as a sort of law keeping body and kept people in line. Now with police and the legal system (as pathetic as it is) I do not believe it is needed anymore. 

People believe what they want to believe. Is it a coincedence that most people in America and Aus are Christians and that most people in the middle east are Muslims? People grow up with these religious beliefs around them and as such just accept them as correct and normal. Like sheep. But if you take an outside view at any religion you can see how ridiculous it is. It's like if we look back at Greek Mythology. We'll say, "pffft, why did they think there were so many Gods? Gee they were stupid back then." And we say that to any religion that isn't our own. 

To me it comes back to the question: why do you have to believe in anything? Just do what you want, do what is right, not for anyone/anything else, just for yourself.


----------



## trainspotter (28 June 2009)

Timmy said:


> This is such B/S.
> 
> On the 7th day he created Holdens, or Harleys, or something.
> 
> Don't question me on this, I've seen the stickers.




I kneel in the presence of greatness ... all hail Timmy !! 

That was one of the best ice breakers I have seen in awhile.


----------



## trainspotter (28 June 2009)

wayneL said:


> Whoa there trainspotter... a huge non-sequitur there. That is an unintelligent supposition that may or may not be accurate.




Sorry WayneL .. I was drawing a long bow on that one wasn't I ?? I offer this euphenism instead .... I love it when instead of using logic and science to prove or disprove a valid point that we revert to an omnisicient being or just plain faith to shoulder our case point exchange of views and neither the twain shall meet.


----------



## beamstas (28 June 2009)

I'll get the name of the DVD, it was borrowed.

Darwins theory has some serious flaws, many scientists and teachers are refusing the teach it, 

Don't get me wrong, i believe natural selection occurs. It has to happen, survival of the fittest. Darwins theory has serious flaws, though.

Those birds darwin examined, a core part of his theory, their beaks change in 5 year cycles depending on weather cycles. He managed to ignore this and claimed it was evolution occuring. Also those neat little diagrams in text books of unformed feutus, they are completely false and do not represent a real life example in any case.

Scientists are also finding that Darwins theory is backwards. Instead of less and less "creatures" appearing as fossils (which would support evolution) we are finding that the pyramid is actually backwards, and there were more species existant long ago than there is now. This does not support darwins theory of evolution. 

Im fine with Natural selection, it is quite obvious from simple observations that it occurs in nature, what i have a problem with is Darwins theory.

Im not going to do all the research for you, if you want to research it go ahead, if you want to remain ignorant to the facts and claim you know everything then you are simply adopting the attitude of those you have come to argue with. Don't close off your mind to other things, as an atheist feels they can't open their mind to relegion, or as a religious person feels they can't open their mind to science.


----------



## trainspotter (28 June 2009)

I am an ignorant quidnunc ...


----------



## Julia (28 June 2009)

Timmy said:


> This is such B/S.
> 
> On the 7th day he created Holdens, or Harleys, or something.
> 
> Don't question me on this, I've seen the stickers.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (28 June 2009)

Timmy said:


> This is such B/S.
> 
> On the 7th day he created Holdens, or      Harleys,
> or something.
> ...





On the 7th day mate, he rested, on a Triumph.

gg


----------



## Timmy (28 June 2009)

GG - I'm not conceding anything, but if this guy is prepared to wear the T-shirt then you may have a point.


----------



## pacestick (28 June 2009)

spooly74 said:


> hmmmmmmm. What DVD? What scientists and what serious flaws?
> I dont know what video he was referring to but a good read on the  subject is on the seventh day which is 40 scientists  with phds giving the reasons behind their belief that evolution is not a good theory for explaining the origin of the species. The book is written by dr john ashton lecturer at Newcastle University. Many of the scientists are physists and use the arguement that evolution breaks the second law of thermodynamics which is  i thinkthat one substance cannot become another although it may take different forms e.g. h20 can be water mist or ice I do not have a scence degree and therefore do not fully understand it
> What amazed me when i began to investigate it was that quite a few nobel prize winners in sciences were creationists  not necessarily christian of course but creationist,


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (28 June 2009)

Timmy said:


> GG - I'm not conceding anything, but if this guy is prepared to wear the T-shirt then you may have a point.




Well spotted mate. What a legend.

gg


----------



## beamstas (28 June 2009)

pacestick said:


> What amazed me when i began to investigate it was that quite a few nobel prize winners in sciences were creationists  not necessarily christian of course but creationist,




*Exactly*

It's not

A) You believe in religion
B) You believe in the theory of evolution

It's not as black and white, you'd be ignorant to think it is.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (28 June 2009)

For the Religious doubters amongst you.

Four of these taken religiously every day,and it all makes sense, even the nuts.



1/2 oz. Vodka
1/2 oz. Hazelnut Liqueur
1/2 oz. Coffee Liqueur
1/4 oz. Cream

Combine with ice, shake, strain and serve straight up in 4 oz. rocks glass.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
This recipe was printed from BARTENDER Magazine.
For the largest source of bartending information
please visit us at:   http://www.Bartender.com .

gg
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


----------



## spooly74 (28 June 2009)

pacestick said:


> What amazed me when i began to investigate it was that quite a few nobel prize winners in sciences were creationists  not necessarily christian of course but creationist,



Al Gore won a nobel prize. They might as well hand them out with cereal boxes imo.
That said, what papers did these creationist scientists win their nobel prize for?
I haven't checked but I'll bet it was not for anything relating to Creationism, Earth is 6000 yrs old etc. 
Can you clear this up with some references?


----------



## refined silver (29 June 2009)

trainspotter said:


> Sorry WayneL .. I was drawing a long bow on that one wasn't I ?? I offer this euphenism instead .... I love it when instead of using logic and science to prove or disprove a valid point that we revert to an omnisicient being or just plain faith to shoulder our case point exchange of views and neither the twain shall meet.




What you've said here is the crux of the debate, BUT, it cuts both ways.

As the renaissance and enlightenment led to great scientific discoveries and we started to discover laws which governed astronomy, physics, biology, etc and then even in the social sciences too. People then said "God" is just a crux to explain what we don't understand yet. 

Some then said, they would seek a natural explanation for everything. At this point God is excluded by assumption, from everything, (as everything must have a "natural" cause) so even the clearest miracle, fire from heaven, healing the blind etc, is not accepted as evidence of God, as by definition, this viewpoint excludes the possibility that God can exist or intervene in His universe. So it must just be some natural law we don't understand fully yet. This is no different from everything we don't understand must be God.

Both viewpoints rely on presuppositions to interpret the evidence.


----------



## trainspotter (29 June 2009)

Could be this?

The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them....To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies ”” all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.

Taken from the novel 1984 by George Orwell.


----------



## nth brisbanite (29 June 2009)

Old Mate said:


> Simple logic proves that at least the Christian version of God does not exist. And it's probably only a matter of time before science proves it somehow. I'm not saying there's definately no super powerful being up there, (I don't think there is though,) I'm just saying he/she/it isn't anything like most religions claim he/she/it is.




Can you tell what that simple logic is as I know many believers who are brilliant academics, successful businessmen, elite sportsmen and just ordinary folks like me?  Are you saying that these hundreds of millions of people throughout the world are illogical?  I've got a son-in-law who was the top science student in his state but is a very keen Christian.


----------



## imajica (29 June 2009)

Like all forms of ideology - religious doctrines are linguistic/memetic viruses 
that infiltrate and alter the thought processes of those who alllow themselves to be taken over by their influence. The social and ritualistic nature of church merely reinforces and normalises these new behaviours.


----------



## nth brisbanite (29 June 2009)

*Re: More Religious Nut's*



Joe Blow said:


> Bobby, I expect ASF members to show a little more sensitivity to the beliefs of others than you have demonstrated in this post.
> 
> You may not agree with the religious views of others but that is no reason to denigrate them in this way.




Totally agree with you, Joe Blow.  Denigrating doesn't get us anywhere.


----------



## gooner (29 June 2009)

*Re: More Religious Nut's*



nth brisbanite said:


> Totally agree with you, Joe Blow.  Denigrating doesn't get us anywhere.




Nth brisbanite.

Freedom of speech vs denigrating other beliefs is always an interesting balance. Various religions and people believe the following:

- we are descended from aliens (scientologists)
- condoms cause aids (catholics)
- they are the chosen people (jews)
- dreamtime (aborigines, but not sure if dreamtime is considered a religion)
- God's name is Mohammed (muslims)
- Homosexuals should be killed (various christian religions)
- Holocaust is a myth (various catholic groups)
- Babies should have their penis mutilated at birth (jews and muslims)

Obviously people are entitled to these views. However, IMHO I am equally entitled to criticise these views. Freedom of speech is far more important than the sensitivity of individuals to criticism of their beliefs, religious or otherwise.

We have already seen with the ministry of fires case in Victoria the use of the legal system to suppress free speech.  We have a duty to our children to  ensure this does not spread further.


----------



## Sean K (29 June 2009)

Humans are animals.

Get over it.


----------



## trainspotter (29 June 2009)

We are getting nowhere. Religion, politics and sex should never be discussed my mother always told me. Seems I didn't listen very well??


----------



## GumbyLearner (29 June 2009)

kennas said:


> Humans are animals.
> 
> Get over it.




But it's too difficult to get over.
I always considered myself a mammal until now.


----------



## Sean K (29 June 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> But it's too difficult to get over.



Yes, is the problem. 



Once there are answers for everything, then gods will no longer have a place.

But, even then, the antique dogma will fight. And fight HARD!!!

There is SO much vested in their position that we should not expect the religious right to give up. EVER.

EVER!

OMFG!!!

What happens when the Catholic Church is proved bunk!!


----------



## gooner (29 June 2009)

kennas said:


> What happens when the Catholic Church is proved bunk!!




kennas

It's the old black swan problem - you can not prove that something does not exist. You can only theorise that it does not exist.

And even if you could prove that God does not exist, some people will still believe that God does exist. Hell, the Pope believes that condoms cause Aids, when the scientific evidence proves otherwise.


----------



## GumbyLearner (29 June 2009)

kennas said:


> Yes, is the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Certainly plenty of money vested 

Another great South Park - Christian Rock Hard

http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/103772


----------



## bellenuit (29 June 2009)

refined silver said:


> .. this viewpoint excludes the possibility that God can exist or intervene in His universe. So it must just be some natural law we don't understand fully yet. This is no different from everything we don't understand must be God.
> 
> Both viewpoints rely on presuppositions to interpret the evidence.




There is a huge difference between the two viewpoints. The difference being - runs on the board.

As scientific knowledge progressed, much of what was not understood, became understood. Those who stuck to the scientific method eventually discovered the answers. Not to everything, of course. But the amount of progress has been enormous and is accelerating.

On the other side you have those who ascribed much of what was not understood to an interventionist God. In EVERY case, they have either lost out to science as scientific knowledge increased, or it still remains not understood. 

It is like a tournament with hundreds of thousands of games being played, but only two sides participating. 90% of the games have being won by the same side and the remaining 10% are still in progress and yet to be decided.


----------



## bellenuit (29 June 2009)

*Re: More Religious Nut's*



gooner said:


> Various religions and people believe the following:
> 
> .....
> - God's name is Mohammed (muslims)




Muslims believe that Mohammed was a prophet, not God. God is Allah. They believe Allah made his revelations to the prophet Mohammed through the Quran


----------



## Old Mate (29 June 2009)

nth brisbanite said:


> Can you tell what that simple logic is as I know many believers who are brilliant academics, successful businessmen, elite sportsmen and just ordinary folks like me?  *Are you saying that these hundreds of millions of people throughout the world are illogical?*  I've got a son-in-law who was the top science student in his state but is a very keen Christian.




Mate that is exactly what I am saying. The phrase "one million/50 million/etc people can't be wrong" is far from true. I think if there is a supreme being up there, down there or wherever he/she/it is, it's nothing like what we imagine. It is arrogant of any human to act as though they know what God is. We know absolutely nothing and as such forcing your beliefs on others in the name of this figure is completely wrong. Not saying every Christian pushes their beliefs by any means, but the group as a whole does, and I can't stand it.


----------



## gooner (29 June 2009)

Old Mate said:


> Mate that is exactly what I am saying. The phrase "one million/50 million/etc people can't be wrong" is far from true. I think if there is a supreme being up there, down there or wherever he/she/it is, it's nothing like what we imagine. It is arrogant of any human to act as though they know what God is. We know absolutely nothing and as such forcing your beliefs on others in the name of this figure is completely wrong. Not saying every Christian pushes their beliefs by any means, but the group as a whole does, and I can't stand it.




There are 8 million scientologists. Given that many people believe that we are descended from aliens, it must be true......... 

And all that scientific work on evolution that has found that animals evolve and that humans are descended from apes is obviously wrong.

Just watched the South Park Scientology episode on SBS - very funny. Amazing that in the 21st century some people still believe all this religious nonsense.


----------



## Old Mate (29 June 2009)

Haha Gooner just saw it as well, great episode. Gotta love South park.


----------



## gooner (29 June 2009)

Old Mate said:


> Haha Gooner just saw it as well, great episode. Gotta love South park.




South Park is always good at laughing at establishment figures and sacred cows.

And children are always good at seeing through all the crap


----------



## Trevor_S (30 June 2009)

http://www.smh.com.au/national/in-the-name-of-the-father--mps-flock-to-jesus-20090629-d2ih.html



> But a new study shows federal MPs are invoking Christian beliefs with increasing frequency to justify their policies and articulate their personal values and visions for the nation




Kinda like "Sharia Law" ?


----------



## gooner (30 June 2009)

Trevor_S said:


> http://www.smh.com.au/national/in-the-name-of-the-father--mps-flock-to-jesus-20090629-d2ih.html
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda like "Sharia Law" ?




Trevor S

Sharia law is simply applying the laws of the Koran, so putting the laws of the bible into Australian law is similar. It happens across many laws from persecution of homosexuals to outlawing of abortion drugs.


----------



## johenmo (3 July 2009)

darkside said:


> Johenmo , perhaps you could become a moderator , that way you can decide what threads stay and go , or if you don't like the look of the thread , don't read it, see the options are numerous. I somehow don't think the rest of the posters on ASF want to be told what posts they can and cant subscribe to by you, but i could be wrong , it would'nt be the first time. !




You're right.  One more thread along the lines of lots of others, regurgitating what has already been said in so many ways won't make much difference.  Point was add to a thread, rather than start (yet) another.

But then this one may head off on a different way, and has as much right as the others of the same general persuasion to exist.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (3 July 2009)

gooner said:


> There are 8 million scientologists. Given that many people believe that we are descended from aliens, it must be true.........
> 
> And all that scientific work on evolution that has found that animals evolve and that humans are descended from apes is obviously wrong.
> 
> Just watched the South Park Scientology episode on SBS - very funny. Amazing that in the 21st century some people still believe all this religious nonsense.




Yes, but seriously, would you send Tom Cruise down to the corner shop with a $20 note to get a pack of Benson and Hedges. He'd get mugged or lose the change or bring back a pack of Drum.

He's not the brightest star in the sky. He was handsome and could remember his lines, and he's had a fair bit of luck, and good on him, but this puppy won't be following him if he decides to do a Jonestown or get into a spaceship.

gg


----------



## darkside (3 July 2009)

johenmo said:


> You're right.  One more thread along the lines of lots of others, regurgitating what has already been said in so many ways won't make much difference.  Point was add to a thread, rather than start (yet) another.
> 
> But then this one may head off on a different way, and has as much right as the others of the same general persuasion to exist.




Wow , i have have even used the search tool on ASF but to no avail , i just can't find another thread on here that even comes remotely close to "church members repeatedly bashing a child to death over the course of a few days , in our so called modern times," perhaps before you jump into the role as "self appointed moderater " you could point them out to me and the other 105 posters to this thread that you originally considered a rant !!!!


----------



## darkside (3 July 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Yes, but seriously, would you send Tom Cruise down to the corner shop with a $20 note to get a pack of Benson and Hedges. He'd get mugged or lose the change or bring back a pack of Drum.
> 
> He's not the brightest star in the sky. He was handsome and could remember his lines, and he's had a fair bit of luck, and good on him, but this puppy won't be following him if he decides to do a Jonestown or get into a spaceship.
> 
> gg




 GG , im not trying to cause trouble here and stir up the populace, but if Tom Cruise jumps in that "spaceship" will John Travolta be flying it , the reason i ask is  he owns a total of five aircrafts including the Boeing 707 and i dont think it would be too much of a transition from commercial jet to "spaceship" and he does look good in that uniform !!!!!


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (3 July 2009)

darkside said:


> GG , im not trying to cause trouble here and stir up the populace, but if Tom Cruise jumps in that "spaceship" will John Travolta be flying it , the reason i ask is  he owns a total of five aircrafts including the Boeing 707 and i dont think it would be too much of a transition from commercial jet to "spaceship" and he does look good in that uniform !!!!!




Agree Darkside mate,

However time is not on their side.

I mean for gawds sake they even got Kerry Packer's son into the den. God knows how much dosh the poor silly bastard put in to the Scientology coffers.

There are historical precedents for this.

The Child Crusades, 400,000 + sailed into salvery
Joan of Arc   A poor lass suffering Schizophrenia
The Lourdes industry
That miracle thing in Croatia that every anaemic new Australian seems to go to.

John Travolta is a nice bloke , I met him once. Never met Tom Cruise. But they are human and prone to human failings, gullibility, delusions etc etc.

gg


----------



## johenmo (3 July 2009)

Darkside et al.  I apologise to all for the TIC use of "strong" terms like ravers/ranters.

Found threads of same intent contained within various threads like Religion gone crazy, Religion preying on our youth etc.  I really thought there were more specific - guess it cmes from trying to remember having read the threads.  I take the intent to be to debate/discuss diff PsOV - as far as I can ascertain. GG even had one to keep religion off ASF - far more restrictive a POV than anythign I've put up.

Have no desire to moderate.  Have a great weekend.

Incidentally there are plenty of religious nuts in the world, and non-religious nuts too.  Don't think anyone deserves to be bashed to death, regardless of circumstances.  And I think I'm right in saying it's agreement that peopel shouldn't hide behind/use things like religion to support their actions -which are just plain wrong.

Cheers


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (3 July 2009)

johenmo said:


> Darkside et al.  I apologise to all for the TIC use of "strong" terms like ravers/ranters.
> 
> Found threads of same intent contained within various threads like Religion gone crazy, Religion preying on our youth etc.  I really thought there were more specific - guess it cmes from trying to remember having read the threads.  I take the intent to be to debate/discuss diff PsOV - as far as I can ascertain. GG even had one to keep religion off ASF - far more restrictive a POV than anythign I've put up.
> 
> ...




Three Hail Marys and a Glory be and you'll be right mate.

Go you are forgiven and put a few delisted scrip in the poor box.

gg


----------



## trainspotter (3 July 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Three Hail Marys and a Glory be and you'll be right mate.
> 
> Go you are forgiven and put a few delisted scrip in the poor box.
> 
> gg




Don't forget to kiss the Popes ring on the way out.


----------



## matty2.0 (3 July 2009)

peterh said:


> I would be interested in hearing your simple logic proving that the Christian God doesn't exist.




I used to NOT believe in God. 

But then I realized that I was God.

=)


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (3 July 2009)

matty2.0 said:


> I used to NOT believe in God.
> 
> But then I realized that I was God.
> 
> =)




Many are chosen, but few are called.

gg


----------



## matty2.0 (3 July 2009)

*Re: More Religious Nut's*



Joe Blow said:


> Bobby, I expect ASF members to show a little more sensitivity to the beliefs of others than you have demonstrated in this post.
> 
> You may not agree with the religious views of others but that is no reason to denigrate them in this way.




I always tell people ... "If God and the Devil can't get along ... how does He expect us to??"


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (3 July 2009)

On a more serious note.

I prefer Religious nuts of my own persuasion than of a different one.

I was baptised RC and have all the biases and dogma of that religion ingrained in me.

I have many Islamist, Hindu, Protestant and other (SDA, Mormon, Shakers, Jewish and LDS) friends.

There are nuts amongst us all.

I am an atheist at the moment, though would like to be buried with RC rites in deference to my ancestors who believed and suffered for their belief.

Lets face it , when you are being buried , its forever and its good to be amongst folk of similar attitude, a bit like avoiding being stuck in a Club Med with Bruno!

The Jamies, Toms and other rich nonentities who assume religion like they would dope or pleasure do not interest me.

Give me a good peasant in Kandahar who can talk about his essence over a night fire rather than some Born Again Monkey on Channel 10 at 6am of a Sunday.

gg


----------



## trainspotter (3 July 2009)

I take my religious nuts to church on every Sunday.


----------



## weird (3 July 2009)

Any religious bemusing is interesting. 

I am still bemused why, after 5 different doctors, why I had 5 different diagnosis of chest pain, and all are considered experts 

... in the world of science, that is ****.

Seems funny that we are so adamant to attack something 'far away', where we have not even come close to treating or understanding something much more closer.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (4 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> I take my religious nuts to church on every Sunday.




Or do you take your nuts, to church every Sunday , religiously?

gg


----------



## Timmy (4 July 2009)

weird said:


> I am still bemused why, after 5 different doctors, why I had 5 different diagnosis of chest pain, and all are considered experts




Hope you get this sorted, Weird, and its nothing serious.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (4 July 2009)

weird said:


> Any religious bemusing is interesting.
> 
> I am still bemused why, after 5 different doctors, why I had 5 different diagnosis of chest pain, and all are considered experts
> 
> ...




When I was a lad it was put down to self abuse, are you guilty of this, beyond the norm ?

gg


----------



## johenmo (4 July 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Three Hail Marys and a Glory be and you'll be right mate.
> 
> Go you are forgiven and put a few delisted scrip in the poor box.
> 
> gg




Thanks GG.  I actually have delisted scrip!!!  Will also partake of some wine for my health (as Jesus said to Timothy) tonight.

Not RC so won't kiss the pope's ring.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (4 July 2009)

johenmo said:


> Thanks GG.  I actually have delisted scrip!!!  Will also partake of some wine for my health (as Jesus said to Timothy) tonight.
> 
> Not RC so won't kiss the pope's ring.




I've never kissed the Popes ring.

I have left that to Berlusconni,

He's kissed so many rings in his time, it would come natural to him.

gg


----------



## weird (4 July 2009)

Timmy said:


> Hope you get this sorted, Weird, and its nothing serious.




I'm ok now, as finally I found, after the 5th attempt a Doctor that correctly diagnosed the issue - it was a stomach ulcer.

I am reading a book at the moment, Black Swan, which truly makes you think about what a so called 'expert' is.  Mine you I would still visit a mechanic for car issues and a doctor for health issues - however I would not blindly follow anyone of their advice.

The initial news link of this thread is disturbing.

The Celestial Church of Christ, performing wilful violence that caused death of 12 year old, "The church members beat the boy repeatedly over a three-day period with reeds and belts and attached him to a cross for the last two days, the position in which he died."

I did a quick wiki search on "Celestial Church of Christ", I don't think you could compare them to any mainstream religious group. The religious nuts category is suiting.


----------



## darkside (4 July 2009)

johenmo said:


> Incidentally there are plenty of religious nuts in the world, and non-religious nuts too.  Don't think anyone deserves to be bashed to death, regardless of circumstances.  And I think I'm right in saying it's agreement that peopel shouldn't hide behind/use things like religion to support their actions -which are just plain wrong.
> 
> Cheers





Thank you for opinion, thats all i was after when starting this thread, was  a discussion as to the right and wrong aspect of using religion to justify cruelty and torment in this day and age and other peoples points of view, not to be berated as a "ranter and raver", hence a forum.

It seems painfully obvious now that regardless of peoples beliefs , this sort of act  cannot and should not be tolerated by society today, which to me is fantastic that we can all agree on that point.

As for GG wanting to keep religion off ASF, that's why we love him , his ability to keep these forums alive through witty banter and controversial statements , lets face it, i go out of my way to read his posts and see who he is winding up next. !!!!


----------



## gooner (6 July 2009)

more religious nuts terrorising a female journalist

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/06/2617502.htm


----------



## Old Mate (6 July 2009)

She clearly deserved it Gooner.


----------



## refined silver (6 July 2009)

bellenuit said:


> There is a huge difference between the two viewpoints. The difference being - runs on the board.
> 
> As scientific knowledge progressed, much of what was not understood, became understood. Those who stuck to the scientific method eventually discovered the answers. Not to everything, of course. But the amount of progress has been enormous and is accelerating.
> 
> ...




Not quite so fast there.

A biblical belief is that God created a physical universe governed by laws. These laws can be investigated and discovered. Many of the early modern scientists were devout Christians - Newton, Kepler, Pascal, Faraday etc.

This in no way excludes God from acting IN his universe, or from answering prayer, or from including moral laws and consequences, as well as physical laws.

To suggest that discovering physical laws disproves God is to totally misunderstand the basic premise of Christianity (and others).


----------



## Mr J (6 July 2009)

refined silver said:


> Many of the early modern scientists were devout Christians - Newton, Kepler, Pascal, Faraday etc.




That is misleading. As far as I'm aware, Newton was not the typical christian, and Pascal of course among many things known for his Pascal's Wager. It could be suggested that his religious actions were just insurance. Regardless, we must also consider that these men still lived in extremely religious times, so it should be expected that they are more likely to be religious than those today. 

The vast majority of today's great thinkers are atheist, agnostic or spiritual, but not religious.



> To suggest that discovering physical laws disproves God is to totally misunderstand the basic premise of Christianity




Nothing we have discovered disproves God, and few intelligent people would much such a statement. However, we have discovered much that was previously explained by religion, enough that many people seriously question the existence of a diety, and even rule it out completely.


----------



## bunyip (6 July 2009)

About two weeks ago there was a horrific story on TV about African tribes who have accepted Christianity, at least in theory, but still retain many ancient beliefs, customs and superstitions from their pre-Christian era, including a belief in witches.
The women of the tribe consult their priest about misfortune that has befallen them, such as sickness in the family, or crop failure resulting in famine. The priest claims that God has given him the power to identify witches disguised as children. During a church service he points to one of their children and declares the child to be a  witch who is putting evil curses on the family and the tribe to cause their misfortune.
The priest, assisted by members of the congregation, then proceeds to subject the poor little kid (the witch) to various forms of torture such as beating hell out of them, dripping hot candle wax on their skin, burning their skin with firesticks, and various other barbaric acts.
The 'witch' is ostracised by the tribe, including the child's parents who usually end up disowning the 'witch', and banishing him or her from the tribe. Thousands of street kids are on the streets because the priest of their village declared them witches, and the tribe turfed them out.

The family of the 'witch' happily pay the priests around $200 for their witch-busting services. Rather then being upset that one of their children has been declared a witch, the mothers seem quite pleased that the evil witch has been revealed. The family relish joining in the torture of their own child.

It absolutely broke my heart to see the graphic footage of these poor innocent little kids getting beaten and their skin burnt by hot wax or burning sticks - all in the name of God - while the poor little kid cried its eyes out. 
It's times like this when I think _'OK, if God exists and he's a God of compassion and love, as taught in the Christian religion, why does he sit by and allow that sort of thing to happen to innocent children - why doesn't he intervene'?_


----------



## gooner (6 July 2009)

Not just in third world countries

Babies have died and been infected with herpes from circumcision. This story is New York.

Extract follows

"Under Jewish law, the mohel is required to draw blood from the circumcision site, ostensibly to remove what the Old Testament refers to as "impurities" and what we might interpret today as germs. The thought, back then, was that a flow of blood away from the circumcision site would carry these potentially dangerous entities away from the baby. But the traditional way to do this, a practice called Metzizah bi peh, calls for the mohel to use his mouth and suck out the blood.

To be sure, this peculiar means of viral spread remains rare. Nevertheless, there have been 11 cases of male babies who contracted herpes following circumcisions that included Metzizah bi peh reported over the past 5 years in New York, Canada, and Israel. In 2005, there were 4 infected babies in New York City and all of them were circumcised by the same New York-based mohel (who only recently was persuaded to take a prolonged vacation from his line of work).

According to Dr. Thomas Frieden, New York City's Commissioner of Health, coincidence is not an explanatory option. "There is no reasonable doubt that the practice of Metzizah bi peh has infected several infants in New York City with the herpes virus, including one child who has died and another who has evidence of brain damage," said Dr. Frieden."

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/545756


----------



## gooner (7 July 2009)

"Cop charged after church camp 'exorcism'

The Lutheran Church has confirmed a police officer has been charged with false imprisonment and aggravated assault after an alleged exorcism at a youth camp in South Australia.

Three camp leaders have been charged over the incident, including the 28-year-old off-duty senior constable.

A 15-year-old boy was allegedly restrained for 12 hours after complaining of stomach pains.

The church says 260 youths attended the camp in the Barossa Valley in April.

The president of the Lutheran Church in South Australia and the Northern Territory, the Reverend Robert Voigt, says the church is providing counselling to the boy and his parents.

"What I would like to say to parents is please continue to trust us," he said.

"We have acted quickly in relation to this event."

The police officer has been suspended from duty and the three camp leaders have been released on bail."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/07/2619409.htm


----------



## weird (7 July 2009)

Wrong, wrong and wrong ... religious nut again, but very outside the practice of their membership, with consideration to the Lutheran Church being more mainstream, pretty much a scout leader abusing their authority. Yup, it's sick.

Can give very sick examples of non-religious abuse of powers, but I think we get the point.


----------



## Trevor_S (10 July 2009)

http://www.smh.com.au/world/strange...tree-stump-looks-like-mary-20090710-dfcx.html



> Thousands of Irish Catholics have flocked this week to a County Limerick church to pray at the stump of a recently cut willow that many observers say, has the silhouette of the Virgin Mary.


----------



## Sunder (10 July 2009)

Trevor_S said:


> http://www.smh.com.au/world/strange...tree-stump-looks-like-mary-20090710-dfcx.html






> "You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or 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. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God"




... On the other hand God, if you just so happen to leave something our imaginations can interpret as a likeness, we'll go flock to it.

Religion gives Christianity a bad name.


----------



## Trevor_S (14 July 2009)

http://www.smh.com.au/world/catholics-riot-over-protestant-parade-20090714-dj07.html



> Masked and hooded Belfast Catholics hurled petrol bombs, fireworks and other makeshift weapons at police on Monday




The meaning behind the sermon on the mount escaped these guys ?  You know, the sermon made by CHRIST, the one the espouse to follow by being CHRISTians ?

Blessed are the peacemakers, blessed are the meek... this ring a bell ?


----------



## bunyip (15 July 2009)

Trevor_S said:


> http://www.smh.com.au/world/catholics-riot-over-protestant-parade-20090714-dj07.html
> 
> 
> 
> ...




No problem, Trevor - those fellers would have been in the confessional box within a day or two of hurling petrol bombs etc. 
_'Forgive me Father, for I have sinned'._
The priest tells them they've been naughty boys, don't do it again, say half a dozen Hail Mary's and off they go with a clean slate. 
They get to do whatever they want, then head off to Mass to square things up with the Lord!
It's a great system - a fine example of religious nuttery at its best!


----------



## bellenuit (15 July 2009)

bunyip said:


> No problem, Trevor - those fellers would have been in the confessional box within a day or two of hurling petrol bombs etc.
> _'Forgive me Father, for I have sinned'._
> The priest tells them they've been naughty boys, don't do it again, say half a dozen Hail Mary's and off they go with a clean slate.
> They get to do whatever they want, then head off to Mass to square things up with the Lord!
> It's a great system - a fine example of religious nuttery at its best!




Although I am no longer a follower of any religion, I think it would be wrong to  put what is happening in Northern Ireland either in the last few days or in the past 50 years down to religious nuttery.

The NI conflict was often mistakenly seen as a religious war. It never was. It was a civil war where, due to historical reasons, the political divide also coincided with the religious divide. 

Brevity forces me to make generalisations, but the republican side originates from the original inhabitants of that part of Ireland and Ireland was a country that was predominantly Catholic and the loyalist side are descendants of Scottish settlers/soldiers who arrived more recently and were of Protestant background. Republicans want NI to join the Irish Republic and have a one island state, as it originally was. The loyalists want to maintain NI as part of the UK as that was how all of Ireland was when they first went there (it was an English colony so to speak).

Had both sides been the same religion, I still believe you would have had pretty much the same conflict. 

Although the religious divide reinforced the political divide, each side in the conflict weren't doing what they were doing on behalf of their religion. That was just coincidental.

The Catholic youths throwing petrol bombs and stones at police are not doing so on behalf of the Pope or on behalf of anyone in the Catholic Church. Like most modern youth, they probably never or rarely go to Church and don't give a stuff about religion. They certainly don't go to confession to ask for forgiveness for their deeds as you suggest and then start all over again. From what I have read, they are being incited to violence by republican factions that want the peace process to fail.

There are many examples of religious nuttery, but this is not one of them.


----------



## Timmy (15 July 2009)

bellenuit said:


> Although I am no longer a follower of any religion, I think it would be wrong to  put what is happening in Northern Ireland either in the last few days or in the past 50 years down to religious nuttery.
> 
> The NI conflict was often mistakenly seen as a religious war. It never was. It was a civil war where, due to historical reasons, the political divide also coincided with the religious divide.
> 
> ...




Nice summary bellenuit.  Can I add one thing (& just imho) - this violence more or less disappeared for the past 10 years or so, which happened to coincide with good economic opportunities in NI (global boom etc.).  I am not surprised the violence has resurfaced with diminished economic opportunity recently.


----------



## bunyip (15 July 2009)

bellenuit said:


> Although I am no longer a follower of any religion, I think it would be wrong to  put what is happening in Northern Ireland either in the last few days or in the past 50 years down to religious nuttery.
> 
> The NI conflict was often mistakenly seen as a religious war. It never was. It was a civil war where, due to historical reasons, the political divide also coincided with the religious divide.
> 
> ...






I agree....the problems in Northern Ireland are not religious in nature. I know quite a bit about Northern Ireland and quite a bit about the Irish Catholic church, thanks to my Irish wife who was born and raised a Catholic in Ireland. She practiced the religion for the first quarter of a century of her life until she rejected it because she could no longer embrace its teachings and values.

 The 'religious nuttery' I was referring to is the belief that no matter what your sins, they're forgiven as soon as you confess them to a priest in a confession box.
This outdated practice fosters an attitude in some people that they can commit sin with impunity, secure in the belief that each visit to the priest in the confession box will wipe their slate clean.

I'd be very surprised indeed if at least some of the Irish petrol bombers don't go to confession to ask for forgiveness for their deeds and then start all over again.
Many figures from the Melbourne underworld and the US Mafia are/were well known for their regular visits to the confessional box.


----------



## Timmy (15 July 2009)

Getting back on track:

Boy starved for not saying Amen

_"TWO women members of a fanatical religious cult are accused of starving a toddler to death after the boy refused to say "Amen" after meals.

...

Antoinette told her followers to pray for the boy's resurrection after he died, police said.

She ultimately placed his body inside a suitcase that the cult members hid behind a house in Philadelphia for more than a year before it was found by investigators, police said."_


----------



## Boggo (15 July 2009)

Timmy said:


> Nice summary bellenuit.  Can I add one thing (& just imho) - this violence more or less disappeared for the past 10 years or so, which happened to coincide with good economic opportunities in NI (global boom etc.).  I am not surprised the violence has resurfaced with diminished economic opportunity recently.




So often I see commentary on this issue with Northern Ireland either complicated or simplified and usually due the only knowledge and influence being that which is formed by the media.
In most cases a level ignorance of reality and history is evident and the attitude that "I know FA about the place but" combined with a bit of media sensationalism and we are all suddenly experts.

Have a think about this for a minute...

Vikings and French also invaded Ireland, and Irish have no argument with them today. Vikings who invaded Ireland don't claim to be Norwegian after 1100 years! Normans don't claim to be French after 800 years! Nor do they in Britain, so English have no quarrel with them today. And Welsh (original British) don't have any problem with Germany because of Anglo-Saxon invasion, etc etc. 

But Protestants or 'British' of Northern Ireland, after 350 years, cannot unite with Irish. 

To understand from Australian point of view, imagine if a million Indonesians settled in Queensland, cordoned off a tract of land to give themselves an artificial majority and claimed it was legitimately part of Indonesia, and even backed it up with elections! 
Now imagine the year is 2350 AD and they still refuse to recognise they have any connection to Australia, and they parade down the streets celebrating a 300 year old battle against Australian Army. 

The marches in Northern Ireland basically celebrate Protestant British victories from battles in the 17th century! The Irish don't celebrate their 16th or 20th century victories, not even in the Republic. The Protestants are entitled to live in Ireland but surely they should recognise that the Irish are also entitled to equal respect in their own country! 

No simple solution there, but you can't expect the Irish to just forget everything while part of the country is under British occupation? Would you suggest forgetting everything if Indonesia captured Queensland? I doubt it. 

Would this be a religious issue or a political invasion issue.

Based on the some of the comments I have seen here the simple bogan primary school level history answer would be that its religious because of those Muslims.

Religion in this situation is just another way of identifying the potential supporters of any "side", stick to the topic of religion and the inherent issues associated with the various beliefs rather than mixing apples and oranges.


----------



## Timmy (15 July 2009)

I have read and reread your post Boggo, I wonder if you read mine, the one you quoted?  

I have tried to correlate the reduction in violence in NI with the increased economic opportunity there over the past decade.  That's all, and, imho (no claims on being an expert, and no claims on knowing FA about the place either).

There has been reduced violence in recent years and now it appears to be increasing.  This is not because the 350 of years of history were forgotten and suddenly have been remembered again.  

You say I "can't expect the Irish to just forget ...etc"  I didn't?


----------



## Boggo (15 July 2009)

Timmy said:


> I have read and reread your post Boggo, I wonder if you read mine, the one you quoted?
> 
> I have tried to correlate the reduction in violence in NI with the increased economic opportunity there over the past decade.  That's all, and, imho (no claims on being an expert, and no claims on knowing FA about the place either).
> 
> ...




I wasn't actually directing it a you or anyone in particular Timmy, just used your post as a link to the subject as it was the last one.
My comments are generic based on many of the previous comments where the quirks and anomalies of religion somehow seem to be incorrectly and simplistically associated with problems associated with the last bastion of invasion chest thumping that exists in the civilised world.


----------



## Timmy (15 July 2009)

Boggo said:


> I wasn't actually directing it a you or anyone in particular Timmy, just used your post as a link to the subject as it was the last one.
> My comments are generic based on many of the previous comments where the quirks and anomalies of religion somehow seem to be incorrectly and simplistically associated with problems associated with the last bastion of invasion chest thumping that exists in the civilised world.




Thanks Boggo - had me scratching my head a bit.


----------



## darkside (16 July 2009)

Timmy said:


> Getting back on track:
> 
> Boy starved for not saying Amen
> 
> ...




See, that is disgracefull, and once again comes back to using religion to justify harm, torture and eventual death , now i'm no rocket scientist but i believe that no amount of prayer from the" fanatical wackjob" Antoinette will bring the child back !!!!!!


----------



## bunyip (17 July 2009)

What better example of religious nuts than the scum who targeted non-Muslims by bombing the Indonesian hotels today.
These clowns invariably kill fellow Muslims as well, but that never seems to bother them.
The Muslim religion is a disgrace.....what sort of religion has *'Kill the infidels' *(non-believers) as part of its code of ethics!

Muslims can talk all they like about their 'religion of peace', and how the actions of a few radicals are not representative of the religion as a whole. But they can't escape the fact that their religion encourages and promotes the killing of innocent people.


----------



## Bobby (17 July 2009)

bunyip said:


> What better example of religious nuts than the scum who targeted non-Muslims by bombing the Indonesian hotels today.
> These clowns invariably kill fellow Muslims as well, but that never seems to bother them.
> The Muslim religion is a disgrace.....what sort of religion has *'Kill the infidels' *(non-believers) as part of its code of ethics!
> 
> Muslims can talk all they like about their 'religion of peace', and how the actions of a few radicals are not representative of the religion as a whole. But they can't escape the fact that their religion encourages and promotes the killing of innocent people.




Well said !  , yes religious nuts are pure evil , see who pops up to argue this ?


----------



## darkside (17 July 2009)

Bobby said:


> Well said !  , yes religious nuts are pure evil , see who pops up to argue this ?




Well obviously people who believe the  means justifies the end ,and that torture and death in the name of religion, regardless of which  deity you subscibe to is ok . !!!! Thats your answer!


----------



## ktrianta (17 July 2009)

Pure evil now that is an interesting term. If we are nothing more than rearranged pond scum, then on what basis can we say that anything is evil or good? It seems to me that you are borrowing religious terminolgy to make your point. 

Fundamentalist athiests or religious extremists they are all the same due to their intolerance.


----------



## darkside (17 July 2009)

ktrianta said:


> Pure evil now that is an interesting term. If we are nothing more than rearranged pond scum, then on what basis can we say that anything is evil or good? It seems to me that you are borrowing religious terminolgy to make your point.
> 
> Fundamentalist athiests or religious extremists they are all the same due to their intolerance.




No, we are not borrowing religious terminology to make "any point", every post in this thread makes reference to religion being used to justify torture and cruelty, the only debate in the matter is whether or not it's right, not are athiests or believers more or less evil than each other.!


----------



## Bobby (17 July 2009)

darkside said:


> Well obviously people who believe the  means justifies the end ,and that torture and death in the name of religion, regardless of which  deity you subscibe to is ok . !!!! Thats your answer!




You know whats really scary Darkside, its the huge numbers of those brain dead puppets who roam this planet !


----------



## ktrianta (17 July 2009)

darkside said:


> the only debate in the matter is whether or not it's right,!





Sorry Darkside, but you are just using a different word know and borrowing from religious terminology again. Albeit your term this time is a little less inflammatory.

Right (or wrong) is a moral term and morality without refence to absolutes is meaningless. 

So if we are nothing more than rearranged pond scum how can you say what is right or wrong?


----------



## Bobby (17 July 2009)

ktrianta said:


> Fundamentalist athiests or religious extremists they are all the same due to their intolerance.




No , what fundamentalist atheist extremist group bomb innocents ?

As for pond life those creatures are lucky  enough to not have found religion yet


----------



## darkside (17 July 2009)

ktrianta said:


> Sorry Darkside, but you are just using a different word know and borrowing from religious terminology again. Albeit your term this time is a little less inflammatory.
> 
> Right (or wrong) is a moral term and morality without refence to absolutes is meaningless.
> 
> So if we are nothing more than rearranged pond scum how can you say what is right or wrong?




While you are busy arguing semantics, the rest of us are here to discuss our opinions, which are obviously based on our own points of reference.
Now, the question is do you believe that killing people in the name of religion is right or wrong?  If right, why?  If wrong, why?  But don't tie up the board with all this other crap!


----------



## darkside (17 July 2009)

Bobby said:


> No , what fundamentalist atheist extremist group bomb innocents ?
> 
> As for pond life those creatures are lucky  enough to not have found religion yet




Bobby, so true!


----------



## bunyip (17 July 2009)

ktrianta said:


> Sorry Darkside, but you are just using a different word know and borrowing from religious terminology again. Albeit your term this time is a little less inflammatory.
> 
> Right (or wrong) is a moral term and morality without refence to absolutes is meaningless.
> 
> So if we are nothing more than rearranged pond scum how can you say what is right or wrong?




Enough prattle about 'religious terminology' and 'reference to absolutes' and 'rearranged pond scum' and all the other crap you're going on with.

Do you believe it's OK to kill innocent people in the name of religion?
Yes or no?


----------



## Bobby (17 July 2009)

bunyip said:


> Enough prattle about 'religious terminology' and 'reference to absolutes' and 'rearranged pond scum' and all the other crap you're going on with.
> 
> Do you believe it's OK to kill innocent people in the name of religion?
> Yes or no?




Good luck Bunyip if we get a reply , notice all the god lovers are absent to-night , maybe the all powerful god found todays bombing entertaining


----------



## weird (17 July 2009)

Bobby said:


> Good luck Bunyip if we get a reply , notice all the god lovers are absent to-night , maybe the all powerful god found todays bombing entertaining





Stupid comment ... no offense Bobby.

Believe yesterday there were some pictures of dog which had it's ears cut off.

There are sick people, and some have enough charisma for other sick people to follow them ... we feel safe by calling them a 'nut'.

Lived in Muslim countries and with Muslim families, while the countries usually aren't as developed as ours, they do as a normal representation, have similar beliefs as most people in our society, that is, killing is wrong, and planning a Jihad, has less priority over welcoming guests of any religion.

As I mentioned above, the nut that cut off the ears of the dog is a nut.  He or she, could be a member of the bowls club, library, even a donater to the cancer foundation, I don't believe cutting off the ears of dog is part of any of their clubs or organizations.


----------



## Bobby (17 July 2009)

weird said:


> Stupid comment ... no offense Bobby.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




No offence taken weird , inconsequential reply.


----------



## trainspotter (17 July 2009)

weird said:


> As I mentioned above, the nut that cut off the ears of the dog is a nut.  He or she, could be a member of the bowls club, library, even a donater to the cancer foundation, I don't believe cutting off the ears of dog is part of any of their clubs or organizations.




*Except for that weird nut club that cuts the ears of dogs.* 

*Like this freak:* A BRISBANE man could face jail if found guilty of cutting the ears off an eight-week-old puppy with a pair of scissors, the RSPCA said today. Inspectors from the animal welfare group seized the American staffordshire terrier south of Brisbane at the weekend after a tip-off about a cruelly mutilated animal.

The ears had been cut off to make the puppy “look tough”, a practice that is carried out in illegal dog fighting circles, RSPCA inspector Daniel Young said today. “It's an eight-week old American staffy male pup,” Mr Young said. “We received information about a dog having its ears chopped off. “We attended the address and located the pup, obviously with no ears, and we've spoken to a person of interest who later admitted to chopping its ears off with scissors.”

The dog had received no sedation or pain relief following its ordeal.

Mr Young said he was appalled someone would inflict such pain on an animal, particularly one so young. “I have seen dogs with their ears chopped off in the past, but I've never seen an eight-week pup with its ears cut off.”

The pup has now been temporarily fostered with a Brisbane family.

It was starting to recover and had suffered no damage to its hearing, but would be scarred for life. Mr Young said a man in his early 20s was under investigation.

Police said any charges would be laid by RSPCA inspectors under the Animal Care and Protection Act, which carries a maximum $75,000 fine and two years in prison.

The RSPCA was hoping any penalty imposed would act as a deterrent to others. “Magistrates are starting to realise that issues like this are not tolerated by the public and are starting to give heftier fines,” Mr Young said.

The RSPCA hoped the dog would soon find a caring, permanent home.


----------



## Sunder (17 July 2009)

bunyip said:


> Enough prattle about 'religious terminology' and 'reference to absolutes' and 'rearranged pond scum' and all the other crap you're going on with.
> 
> Do you believe it's OK to kill innocent people in the name of religion?
> Yes or no?




I think we've already established sufficiently that anyone can be a nut, and kill and torture in the name of anything or nothing.


----------



## gooner (17 July 2009)

Sunder said:


> I think we've already established sufficiently that anyone can be a nut, and kill and torture in the name of anything or nothing.




Not aware of any killings in the name of atheism, but happy to be corrected. Religion and communism appear to hold the Gold and Silver medals


----------



## weird (17 July 2009)

gooner said:


> Not aware of any killings in the name of atheism, but happy to be corrected. Religion and communism appear to hold the Gold and Silver medals




I don't think anyone has done anything in the name of atheism except publish books. Null point.

The concept of atheism, perhaps may have been one agreeable argument to some serial killers, angry husbands/wives, non-religious 'nuts', and just your garden variety general criminals which had another person accidental death happen or any other variation.

But I am sure there were a few other emotions going through their head which lead to the butchery, other than the grand concept of life and its amazement, and why it's wrong to play the role of executioner.


----------



## Bobby (17 July 2009)

weird said:


> I don't think anyone has done anything in the name of atheism except publish books. Null point.
> 
> The concept of atheism, perhaps may have been one agreeable argument to some serial killers, angry husbands/wives, non-religious 'nuts', and just your garden variety general criminals which had another person accidental death happen or any other variation.
> 
> But I am sure there were a few other emotions going through their head which lead to the butchery, other than the grand concept of life and its amazement, and why it's wrong to play the role of executioner.




Sheezzz weird , you got to tell us the induction requirements to your church


----------



## weird (17 July 2009)

Bobby said:


> Sheezzz weird , you got to tell us the induction requirements to your church




lol, Bobby,  I am a Catholic, and read and understand everyone's criticisms to it, on other threads. I believe there is enough information already available on the web to respond, otherwise go see an f#$@ing priest (yup we are allowed to swear).


----------



## Bobby (17 July 2009)

weird said:


> Lil, Bobby,  I am a Catholic, and read and understand everyone's criticisms to it, on other threads. I believe there is enough information already available on the web to respond, otherwise go see an f#$@ing priest (yup we are allowed to swear).




Thanks for the reply , at least you have the guts to say , nice to see a godly person swear , bless you my son


----------



## weird (18 July 2009)

Bobby said:


> Thanks for the reply , at least you have the guts to say , nice to see a godly person swear , bless you my son




That's an interesting comment Bobby, about being a 'godly person', which is actually what most practicing people battle against the most.  Hence we seek forgiveness for failing.

I think being a godly person, is not about perfection, but reflecting, and trying to improve oneself, but also understanding that some people can be such dicks (not reflected to this forum, but real life), but yet being able to pray for them, but still not without protecting yourself.


----------



## wayneL (18 July 2009)

gooner said:


> Not aware of any killings in the name of atheism, but happy to be corrected. Religion and communism appear to hold the Gold and Silver medals



I stand to be corrected, but I believe The Soviets forcibly enforced atheism and killed to that end... i.e. banned religion.

Perhaps the Khmer Rouge as well?


----------



## Bobby (18 July 2009)

weird said:


> That's an interesting comment Bobby, about being a 'godly person', which is actually what most practicing people battle against the most.  Hence we seek forgiveness for failing.
> 
> I think being a godly person, is not about perfection, but reflecting, and trying to improve oneself, but also understanding that some people can be such dicks.




Yes you have a point there !

Although I'm a atheist I do remember an event back in the 70s when I was a half believer,  one night when doing the business with a young woman I'd picked up at a wine bar I said help me lord , needed some help being so pissed  

From memory it went like this '  *Oh lord up above , give me strength for one more shove ,* then a voice*Oh son down below move over & give GOD a go *.
.
 Well I was blown away , would you like to know more ?


----------



## refined silver (18 July 2009)

gooner said:


> Not aware of any killings in the name of atheism, but happy to be corrected. Religion and communism appear to hold the Gold and Silver medals




Every communist atrocity IS in the name of atheism. Militant atheism is at the heart of communism.

The atheism provides the rationale for the atrocities. There is no Judgement Day. Life is just matter, random chemicals. Evolution is survival of the fittest. It's nature's way.


----------



## bellenuit (18 July 2009)

refined silver said:


> Every communist atrocity IS in the name of atheism. Militant atheism is at the heart of communism.
> 
> The atheism provides the rationale for the atrocities. There is no Judgement Day. Life is just matter, random chemicals. Evolution is survival of the fittest. It's nature's way.




Utter nonsense. Atheism purely means one doesn't believe in a God. Nothing more. There is no agenda associated with it. 

The fact that some communist dictators tried to ban religion is a power issue. Because of the influence religion had on people, it was seen by them as a threat to their absolute power. The only allegiance allowed was to them selves, not to any religious group or ethnic group.

Atheism makes no statement whatsoever about what other people believe or don't believe.  It is only a statement about one's own belief.

There is no such thing as a fundamentalist atheist, a phrase that was used in a previous post. What on earth is a fundamentalist atheist? An atheist doesn't believe in God. A fundamentalist Atheist?  He really really really doesn't believe in God!

Should an atheist try to impose his views on others, than that is a personal power issue and nothing more. There is nothing in the statement "I don't believe in God" that states or implies anything beyond those simple words.


----------



## wayneL (18 July 2009)

bellanuit,

Your point is arguable. Turn the thing around and many religious atrocities come down to issues of power as well.

I think some atheist CAN rightly be described as fundamentalist, these are folk who:

actively proselytize for the athiest... umm, cause.
are offended by religious beliefs 
use logical fallacy to support their views, words and actions.

For instance, there was a series of ads on the London underground and buses last year advertising atheism, paid for by Dawkin's mob.

All the hallmarks of fundamentalism there.

N'est-ce pas, bellanuit?


----------



## wayneL (18 July 2009)

bellanuit,

BTW, are you named after the duet, or visa-versa?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wd3_8AfOFFg


----------



## Sean K (18 July 2009)

I agree Athiests can be fundamental in a sense. Dawkinsesque.

But atrocities in the name of Atheism? Nope.

It's just humans being humans with nothing extraterestrial or mythical attached.


----------



## Tink (18 July 2009)

kennas said:


> It's just humans being humans




I would have thought you all would have opened a gun debate by now..

'Gun nuts'....Lets all ban hunting.....I mean, they are all dangerous with that gun arent they?

Is it the gun that kills people, or is it people that kill people?

Its the same debate..


----------



## ktrianta (18 July 2009)

darkside said:


> While you are busy arguing semantics, the rest of us are here to discuss our opinions, which are obviously based on our own points of reference.
> Now, the question is do you believe that killing people in the name of religion is right or wrong?  If right, why?  If wrong, why?  But don't tie up the board with all this other crap!




Darkside,

Clearly you cannot tell me what is right or wrong so how can I answer your question?


----------



## Sean K (18 July 2009)

Tink said:


> I would have thought you all would have opened a gun debate by now..
> 
> 'Gun nuts'....Lets all ban hunting.....I mean, they are all dangerous with that gun arent they?
> 
> ...



Yes, people will always kill people.

Let's just not arm them to do so then.

Less damage that way.


----------



## Tink (18 July 2009)

kennas said:


> Yes, people will always kill people.
> 
> Let's just not arm them to do so then.
> 
> Less damage that way.




OK well then you better shut down all the Mental Health Units then, seems to be a big reason as well........


----------



## Sean K (18 July 2009)

Tink said:


> OK well then you better shut down all the Mental Health Units then, seems to be a big reason as well........



Sorry, I thought you were making an analogy to religion being the cause of violence, like guns. 

ie, it's people, not religion, that is the source of the problem. 

Not sure how mental health units comes in to it.


----------



## Tink (18 July 2009)

kennas said:


> ie, it's people, *not religion,* that is the source of the problem.




Thats exactly right...


----------



## Sean K (18 July 2009)

Tink said:


> Thats exactly right...



I was trying to confirm what your intent was.

So, you are saying that religion to killing is the same as guns are to killing. 

OK.


----------



## Timmy (18 July 2009)

Re: More Religious Nuts

Yet to come to court, alleged:

A South Australian police officer has been charged with trying to perform an exorcism on a teenager at a church youth camp

From the article:  _It's alleged the three restrained the boy after he complained of stomach pains in an incident that allegedly went for about 12 hours._

 12 hours!

Another article on the same incident:
Cop 'performs exorcism on teen boy'

On the bright side, the church:
_does not endorse or encourage any actions which are abusive or which results in the limitations or freedoms of any individual
_
Which is nice.

Meanwhile, back at the Police Station:
"Look, we covered this in basic training Officer Plod; all you have to do is read him his rights, no exorcisms, right?"


----------



## darkside (18 July 2009)

kennas said:


> Sorry, I thought you were making an analogy to religion being the cause of violence, like guns.
> 
> ie, it's people, not religion, that is the source of the problem.
> 
> Not sure how mental health units comes in to it.




  How did you go Kennas, did you make any sense of those posts or like me , had no idea what that was about. I am thought of thinking , maybe Tink was replying to a different thread and posted on this one by mistake, that is the only explanation i can come up with .


----------



## darkside (18 July 2009)

Timmy said:


> Re: More Religious Nuts
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, back at the Police Station:
> "Look, we covered this in basic training Officer Plod; all you have to do is read him his rights, no exorcisms, right?"






Haha, your too funny !!


----------



## Julia (18 July 2009)

[


trainspotter said:


> *Except for that weird nut club that cuts the ears of dogs.* .........................



Could anyone posting this sort of stuff please just briefly mention the subject and then post a link to the actual descriptive article.

I would much rather not have started reading this, and now feel quite sick.
Those who want to read detailed descriptions of cruelty to animals can access that if they like, but please, don't expose all of us to this.

Yes, I know I shall be considered an unrealistic wuss.  Can't help it.
Just find cruelty to animals immensely distressing.


----------



## trainspotter (18 July 2009)

Sorry Julia. Please accept my sincere apologies on this matter. I will paste the links in future. You are not being wussy at all. Dog lovers unite !


----------



## Agentm (18 July 2009)

weird said:


> Stupid comment ... no offense Bobby.
> 
> Believe yesterday there were some pictures of dog which had it's ears cut off.
> 
> ...




hey weird, your a man who lived in muslim countries and you never noticed how badly they treat their women?

when you criticise someone as a nut for cutting the ears off a dog, and claim muslums are so wonderful, then why do they still partake in the barbaric practice of tahara.. which is plainly hacking or cutting, or lets use a nicer sanitary  clinical term, circumcise the clitoris, so these  young female muslim girls will be made less promiscuous

so its only muslim men who are not promiscuous.. what a joke, what an insult.. call that religion??

religion is way off course, its been male dominated for too long, catholicism is as bad as any.. 

to me the ears being cut off a dog ranks second to what muslims do to their young females..


----------



## weird (18 July 2009)

Agentm said:


> hey weird, your a man who lived in muslim countries and you never noticed how badly they treat their women?
> 
> when you criticise someone as a nut for cutting the ears off a dog, and claim muslums are so wonderful, then why do they still partake in the barbaric practice of tahara.. which is plainly hacking or cutting, or lets use a nicer sanitary  clinical term, circumcise the clitoris, so these  young female muslim girls will be made less promiscuous
> 
> ...




Lived in Indonesia (largest Muslim country in the world, and 4th largest in population in the world) and Malaysia, and certainly not aware of female genital mutilation occurring in the mainstream of the population.

Wiki has an interesting article,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutting

Note the following,

"Amnesty International says that the prevalence of the practice of FGC is unknown, and that the procedure is now only practiced by some Muslims and Animists.[41] The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services states that the custom of FGC "cuts across religions and is practiced by Muslims, Christians, Jews and followers of indigenous religions."[42]" 

Anyhow, there are a lot of cultural influences which affect practicing of any religion or belief system, so it is difficult to use a wide brush when writing criticism.

Also in Indonesia, they did elect a female president, so not so sure about the suppressing of women, in all Muslim counties anyhow ... I don't believe Indonesians feel they are any less Muslim than other Muslim countries. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megawati_Sukarnoputri


----------



## Agentm (18 July 2009)

lol

in egypt over 80% of women still have this done

i dont ignore how religion treats women at all. i condemn it

i dont ignore how catholics dissallow women to teach the holy gospel

women are equal, and can teach it like any other

wake up and smell the roses.. or rosey in your case..

there was a pope, who even forgot to speak out against Nazism.. 

religion fails humanity and fails women..

time for a recheck on the whole idea these muslims can terrorise me into cowering to them, and that the catholics can only present a narrow view of outdated beliefs to the people who genuinely need faith

religion fails to achieve the objectives of giving faith, when it misses the point of what you have to represent to qualify as something that can inspire faith in the human heart

religion today is totally nuts!!


----------



## weird (18 July 2009)

Agentm said:


> lol
> 
> in egypt over 80% of women still have this done
> 
> ...




The whole debate of whether women should be allowed to become priests is not something I have thought about, you would think with the decline in people wanting to become priests, which is similar to people not wanting to stay on the family farm, that it would be a good recruiting opportunity.  

However your statement of women not being able to teach the gospel, is not correct, as you have sunday school teachers, readers as part of church service , catechists, and missionaries etc. 

Love and respect women, and how they compliment men, as we do them.


----------



## bellenuit (18 July 2009)

wayneL said:


> bellanuit,
> 
> Your point is arguable. Turn the thing around and many religious atrocities come down to issues of power as well.
> 
> ...




Ce n'est pas.

I certainly agree with your statement: "Turn the thing around and many religious atrocities come down to issues of power as well."

Just because one follows a religion doesn't make that religion responsible for one's every action. Even some actions that are done in the name of some religion, may be done purely as a power play, rather than adherence to that religion's dogma. Tyrants/terrorists will use whatever can assist them in their goals, whether it is religion, nationalism or ethnicity. However, there is no denying that the teachings or dogmas of many religions are motivation for some people to commit atrocities or repugnant acts. It would be fairly safe to say that suicide bombers commit their acts, not for their own personal gain (at least in this life), but because they believe they are following the teachings of their faith.

Atheism does not have a dogma or any sort of teachings. Neither does deism (in its truest sense). Because deists do not believe in an interventionist God, there is no dogma to follow.  A fundamentalist deist is just as nonsensical as a fundamentalist atheist. It is just as nonsensical as classifying those who do not believe in aliens as fundamentalist or non-fundamentalist. Fundamentalism, IMO, means strict adherence to teachings or a dogma, no matter how irrational they may be. Refusing to budge in one's opinion, when contradictory evidence is proven beyond doubt. Religion goes beyond deism or the simple belief that there is a god and introduces the concept of an interventionist God, who prescribes how we are to act through so-called revelations. This is where the teachings and dogmas come in and allows us to then differentiate between fundamentalist and non-fundamentalist in relation to adherence to those teachings and dogmas.

I can't agree with your opinion of Dawkins as a fundamentalist atheist. He is primarily an educator and asking that religious statements, particularly those that relate to the realm of science (creationism for example) be tested scientifically, is in the domain of any educator. In fact every religious person should also do they same. 

Being offended by religious beliefs hardly makes one a fundamentalist atheist. How many Christians are offended by Islamic beliefs? Dawkins opposition to religion is not to "promote atheism", though he would obviously see atheism as the better alternative, but to stop the evils inherent in religion. He sees religion as a form of child abuse where before they can even think rationally, they are indoctrinated with the religion of their parents often accompanied with threats of eternal damnation should they ever question those beliefs. Why do 95% of people have the same religion as their parents? They certainly didn't sit down at a table, study all religions and non-religions, and come to the conclusion that that particular religion was better than any other belief system. It was because of what was drummed into them at an early age. And if what was drummed into them is what is being taught in the madrasa in Pakistan or parts of the UK, that surely is child abuse. 

The bus campaign was rather silly IMO, but its message was to overcome the fears drummed into you at an impressionable age and think for yourself.


----------



## bellenuit (18 July 2009)

wayneL said:


> bellanuit,
> 
> BTW, are you named after the duet, or visa-versa?




Yes, good guess.


----------



## weird (18 July 2009)

bellenuit said:


> He sees religion as a form of child abuse where before they can even think rationally, they are indoctrinated with the religion of their parents often accompanied with threats of eternal damnation should they ever question those beliefs. Why do 95% of people have the same religion as their parents? They certainly didn't sit down at a table, study all religions and non-religions, and come to the conclusion that that particular religion was better than any other belief system.




You will probably find similar stats on political voting, choice in occupation or education , and racial tolerance. Child abuse ... what an emotional tear jerker of words to use ... using those words is abuse. Loaded.

When children leave their nest, they re-evaluate alot of their teaching, and sometimes revert to 'unlearning' ... obviously they are influenced by their earlier teaching if they find the explored alternatives aren't working or unsatisfying.


----------



## darkside (18 July 2009)

weird said:


> You will probably find similar stats on political voting, choice in occupation or education , and racial tolerance. Child abuse ... what an emotional tear jerker of words to use ... using those words is abuse. Loaded.
> 
> When children leave their nest, they re-evaluate alot of their teaching, and sometimes revert to 'unlearning' ... obviously they are influenced by their earlier teaching if they find the explored alternatives aren't working or unsatisfying.




Weird , i do understand that "child abuse " is a big call, but when i read things like this , that is the only conclusion i can arrive at . 

The case of the British muslim who forced his children to flog themselves to the point of bleeding

The Ashura ceremony, part of the month-long period of ‘mourning’ known as Muharram, is an important part of the Shia calendar. It calls for blood. To commemorate the slaughter of Muhammed’s grandson and his family, many men indulge themselves in self-flagellation - a ritual they apparently call ‘zanjeer zani’.

Syed Zaidi, who was brought up in Pakistan, has long been one of them. But he went further. In a ceremony at a community centre in Levenshulme, near Manchester, he first ensured his own blood was flowing before passing his zanjeer - a chained whip with five blades - to two young boys, aged 13 and 15.

In court, the boys said they were ‘forced’ to whip themselves. 
This is child abuse , he should be someones "Prison Bitch"


----------



## weird (18 July 2009)

darkside said:


> Weird , i do understand that "child abuse " is a big call, but when i read things like this , that is the only conclusion i can arrive at .
> 
> The case of the British muslim who forced his children to flog themselves to the point of bleeding
> 
> ...




Agree concerning all those situations.  But as I mentioned previously don't use a wide brush when criticizing. There are issues in using logic here , if x people are y, are y people all  x ?


----------



## bellenuit (18 July 2009)

weird said:


> You will probably find similar stats on political voting, choice in occupation or education , and racial tolerance. Child abuse ... what an emotional tear jerker of words to use ... using those words is abuse. Loaded.
> 
> When children leave their nest, they re-evaluate alot of their teaching, and sometimes revert to 'unlearning' ... obviously they are influenced by their earlier teaching if they find the explored alternatives aren't working or unsatisfying.




I agree to a certain extent, though I would not think they follow their parents to the same degree when it comes to politics, education or occupation. However, there certainly isn't the same psychological trauma associated with adopting a different religion or no religion when deciding not to follow in your parents footsteps for occupation or education. Perhaps there is a bit of trauma for politics. With religion, you not only have to overcome your personal fears (a belief that you may be eternally damned) but for some religions and in some countries, you may be ostracised or even killed for rejection of your religion.

However, I would not shy away from the use of the phrase "child abuse". From my own personal experience of a fairly strict Catholic upbringing, I found it very difficult to reject the Catholic church. Even though I concluded that it was all nonsense, I still saw myself as a non-practising Catholic, rather than an atheist. It is hard to describe how difficult it was to take this final step. It was purely because of the fear instilled in me at an early age that made it so difficult. It was exposure to the works of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris that "liberated" me from that irrational fear.


----------



## darkside (18 July 2009)

refined silver said:


> Every communist atrocity IS in the name of atheism. Militant atheism is at the heart of communism.
> 
> The atheism provides the rationale for the atrocities. There is no Judgement Day. Life is just matter, random chemicals. Evolution is survival of the fittest. It's nature's way.




Refined Silver , this is a bit like your , Hitler wasn't a christian statement, you need to do some research or at least have something to back your claims.

Atheism offers intellectual integrity and freedom from religion. Atheists reject religious absolutes, primitive "revelations", superstition, blind obedience to a tyrannical deity whose existence cannot be proven.
Atheists value reason, logic, knowledge, freedom, equality and social progress. Many atheists are highly ethical people who live by the golden rule: Treat others as you would have them treat you. A lot of them are involved with human rights organisations, environmental issues, animal rights and other social issues with the goal of making the world a better place.


----------



## weird (18 July 2009)

bellenuit said:


> I agree to a certain extent, though I would not think they follow their parents to the same degree when it comes to politics, education or occupation. However, there certainly isn't the same psychological trauma associated with adopting a different religion or no religion when deciding not to follow in your parents footsteps for occupation or education. Perhaps there is a bit of trauma for politics. With religion, you not only have to overcome your personal fears (a belief that you may be eternally damned) but for some religions and in some countries, you may be ostracised or even killed for rejection of your religion.
> 
> However, I would not shy away from the use of the phrase "child abuse". From my own personal experience of a fairly strict Catholic upbringing, I found it very difficult to reject the Catholic church. Even though I concluded that it was all nonsense, I still saw myself as a non-practising Catholic, rather than an atheist. It is hard to describe how difficult it was to take this final step. It was purely because of the fear instilled in me at an early age that made it so difficult. It was exposure to the works of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris that "liberated" me from that irrational fear.




Bellenuit, it's all a personal journey, one persons liberation, is another person condemnation. 

I am from a large family, and shared most of the same family experiences as my siblings, yet they seem to have completely different interpretations on the same events, so I believe while there is a nurture effect, there is also a nature effect, which I guess in less whimsical terms is difference in genetics, even though from the same mold ... we all look different and think different from the same parents.

I have been involved with catachumens, who basically are adults who are seeking understanding with the possibility of baptism in the Catholic church, that would say that they felt liberated as well.

Religion to me is important, however I don't feel the need to rubbish anyone else belief, I guess I am comfortable with who I am, although constantly seek to be better.


----------



## refined silver (18 July 2009)

darkside said:


> Atheism offers intellectual integrity and freedom from religion. Atheists reject religious absolutes, primitive "revelations", superstition, blind obedience to a tyrannical deity whose existence cannot be proven.




In Christianity, that deity is Jesus. God in the flesh. If to you he is tyrannical, that is your choice.



> Atheists value reason, logic, knowledge, freedom, equality and social progress.




Some atheists value these things and many do not.



> Many atheists are highly ethical people who live by the golden rule: Treat others as you would have them treat you.




Mmm this "golden rule" was given by Jesus, your so called "tyrannical deity"!



> A lot of them are involved with human rights organisations, environmental issues, animal rights and other social issues with the goal of making the world a better place




Thats true, many are involved in these things. This however is where they are inconsistent with their atheist beliefs. Their God-given conscience and intuition tells them these things are the right things to do, but according to their atheistic beliefs, how can these things be true? If every life is a random bunch of chemicals, if there is no life after death, if this planet is an accident of evolution with no higher purpose, no purpose of any description, then why do "good"? Why help others? Why protect the weak? This is against nature and evolution.


----------



## darkside (18 July 2009)

refined silver said:


> In Christianity, that deity is Jesus. God in the flesh. If to you he is tyrannical, that is your choice.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Well the first few parts of your post backed up most of what i said , "thank you" , and as for your closing i suppose my belief as well as most decent athiests are, whilst religion promises eternal bliss or ever lasting torment as the consequence for right or wrong behaviour as inducements to 'toe the line', we reject such 'carrot and stick' procedures. Hypothetical 'pie in the sky' may secure the desired result with the ignorant but not with a sophisticated society

Strictly speaking a person is an atheist when he or she comes to the realisation that supernatural beings do not exist and, by extension, that there is no supernatural realm, clearly not the "boogey man " you percieve us to be.


----------



## weird (18 July 2009)

If you are an atheist and you know it, clap your hands.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism

As usual the loudest in the room, are usually the ones in the back which are 'least' understood.


----------



## darkside (18 July 2009)

weird said:


> If you are an atheist and you know it, clap your hands.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism
> 
> As usual the loudest in the room, are usually the ones in the back which are 'least' understood.




Thats, pretty much on the money , it's well documented that the Swedes are by and large an athiest society, and have one of the safest and most livable countries in the world .
And America has the highest representation of christianity and its well, lets just say not in the top ten of lovely places. !!


----------



## weird (18 July 2009)

darkside said:


> Thats, pretty much on the money , it's well documented that the Swedes are by and large an athiest society, and have one of the safest and most livable countries in the world .
> And America has the highest representation of christianity and its well, lets just say not in the top ten of lovely places. !!




77% believe in either a god/spirit/life force ... what is your definition of atheism ? I thought with atheism we are just a random quirk of nature, without needing any communion force, mind or purpose.


----------



## darkside (18 July 2009)

weird said:


> 77% believe in either a god/spirit/life force ... what is your definition of atheism ? I thought with atheism we are just a random quirk of nature, without needing any communion force, mind or purpose.




My Definition of Atheism is  just about the same as all the other Athiests that read this thread, in fact i can speak for us as a majority, and i doubt many will rebuke it , as we only have a simple creed , i don't think you can do the same with religion.
 Atheism is the acceptance that there is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a god, gods or the supernatural.

If humanity is to move forward and ultimately survive on this planet we have to admit to ourselves that superstition cannot play a productive part in our affairs. Socially, politically and environmentally, civilisation is at the crossroads of success or failure .

What is an Atheist? If you are not one now, then potentially, it is you


----------



## weird (18 July 2009)

darkside said:


> Atheism is the acceptance that there is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a god, gods or the supernatural.
> 
> If humanity is to move forward and ultimately survive on this planet we have to admit to ourselves that superstition cannot play a productive part in our affairs. Socially, politically and environmentally, civilisation is at the crossroads of success or failure .
> 
> What is an Atheist? If you are not one now, then potentially, it is you




The use of science as evidence of achievement outside of physics is so abused, as we have made so much progress in that one area, we think we have made so much progress in other areas of science.

The idea that we need to dismiss something because we have no scientific or factual reliable evidence is ludicrous. Doctors use to think it was ludicrous to have to wash their hands before surgery ... the idea of germs ... was ludicrous.


----------



## trainspotter (18 July 2009)

What we have here is an ecumenical matter. God cannot be proven via science or facts, so therefore He does not exist. God does exist via religion and faith so therefore He does exist.

Hmmmm ... not sure about the washing of the hands thingy. This was borne from ignorance and had nothing to do with science. We know now that hygeine is a priority when one is performing an operation. So why does Golden Staph survive in the cleanest of environments _*ie*_ the hospitals? Is it because it prefers a clean environment? Yes.

The earth was flat until science proved otherwise and so on and so forth. Everything is easy once someone has shown you how to do it.


----------



## bellenuit (18 July 2009)

weird said:


> I thought with atheism we are just a random quirk of nature, without needing any communion force, mind or purpose.




Atheism is not believing in the existence of a god or gods. Full Stop. It doesn't state anything beyond that.

It makes no statement as to how we came here or why we are here. It doesn't require you to accept evolutionary theory, the big bang, gravity, life on other planets or anything else for that matter. 

How atheists view these matters is an individual choice.


----------



## weird (18 July 2009)

Dudes going out , and have not intentions on logging on to the computer until tomorrow, so don't take my lack of reply to agreeing.

You are all wrong, I am right, because I would not have said it, if it was not true.


----------



## darkside (18 July 2009)

weird said:


> The use of science as evidence of achievement outside of physics is so abused, as we have made so much progress in that one area, we think we have made so much progress in other areas of science.
> 
> The idea that we need to dismiss something because we have no scientific or factual reliable evidence is ludicrous. Doctors use to think it was ludicrous to have to wash their hands before surgery ... the idea of germs ... was ludicrous.




Unfortunately , your just grasping at straws, we don't have to prove there is a god, thats a given , all you have is blind gullible faith.

Religion is dependent on infant indoctrination – Hindus beget Hindus, Muslims beget Muslims and Christians beget Christians.

Atheism is akin to when a child finally accepts that Santa is just pretend. The child lets go of a cherished belief and replaces it with a greater maturity in facing life as life is. If we failed to discard the Santa fantasy, our mental development would assuredly be impaired and a full and proper understanding of the wonder of the natural Universe and our place in it, lost forever, Hence doctors and handwashing.

 Religion is our grown-up Santa. Think about it.


----------



## wayneL (18 July 2009)

darkside said:


> My Definition of Atheism is  just about the same as all the other Athiests that read this thread, in fact i can speak for us as a majority, and i doubt many will rebuke it , as we only have a simple creed , i don't think you can do the same with religion.
> *Atheism is the acceptance that there is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a god, gods or the supernatural.*
> 
> If humanity is to move forward and ultimately survive on this planet we have to admit to ourselves that superstition cannot play a productive part in our affairs. Socially, politically and environmentally, civilisation is at the crossroads of success or failure .
> ...




What you would describe is more agnosticism.

Agnosticism is the only truly scientific stance one can take. As the existence of God (in any of infinite forms) cannot be disproven.

Ergo, "atheism" is a belief. A belief that God(s)/whatever does not exist.

Furthermore, one should separate the existence of God(s)/whatever, from the practice of religion.

*If* there is some form of "whatever", there is no incontrovertible proof that it wants to be worshipped.


----------



## trainspotter (18 July 2009)

weird said:


> Dudes going out , and have not intentions on logging on to the computer until tomorrow, so don't take my lack of reply to agreeing.
> 
> You are all wrong, I am right, because I would not have said it, if it was not true.




Hmmmm ... slight God complex there? Or is it a narcissistic personality disorder. I am right, you are wrong ... so there !


----------



## weird (18 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> Hmmmm ... slight God complex there? Or is it a narcissistic personality disorder. I am right, you are wrong ... so there !




Still here, but almost out the door .. I thought atheists would have a sense of humor by definition !


----------



## darkside (18 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> Golden Staph survive in the cleanest of environments _*ie*_ the hospitals? Is it because it prefers a clean environment? Yes.




Trainspotter, that is simplistic and brilliant all rolled into one, i have so got to use that analogy at work , with your permission of course !!!


----------



## darkside (18 July 2009)

weird said:


> Still here, but almost out the door .. I thought atheists would have a sense of humor by definition !




Weird , i was laughing with you , i have a sense of humour, enjoy your night at the temple champion !


----------



## trainspotter (18 July 2009)

darkside said:


> Trainspotter, that is simplistic and brilliant all rolled into one, i have so got to use that analogy at work , with your permission of course !!!




Use away my friend. Good to see you are picking up what I am putting down.

P.S. You don't work in a hospital do you?


----------



## darkside (18 July 2009)

wayneL said:


> What you would describe is more agnosticism.
> 
> Agnosticism is the only truly scientific stance one can take. As the existence of God (in any of infinite forms) cannot be disproven.
> 
> ...




Great question, and well written , my brother inlaw David Nicholls wrote on exactly the same lines, perhaps you know him !


----------



## wayneL (18 July 2009)

darkside said:


> WayneL, agnostics are more fence sitters, they neither believe nor disbelieve in god, gods or the supernatural, they will take a neautral stance untill given unequivicol proof either way.
> 
> Atheism  is the only truly scientific stance . As the existence of God (in any of infinite forms) cannot be proven.
> 
> ...




Darkside,

That's the binomial argument - Atheism versus religion. Both are beliefs.

Actually, religion can be tradition more than anything. There are plenty of atheists in church.

Also a person who feels that there is some form of "god", may totally reject religion.

Science considers possibilities. I think science can rightly discount the Judeo/Christian (and other primitive representations) model of God, and therein lies the difficulties that human then extrapolate that to all possible models. It is possible that god could exist in one an infinite number of other models. Hence the truly scientific approach is to be open to these possibilities, while being satisfied that the primitive model is incorrect.

It is assumed that god must be supernatural. What if we speculate that there could be a natural god.

We are currently only scratching the surface of physics, with a number of interesting theory and hypotheses... string theory, electric universe theory etc. 

The interesting thing about humans is the phenomenon of "attitudinal polarization", the tendency to gravitate towards extreme opposites in debate, hence traditional religion versus atheism with zero consideration of any possibilities in between, or outside the debate.

Dumb.

I like the ignore the extremes and look everywhere else. I want to know everything everybody else pointedly ignores. Think about it, consider it. Open your minds. It doesn't mean that you can't hold beliefs, but it means those beliefs can evolve as information comes to hand.

Both atheism and traditional religion have a rigidity that is unacceptable for truly enlightened discussion.

All IMO of course.


----------



## darkside (18 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> Use away my friend. Good to see you are picking up what I am putting down.
> 
> P.S. You don't work in a hospital do you?




No but i do work in the Emergency Services and always in and out of hospitals.


----------



## darkside (18 July 2009)

wayneL said:


> Darkside,
> 
> Both atheism and traditional religion have a rigidity that is unacceptable for truly enlightened discussion.
> 
> All IMO of course.




Ah WayneL so true, and a topic that will be debated for years to come , mind you , i believe that only a "fool says in his own heart" there is no god.






























The wise man says it to the world


----------



## Julia (18 July 2009)

bellenuit said:


> Ce n'est pas.
> 
> I certainly agree with your statement: "Turn the thing around and many religious atrocities come down to issues of power as well."
> 
> ...






bellenuit said:


> I agree to a certain extent, though I would not think they follow their parents to the same degree when it comes to politics, education or occupation. However, there certainly isn't the same psychological trauma associated with adopting a different religion or no religion when deciding not to follow in your parents footsteps for occupation or education. Perhaps there is a bit of trauma for politics. With religion, you not only have to overcome your personal fears (a belief that you may be eternally damned) but for some religions and in some countries, you may be ostracised or even killed for rejection of your religion.
> 
> However, I would not shy away from the use of the phrase "child abuse". From my own personal experience of a fairly strict Catholic upbringing, I found it very difficult to reject the Catholic church. Even though I concluded that it was all nonsense, I still saw myself as a non-practising Catholic, rather than an atheist. It is hard to describe how difficult it was to take this final step. It was purely because of the fear instilled in me at an early age that made it so difficult. It was exposure to the works of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris that "liberated" me from that irrational fear.



Must have been quite a journey, bellenuit.
Thanks for your articulate and interesting comments.



weird said:


> The idea that we need to dismiss something because we have no scientific or factual reliable evidence is ludicrous. Doctors use to think it was ludicrous to have to wash their hands before surgery ... the idea of germs ... was ludicrous.



Um, hard to see the connection with the topic at hand.



wayneL said:


> What you would describe is more agnosticism.
> 
> Agnosticism is the only truly scientific stance one can take. As the existence of God (in any of infinite forms) cannot be disproven.
> 
> ...



Ah, thank goodness.  Finally, we come to the utter sense of agnosticism.

I remember a few years ago when we had a discussion along these lines that Dukey mentioned pantheism.   This works for me.


----------



## weird (18 July 2009)

> Originally Posted by weird View Post
> 
> The idea that we need to dismiss something because we have no scientific or factual reliable evidence is ludicrous. Doctors use to think it was ludicrous to have to wash their hands before surgery ... the idea of germs ... was ludicrous.
> 
> Um, hard to see the connection with the topic at hand.




Sorry Julia, don't understand, the prior post was that things needed to be proven before we would accept them (and anything not should be rejected), which I believe atheism is based on. Bad logic. 

As given in the previous example, why do you expect knowledge to be given to anyone of a platter.  Doctors thought germs were ridiculous before learning to wash their hands, does it mean germs didn't exist until that point ?

I have had this argument before with an atheist, for some reason their brain somehow rejects even processing this thought, so not surprised to see the 'hard to see the connection with the topic at hand' comment.


----------



## ktrianta (19 July 2009)

It seems to me that the debate really comes down to differing belief systems.

For the athiest, the belief is something like this:

All space, time and matter miraculously came into existence by some process we know not how. Then somehow, this matter exploded (we have no idea how this happened though). After a long period of time, stars galaxies etc. all formed and whilst many theories abound there are all educated guesses with many problems.

From here, matter somehow organised itself into self replicationg single celled organisms which were able to reproduce and then over time, these cells as they replicated due to genetic copying mistakes were all able to add the additional information for fins, wings, lungs etc. leading up to the pinnacle(at least for now) of humans -all by a serious of random genetic copying mistakes. Not asking for much faith as this point hey?

And the results of these random explosions and genetic copying errors leads to me on my keyboard punching out letters on my computer which someone somewhere can read and make sense of.

Logically then, if this is all we are, then life is indeed futile and all morality is relative and indeed we are nothing more than a collection of random atoms, then why believe anything I say or what anyone else says on this thread?

The alternative is to believe that there is some creator who was involved in the process. If this is the case, then is it logically to assume that the creator will have interaaction with the creation? If so, then should we search to find out about this creator? Does the creator give us a basis for morality, knowledge and a way to explain the world?


----------



## bellenuit (19 July 2009)

ktrianta said:


> For the athiest, the belief is something like this:
> 
> ..................




Much simpler. An atheist doesn't believe in God. That's it. 

How atheists believe the world came into being is something each may hold a different opinion on.


----------



## awg (19 July 2009)

I was bought up in a religion that some regard as a cult.

They were really decent people at heart, but did not believe in accepting medical treatment

You can only imagine what sort of problems this brings

I rejected this from a very young age, against great resistance, and am agnostic at best.

I am normally polite and respectful of other peoplles religious views

but if you are ever being proselytized to your annoyance, what I have done a couple of times, is tell them I am a Satanist...seems to shut them up.

I'm not, btw


----------



## Timmy (19 July 2009)

awg said:


> I was bought up in a religion that some regard as a cult.




There are plenty about.



awg said:


> but did not believe in accepting medical treatment




There seem to be many people around with weird beliefs, any idea how this one came about, what purpose it is/was thought to serve?

Well done getting out.


----------



## awg (19 July 2009)

Timmy said:


> There seem to be many people around with weird beliefs, any idea how this one came about, what purpose it is/was thought to serve?
> 
> Well done getting out.




I dont consider it a cult personally, many intellectuals are followers, and especially people who have miraculously survived serious illness, not surprisingly.

They never persecuted anyone that chose to stop believing 

it has many excellent aspects

I could never accept the non-medical ideas,

and at the time, as a teenager, I rejected the notion of Gods existence


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science

Medicine

Many Christian Scientists use their healing system as their first choice for treatment over drugs and surgery. They believe in following what they believe to be the example of Jesus, bringing the real or ideal man more clearly into thought. Christian Scientists believe that Jesus was "the Wayshower", a proof by example of the divine method of healing sin, sickness and death. According to the Christian Science belief, there are no limits to the type of medical conditions that can be healed through prayer.

The Christian Science Church does not forbid the use of medicine by its members, nor does the Church exert informal pressure on them to eschew it. An exception is the case of Christian Science Centers which may require certain employees to sign a statement of principles.[citation needed] Though Christian Scientists respect the work of medical practitioners, most of them prefer to use prayer and to rely on God. Christian Scientists who choose to rely on medical treatment for a specific problem normally give up Christian Science treatment for the period of treatment. This is because one treatment approaches healing from a material and the other from a spiritual perspective. Because the method of prayer includes denying the reality of matter and affirming the perfection of the individual – while medicine is used to fix matter and a person with a problem – these two means are seen as incompatible and indeed as tending to work against each other when used simultaneously. Most Christian Scientists are practical when it comes to using material aids such as vision correction, splints for broken bones and dental services and will use what seems appropriate at the time. However, numerous claims of healings of near- and far-sightedness, dental problems and broken bones have been reported in the periodicals published by the Church.[11]


----------



## darkside (19 July 2009)

bellenuit said:


> Much simpler. An atheist doesn't believe in God. That's it.
> 
> How atheists believe the world came into being is something each may hold a different opinion on.




Thank you, i wasn't going to waste my time on an explanation, but thats about it , we don't believe in god, , end of story. We don't have to justify it, feel guilty about it, or even offer an alternative. 

Perhaps i should walk around the neighbourhood annoying people with my beliefs,  hand them a blank piece of paper and say " no news is good news".


----------



## trainspotter (19 July 2009)

A  bit like Kung Fu Panda style? Hand them the blank bit of paper only to realise that the secret is YOU and not some deity to be used as a crutch to get you through this "B grade movie" called life? :


----------



## darkside (19 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> A  bit like Kung Fu Panda style? Hand them the blank bit of paper only to realise that the secret is YOU and not some deity to be used as a crutch to get you through this "B grade movie" called life? :




Yes , so true, they have to make the decisions, take responsibility and realise
those with minds uncluttered by fear of gods and monsters can accept that ‘life’ has no ‘meaning’ per se. ‘Life’ simply is, and we should accept it gratefully and make the most of it.


----------



## trainspotter (19 July 2009)

Kinda like the way you think on this one darkside. "I exist, therefore I am" sort of juxtaposition kinda thingy. I like it. No burden to carry. No guilt. Be completely responsible for your own actions etc. Yep ... suits me fine.


----------



## ktrianta (19 July 2009)

darkside said:


> Yes , so true, they have to make the decisions, take responsibility and realise
> those with minds uncluttered by fear of gods and monsters can accept that ‘life’ has no ‘meaning’ per se. ‘Life’ simply is, and we should accept it gratefully and make the most of it.




Except of course that you take offence to those people who make the most of life as they see it and view them as religious nuts and pure evil, don't you see the irony!!!!


----------



## ktrianta (19 July 2009)

bellenuit said:


> Much simpler. An atheist doesn't believe in God. That's it.
> 
> How atheists believe the world came into being is something each may hold a different opinion on.




True enough, but ultimately an athiest has no choice but to believe in a materialistic explaination no matter how absurd the proposition is.


----------



## darkside (19 July 2009)

ktrianta said:


> Except of course that you take offence to those people who make the most of life as they see it and view them as religious nuts and pure evil, don't you see the irony!!!!




No i take offence at you people brainwashing your kids and trying to ram your ridiculous beliefs down our throats , your religion is of no interest to me, all i can do is hope you get better.

The point is not whether atheists criticise religion but whether religion can stand up to criticism. So far no religion could stand up to criticism, that is why religion has had to resort to blasphemy laws and the might of the state to silence and crush opposition. In some Muslim countries, anyone who criticizes religion can be charged with blasphemy and sentenced to death.

Athiests don't have that luxury, we just have common sense and don't believe in the existence of gods, goddesses, fairies, spirits, angels, ghosts, trolls, leprechauns, bunyips, nymphs and Santa.


----------



## ktrianta (19 July 2009)

darkside said:


> No i take offence at you people brainwashing your kids and trying to ram your ridiculous beliefs down our throats , your religion is of no interest to me, all i can do is hope you get better.
> 
> The point is not whether atheists criticise religion but whether religion can stand up to criticism. So far no religion could stand up to criticism, that is why religion has had to resort to blasphemy laws and the might of the state to silence and crush opposition. In some Muslim countries, anyone who criticizes religion can be charged with blasphemy and sentenced to death.
> 
> Athiests don't have that luxury, we just have common sense and don't believe in the existence of gods, goddesses, fairies, spirits, angels, ghosts, trolls, leprechauns, bunyips, nymphs and Santa.




Seems to me that you are the one who does not like criticism over your double standards. Guess that as long as they believe what you believe that is OK, but your post highlights your intolerance. It is the height of arrogance to say that just athiests have common sense and then to try equate belief with the tooth fairy etc. with belief in God shows the levels you wil stoop when you fail to address the arguments.

Guess it just means you do not have any solid arguments and just resort to put downs and elephant hurling to justify your position.


----------



## wayneL (19 July 2009)

darkside said:


> Athiests don't have that luxury, we just have common sense and don't believe in the existence of gods, goddesses, fairies, spirits, angels, ghosts, trolls, leprechauns, bunyips, nymphs and Santa.




Trolls definitely exist. They all live on the Internet.

The others all live around areas where certain species of mushrooms grow.


----------



## darkside (19 July 2009)

wayneL said:


> Trolls definitely exist. They all live on the Internet.
> 
> The others all live around areas where certain species of mushrooms grow.




Well , yes that is true and thanks to trainspotter and his sense of humour , "Broadleaf Entertainment Plants"  also encourage all those mythalogical creatures.


----------



## trainspotter (19 July 2009)

I keep my "broadleaf entertainment plants" at the bottom of the garden with the fairies. Who in turn hang out with the goblins who cultivate the mushrooms. The blue meanies variety of course.


----------



## darkside (19 July 2009)

ktrianta said:


> Seems to me that you are the one who does not like criticism over your double standards. Guess that as long as they believe what you believe that is OK, but your post highlights your intolerance. It is the height of arrogance to say that just athiests have common sense and then to try equate belief with the tooth fairy etc. with belief in God shows the levels you wil stoop when you fail to address the arguments.
> 
> Guess it just means you do not have any solid arguments and just resort to put downs and elephant hurling to justify your position.




No. i have no problems with your beliefs, there is no double standand, and as for put downs , definitely not something i do, and elephant hurling , are you on the mushies as well !

But , clearly you don't understand how a forum works, if you have read this thread it is about using religion to justify torture and killing and as you have been asked on a few occasions do you agree that its right or wrong, we dont want to know about  your misguided beliefs in supernatural beings, we want your opinion on justifying murder in the name of religion


----------



## trainspotter (19 July 2009)

I could murder a beer on a hot day in the name of religion. As in "For Godsake woman, get me a beer will ya, I'm bloody thirsty and been working like a dog !"


----------



## ktrianta (19 July 2009)

darkside said:


> No. i have no problems with your beliefs, there is no double standand, and as for put downs , definitely not something i do, and elephant hurling , are you on the mushies as well !
> 
> But , clearly you don't understand how a forum works, if you have read this thread it is about using religion to justify torture and killing and as you have been asked on a few occasions do you agree that its right or wrong, we dont want to know about  your misguided beliefs in supernatural beings, we want your opinion on justifying murder in the name of religion




Wow, it looks like you have forgotten what you wrote in your previous post. Guess that the athiestic Governments had a habit of re-writing history so why not you?

As for the question, as I said before tell me what is right and wrong and how you come to that and then I will answer, but heres a hint, don't refer to the 10 commandments.


----------



## bunyip (19 July 2009)

darkside said:


> Athiests don't have that luxury, we just have common sense and don't believe in the existence of gods, goddesses, fairies, spirits, angels, ghosts, trolls, leprechauns, bunyips, nymphs and Santa.




Hey, steady on there Darkside.....of course we believe in bunyips!


----------



## darkside (19 July 2009)

ktrianta said:


> Wow, it looks like you have forgotten what you wrote in your previous post. Guess that the athiestic Governments had a habit of re-writing history so why not you?
> 
> As for the question, as I said before tell me what is right and wrong and how you come to that and then I will answer, but heres a hint, don't refer to the 10 commandments.




Yes, it's all the governments fault, and that history rewriting.,
And if you dont want to tell us your perspective of right and wrong, join another forum that perhaps encourages cryptic responses.
Now cut the medication in half , and peace be with you .


----------



## bunyip (19 July 2009)

This true story is from back in the days when wars were fought by men of honour and courage, as opposed to the so-called war (Jihad) being 'fought' today by Muslim cowards and nut cases who wouldn't know how to behave like real men and women if they tried.

Charlie Brown was an RAF pilot flying a B-17 Flying Fortress with the 379th Bomber Group  at Kimbolton , England, during World War 2 . His B-17 was called 'Ye Old Pub' and  was in a terrible state, having been hit by flak and fighters - one engine was dead, much of the tail, horizontal stabilizer and nose had been shot away...it was ready to fall out of the sky.  The  compass was damaged and they were flying deeper over enemy  territory instead of heading home to Kimbolton.   

After the damaged  B-17 passed over  an enemy airfield, a German fighter pilot named Franz Steigler was ordered  to take off and shoot it down. When Franz got near the B-17, he  couldn't believe his eyes. In his words, he 'had never seen a  plane in such a bad state'. The tail and rear section was severely  damaged, and the tail gunner wounded. The top gunner was all over  the top of the fuselage.  The nose was smashed and there were  holes everywhere.  

Franz flew to the side of the B-17 and looked at Charlie Brown,  the pilot. Brown was scared and struggling to control his damaged  and blood-stained plane. 

Aware that they had no idea  where they were going, Franz waved at Charlie to turn 180 degrees.  Franz escorted and guided the stricken plane to, and slightly  over, the North Sea towards England . He then saluted Charlie  Brown and turned away, back to Europe .  When Franz  landed he told the CO that the plane had been shot down over the  sea, and never told the truth to anybody. Charlie Brown and the  remains of his crew told all at their briefing, but were ordered  never to talk about it.  

 More than 40 years later,  Charlie Brown wanted to find the Luftwaffe pilot who saved the  crew. After years of research, Franz was found. He had never  talked about the incident, not even at post-war reunions.  

  They met in  the USA at a 379th Bomber Group reunion, together with  several of Charlie's crew who are alive now - all because Franz never fired his guns that day. 

When asked why he didn't  shoot them down, Stigler later said, "I didn't have the heart to  finish those brave men..  I flew beside them for a long  time.  They were trying desperately to get home and I was  going to let them do that.  I could not have shot at them.  It would have been the same as shooting at a man in a  parachute."  


   Both men died in  2008.

This was back in the days when there was honour in being a warrior. They proudly wore uniforms, and they didn't hide in ambush inside a mosque, or behind women and children, nor did they use deranged apologies for men and women as suicide bombers to target and kill innocent civilians. 
How times have changed...the Muslim religion should hang its head in shame - religious nuttery of the worst kind.


----------



## darkside (19 July 2009)

bunyip said:


> Hey, steady on there Darkside.....of course we believe in bunyips!




SORRY, really sorry , was not intended that way, please accept my most humble apology, and i don't use capitals thats how much i realised my err.


----------



## trainspotter (19 July 2009)

ktrianta said:


> Wow, it looks like you have forgotten what you wrote in your previous post. Guess that the athiestic Governments had a habit of re-writing history so why not you?
> 
> As for the question, as I said before tell me what is right and wrong and how you come to that and then I will answer, but heres a hint, don't refer to the 10 commandments.




I've got blind reindeer syndrome on this one. No eye dear. 

A 12 year old boy is beaten to within an inch of his life to "exorcise a demon" by some religious sect is NOT OK in my book. Example 1

Children die because parents don't "believe" in modern medicine in the name of their religious faith is NOT OK in my book. Example 2

Two sisters shot dead in the name of "honour" killings due to religious beliefs because they SPOKE to unrelated men is NOT OK in my book. Example 3

How did I come to this startling revelation? I am an atheist.  or agnostic or whatever you want to call the damn thing.


----------



## darkside (19 July 2009)

bunyip said:


> How times have changed...the Muslim religion should hang its head in shame - religious nuttery of the worst kind.




Ok , i am not condoning their actions one little bit, so don't start calling me all sorts of bad things, but. 

Their current life is one of religious propaganda and brainwashing day in and out. They are then told that they will have 72 virgin wives for every believer who is admitted to Paradise through martydom ,and paradise is a way better life than what they currently have, it's probably like , Moreton Island and the playboy mansion all rolled into one, so they are lining up for it.
As i said i don't agree with it , but i see why they do it, just another example of religion gone mad.


----------



## darkside (19 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> I've got blind reindeer syndrome on this one. No eye dear.
> 
> A 12 year old boy is beaten to within an inch of his life to "exorcise a demon" by some religious sect is NOT OK in my book. Example 1
> 
> ...






See, yes or no , good or bad , right or wrong , thats all we want , not cryptic answers and stories about supernatural beings and government conspiracies.


----------



## bunyip (19 July 2009)

ktrianta said:


> As for the question, as I said before tell me what is right and wrong and how you come to that and then I will answer, but heres a hint, don't refer to the 10 commandments.




Stop dodging and weaving and demanding that Darkside explain right and wrong to you. 
You were asked a simple question - do you have the courage to answer it, or don't you?

_Muslim terrorists are using religion as an excuse to kill innocent civilians. Do you think they're justified in doing so?
Yes or no?_

It's a simple question. The longer you dodge and weave and try to avoid answering it, the less credibility you have on this forum.

So I'll ask you again, in the hope that you'll be adult enough to give me a straight answer....
_Is it OK for Muslim terrorists to kill innocent people in the name of religion?
Yes or no?_


----------



## trainspotter (19 July 2009)

Many Muslims believe that an act of martyrdom will land one in Heaven with 72 vestigial virgin's at one's disposal. Oh great. Just what you need, an oversized harem comprised of fumbling, inexperienced sexual rookies who bleed profusely upon penetration. Hope you brought a change of sheets.

As that overplayed song goes, Heaven is vastly overrated. Before you can gain entrance, you must endure a grueling interrogation at the hands of St. Peter. He'll delve into every little bit of wrongdoing you've done, even those instances you've conveniently forgotten. Shoplifting, date rape, all of it (just for kicks, confess your worst below. You'll feel a lot better after getting it off your chest.) Plead the Fifth and he'll slam those Pearly Gates in your face.

Those who pass muster qualify for angelhood. Angels have wings. They can fly. I detest flying. Flying is for Peter Pan. 

Like the Holy Land, Heaven is riven by religious rivalries. Jesus, Mohammed, Moses and Buddha all compete for the title of Top Prophet. Each commands a loyal fan base but only one gets to sit alongside God and fetch Him beers.

Now some would argue that Heaven rocks cause you get to hobnob with Him. But let's face it, every good person who's died is up there. Fat chance God will find time for a heart-to-heart with your sorry ass. Plus, God is a pushy, vindictive know-it-all. He's also a homophobe who destroyed entire villages cause some gays were cavorting there. And this was when he wasn't unleashing nasty plagues. Or else sacrificing His only Son to absolve our sins. As Pete Townsend once wrote, I don't need to be forgiven.

Worst of all, this is the Guy responsible for the vacuous likes of Enya. For that reason alone we should all start worshiping graven idols.

Speaking of musicians, angels are fond of idly plucking harp strings and it doesn't get any more pretentious that that. Forget a pin, ever try dancing on a cloud to harp music? Likewise, suppose you require the services of a lawyer, assassin or prostitute? You sure won't find any of them in Heaven.

So to recap: Heaven is a contentious place chock full of virgins, angels, tiresome music, God and His nosy henchmen. Not only that but you're continually surrounded by goody-goody-two-shoes. And while they may indeed be virtuous, they're about as mirthful as a global warming conference. Billy Joel had it right---the sinners are much more fun.

Four things could happen when you die: Going to Heaven, going to Hell, being cryogenically frozen Ted Williams-style or rotting in a pine box. Given a choice, I'd choose the latter any day of the week. How about you?


----------



## darkside (19 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> Worst of all, this is the Guy responsible for the vacuous likes of Enya. For that reason alone we should all start worshiping graven idols.




hahahahahahahahah pmsl. Thats the best argument for reverting back to atheism ever, i am now throwing away all my other lines and material for that alone.


----------



## trainspotter (19 July 2009)

Must have scared off that one I could not make sense of? ktrianta, if you are out there we really, really would like you to come back. And bring your bat and ball too !


----------



## darkside (19 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> Must have scared off that one I could not make sense of? ktrianta, if you are out there we really, really would like you to come back. And bring your bat and ball too !




And maybe half an ounce of that gear your on. !


----------



## trainspotter (19 July 2009)

I really have "no eye dear" what you are typing cryptically about?


----------



## ktrianta (19 July 2009)

bunyip said:


> Stop dodging and weaving and demanding that Darkside explain right and wrong to you.
> You were asked a simple question - do you have the courage to answer it, or don't you?
> 
> _Muslim terrorists are using religion as an excuse to kill innocent civilians. Do you think they're justified in doing so?
> ...




Bunyip, clearly darkside cannot answer so why don't you answer for him as he is clearly not up to it? He seems to be more interested in denegrating people who do not share his beliefs, so maybe you can do better.

The answer to the question is not a straight yes or no.

To answer the question, you must define what is right and wrong and on what basis you came to this. So what is right or wrong and how do you arrive at this?


----------



## Tink (19 July 2009)

I like her - she has a beautiful voice..


----------



## darkside (19 July 2009)

Tink , if you promise not to tell anyone , i did like Orinoco Flow, but don't tell anyone  i told you , it's our secret.


----------



## darkside (19 July 2009)

Bunyip. Ha Ha

you know why .


----------



## Boggo (19 July 2009)

ktrianta said:


> The answer to the question is not a straight yes or no.
> 
> To answer the question, you must define what is right and wrong and on what basis you came to this. So what is right or wrong and how do you arrive at this?




This is like pulling teeth.
ktrianta, your answer or lack of a simple answer to a simple question can only mean that you believe that lowlife cowardly scum walking into a hotel lobby with a bomb attached is justified if it meets the parameters of a distorted "religion".

You either agree or disagree 

Perhaps this is an indication of the overall problem, the inability to think for ones self and the confusion created by the need to consult a higher authority lest you get it wrong.

Very sad really.


----------



## darkside (19 July 2009)

ktrianta said:


> Bunyip, clearly darkside cannot answer so why don't you answer for him as he is clearly not up to it? He seems to be more interested in denegrating people who do not share his beliefs, so maybe you can do better.
> 
> The answer to the question is not a straight yes or no.
> 
> To answer the question, you must define what is right and wrong and on what basis you came to this. So what is right or wrong and how do you arrive at this?




My belief is , that the cowards who walked into the hotel and killed innocent people in the name of their religion is plain wrong, disgracefull, they are the lowest of the low scum, thats it black and white no grey matter, cut and dry.
The answer is simple yes or no , right or wrong , not cryptic mumbo jumbo .


----------



## Julia (19 July 2009)

ktrianta said:


> Wow, it looks like you have forgotten what you wrote in your previous post. Guess that the athiestic Governments had a habit of re-writing history so why not you?
> 
> As for the question, as I said before tell me what is right and wrong and how you come to that and then I will answer, but heres a hint, don't refer to the 10 commandments.






ktrianta said:


> Bunyip, clearly darkside cannot answer so why don't you answer for him as he is clearly not up to it? He seems to be more interested in denegrating people who do not share his beliefs, so maybe you can do better.
> 
> The answer to the question is not a straight yes or no.
> 
> To answer the question, you must define what is right and wrong and on what basis you came to this. So what is right or wrong and how do you arrive at this?




Oh, enough of this cryptic, obscure stuff, ktrianta.   Let's get this sorted out.
So that we can all move on, you should yourself define what is right and wrong to you.   

Hopefully that will then allow you to finally answer the question originally posed in this thread.

If that's all too hard (translation:  you prefer to continue avoiding the issue) then might be best if you withdraw from the thread, given that your contribution really is not contributing in any constructive fashion.

However, I'd much prefer to see you outline your moral views as suggested above.

With thanks.


----------



## trainspotter (19 July 2009)

Just for you darkside:-

Let me sail, let me sail, let the Orinoco flow.
Let me reach, let me beach on the shores of Tripoli.
Let me sail, let me sail, let me crash upon your shore.
Let me reach, let me beach far beyond the Yellow Sea.
De de de de de...
Sail away,...
From Bissau to Palau in the shade of Avalon.
From Fiji to Tiree and the isles of Ebony.
From Peru to Cebu, feel the power of Babylon.
From Bali to Cali, far beneath the Coral Sea.
De de de de de...
Sail away...
Turn it up...Adieu, ooh.
From the North to the South, Ebudae unto Khartoum.
From the deep Sea of Clouds to the Island of the Moon.
Carry me on the waves to the lands I've never been.
Carry me on the lands I've never seen.
We can sail, with the Orinoco flow.
We can sail away...
We can steer, we can near with Rob Dickins at the wheel.
We can sigh, say good-bye Ross and his dependencies.
We can sail away (repeat and fade).

Right, back to work you lot. Musical interlude is over.


----------



## trainspotter (19 July 2009)

Hey ktrianta, what is it you can't face? Your inability to make a decision is making me indecisive, but now I am not so sure ?


----------



## darkside (19 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> Just for you darkside:-
> 
> Let me sail, let me sail, let the Orinoco flow.
> Let me reach, let me beach on the shores of Tripoli.
> ...




Great, now everyone knows , i told Tink not to tell anyone, it was our secret, now i will be a mockery on ASF.


----------



## trainspotter (19 July 2009)

LOLOLOL ... when I get the appropriate amount of red wine down my gullet I have been know to play the "Enya" CD. Mind you I am in a very, very bad place when it is placed into the Marantz.


----------



## knocker (19 July 2009)

Anyone help me out here. I see these two young guys walking and riding around. blue pants white shirt tie . What/who ar they trying to sell? More to the point are they legal to harass me or anyone else with there bs?


----------



## gooner (19 July 2009)

knocker said:


> Anyone help me out here. I see these two young guys walking and riding around. blue pants white shirt tie . What/who ar they trying to sell? More to the point are they legal to harass me or anyone else with there bs?




I remember some Jehovah witnesses coming to our house and my flatmate answered the door. As soon as they started their spiel, he said he was not interested.

Jehovah witness - "But you don't know what we are about?"

My flatmate - "you're about to f*** off"

Sound of door closing and me ROFLMAO


----------



## trainspotter (19 July 2009)

Brilliant. I like the ones that drag around the little cute children with their hair in pig tails and the lovely summer polka dot frock. I ask them to read Psalm 137 chapters 8 & 9 OUT LOUD in front of the kiddies.

 8 O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, 
       happy is he who repays you 
       for what you have done to us- 

 9 he who seizes your infants 
       and dashes them against the rocks.

The sheer look of terror on the little darlings is delightful on so many levels ! Then I ask the parents if they are happy to dash their little ones against a rock. They don't hang around much after that for some reason?


----------



## knocker (19 July 2009)

gooner said:


> I remember some Jehovah witnesses coming to our house and my flatmate answered the door. As soon as they started their spiel, he said he was not interested.
> 
> Jehovah witness - "But you don't know what we are about?"
> 
> ...




ok so why do they bother? are they preying on victims? 
if so am i in my rights to seek legal action against them?


----------



## trainspotter (19 July 2009)

Legal action for what knocker? For trying to convert you to their way of thinking? Just shut the door on them. Change channel, do whatever or politely say "No thank you, I have my own religion today".


----------



## knocker (19 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> Legal action for what knocker? For trying to convert you to their way of thinking? Just shut the door on them. Change channel, do whatever or politely say "No thank you, I have my own religion today".




Ok but they approached me in th shopping mall and were very persistant


----------



## trainspotter (19 July 2009)

Ok, shopping mall is a bit different due to it being a public place. Technically they have as much right to be there as you do. If they tend to be a bit aggresive and persistent my usual trick is to feign a massive heart attack and attract as much attention as possible to myself. The godbotherers soon take evasive action when you are throwing yourself on the floor and clutching at your chest squawking "I can't breath, I can't breath". You should try it some time. An epileptic fit is another beauty. But there is always some dogooder who wants to hold your tongue so you don't swallow it halfway through your "fit". 

OR .... just walk into a shop. You then advise the shopkeep that you are intending to buy something from the store and these people are bothering you. 9 out of 10 times the shopkeeper will remove them from the store because he/she/it wants to make a sale.


----------



## refined silver (20 July 2009)

darkside said:


> No i take offence at you people brainwashing your kids and trying to ram your ridiculous beliefs down our throats , your religion is of no interest to me, all i can do is hope you get better.




Having lived 7 of the last 12 years in ex Soviet states, let me help you with some facts.

Under communism which at one stage over half the world lived, Communism rammed its atheism down everyone's throats. It was illegal to take kids to church, illegal to have church. Illegal to believe in God, if you did, you lost your job, home, children. Compulsory in every single university degree were courses in dialectic materialism and Marxism. Every single educated person in a communism country went through anti-religious indoctrination at the highest possible level. Yet when communism fell in Russia the church exploded. 

The biggest church in Europe now is in the Ukraine with 35,000 members. In China which still persecutes Christians, there are now over 100 million Christians. (Not our agnostic, sleepy, Western church attenders, but radical, whole-hearted, passionate believers). 

Jesus, who split history when He entered it, stands at the end of history for every man and woman. Believe or not, it makes no difference, one day you get to speak to Him face to face. 

Remember though, that the Apostle John who had been one of Jesus' closest disciples on earth, when he saw Him in his glorified state, with, "hair white like wool, and his eyes as a burning fire, his feet like bronze glowing in a furnace...and his face like the sun shining in all its brilliance." The Apostle John fell at his feet as though dead. It will not be a frivolous thing.


----------



## darkside (20 July 2009)

refined silver said:


> Having lived 7 of the last 12 years in ex Soviet states, let me help you with some facts.
> 
> Under communism which at one stage over half the world lived, Communism rammed its atheism down everyone's throats. It was illegal to take kids to church, illegal to have church. Illegal to believe in God, if you did, you lost your job, home, children. Compulsory in every single university degree were courses in dialectic materialism and Marxism. Every single educated person in a communism country went through anti-religious indoctrination at the highest possible level. Yet when communism fell in Russia the church exploded.
> 
> ...




I can't agree more, fundamentalisim regardless of motive is plain wrong, and no one should suffer for it. I suppose that also includes brainwashing the kiddies with fairytales and horror stories from the bible.

Parents have an obligation to educate their children on the history of religion and to encourage critical, independent thinking and scepticism.

Unfortunately we live in a world that is still under the influence of religion and many religions are actively pursuing the recruitment of new members a bit like Macdonalds only way more sinister.

We need to tell our kids the difference between science and religion, reason and faith, material and the supernatural, myth and fact, religious morality and humanist ethics


----------



## Tink (20 July 2009)

knocker said:


> Anyone help me out here. I see these two young guys walking and riding around. blue pants white shirt tie . What/who ar they trying to sell? More to the point are they legal to harass me or anyone else with there bs?




*Door to Door salesmen should be banned - one of my pet gripes..*

Havent had religion in ages, but roof tiles, telstra, optus, real estate agents, the list goes on and on and on.....

Finally got rid of the telemarketers and now they come hassling you at the door

Stick in my letter box for Gods sake, I am not interested

As for in the shopping centre, that doesnt bother me as they are in the right environment to be selling...


----------



## ktrianta (20 July 2009)

Julia said:


> Oh, enough of this cryptic, obscure stuff, ktrianta.   Let's get this sorted out.
> So that we can all move on, you should yourself define what is right and wrong to you.
> 
> Hopefully that will then allow you to finally answer the question originally posed in this thread.
> ...




Obviously no one has been able to answer the question I have posed about what is right and wrong. Reason I asked this is that this thread is I would assume made of athiests who revel in the excesses and abuses of religion whilst ignoring predominantly the evils perpetrated by those with an athiestic world view and ignoring the good that is done by religious people and organisations aligned to religion.

I have already answered the question, but few failed to pick up on it, when I said that morals without reference to absolutes is meaningless. Simply put unless you appeal to a creator God who is the creator of all and to whom we all owe our existence, then how can you say anything is wrong.
If God created us, and has said it is wrong to murder, then yes it is wrong and that is indeed my position.

If however, as many on this thread believe, we are nothing more than the result of a cosmic accident, then all morality is relative. Why is you morality more right than the muslim who chooses to blow up innocent people? 
Was the murderous regimes of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot any more wrong than these Muslims? 

The simple and awkward fact for people on this thread and why no-one answered the question i posed was that it is exceptionally difficult to define right, wrong, wicked, pure evil etc. without reference to some transcendent moral authority of good or evil. As Mao said, " Morality does not have to be defined in relation to others... Of course there are people and objects in the world, but they are there only for me...People like me only have a duty to ourselves, we have no duty to other people."


----------



## Sean K (20 July 2009)

ktrianta said:


> The simple and awkward fact for people on this thread and why no-one answered the question i posed was that it is exceptionally difficult to define right, wrong, wicked, pure evil etc. without reference to some transcendent moral authority of good or evil.



The transcendent authority you speak of is actually humans.

The books are not revelation, but merely the moral code of Western Asian culture transcribed by various men over centuries of time. 

It was humans that determined what was right and wrong, not some old bearded bloke throwing lightning bolts. 

We made Him in our image after all.


----------



## Tink (20 July 2009)

In other words, its humans being humans - *bottom line*


----------



## Sean K (20 July 2009)

Tink said:


> In other words, its humans being humans - *bottom line*



Not entirely. 

Dogmatic religion, a myth invented by humans, keeps certain people living in the year 500AD.

Or, maybe then it is just all humans being humans...


----------



## bunyip (20 July 2009)

knocker said:


> Ok but they approached me in th shopping mall and were very persistant




They can't be persistent if you tell them you're not interested, then turn your back on them and walk away.

My aunty was doing her ironing on the veranda when the JW's turned up. She just continued with her ironing while they talked.
They asked her _'Do you realise that the Lord is returning to Earth one day'?_
Her reply was_ 'Is that right? Well I hope he comes today - he can help me with all this bloody ironing'!_


----------



## awg (20 July 2009)

knocker said:


> Ok but they approached me in th shopping mall and were very persistant




Easy bro, use my approach suggested earlier.

Tell them you are a Satan worshipper, invite them back to your joint for some worship..ie orgy, drug taking and animal sacrifice.

If they are overly persistent.

I have also used the approach of giving them a boring debate on Christian Science, when they come to my place.

You are also entitled to answer the door in your undies.

I find this works well

All these approaches will get rid of them real quick.

I would add, that 9 times out of 10, I simply commend them on the good work they do, but explain I have my own beliefs, and do not elaborate.

I am always polite to Mormons, as when I was younger, my flatmates got into a fight with them, and they sure could look after themselves with their fists

The worst ever case I had, was a phone company saleswoman, they use very attractive young salespersons. 

A gorgeous young Swedish backpacker was so incredibly rude and persistent to me that I took most of my clothes off, and invited her in for sex. 

She scuttled off


----------



## bunyip (20 July 2009)

ktrianta said:


> Obviously no one has been able to answer the question I have posed about what is right and wrong. Reason I asked this is that this thread is I would assume made of athiests who revel in the excesses and abuses of religion whilst ignoring predominantly the evils perpetrated by those with an athiestic world view and ignoring the good that is done by religious people and organisations aligned to religion.
> 
> I have already answered the question, but few failed to pick up on it, when I said that morals without reference to absolutes is meaningless. Simply put unless you appeal to a creator God who is the creator of all and to whom we all owe our existence, then how can you say anything is wrong.
> If God created us, and has said it is wrong to murder, then yes it is wrong and that is indeed my position.
> ...





What a ridiculous load of bunkum!

If I hurt someone purposely, wantonly kill someone, steal, lie, cheat, or in any other way treat people with disrespect and a general lack of consideration, then I'm wrong in doing so. End of story. 
Unlike you and your kind, I don't need go into some great mind-numbing post-mortem to work it all out. I don't need to be a declared atheist or a declared God believer either....I just need a reasonable level of common sense and decency.

All this religious, godly crap has twisted your mind.
You sound like some of the sermons I've listened to in church.

You wouldn't be a minister of religion by any chance, would you?
A Catholic priest perhaps?


----------



## awg (20 July 2009)

I dont think anyone needs a religious background to know that it is undesirable to lie, cheat, steal and kill etc.

I think it helps more to be educated, including a wide ranging study of history, philosophy, psychology, morality and religion.

In an interesting conundrum, in many parts of the world, it is considered necessary to kill someone if they slight you sufficiently, including parts of Ethiopia, as just one example


----------



## Happy (20 July 2009)

ktrianta said:


> ...
> If however, as many on this thread believe, we are nothing more than the result of a cosmic accident, then all morality is relative. Why is you morality more right than the muslim who chooses to *blow up innocent people*?
> Was the *murderous regimes *of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot any more wrong than these Muslims?
> 
> ..."






Very impressive post, but going back 700 or 500 or even 300 years, your religion have had few lapses of mercy too.

I know it is all almost squeaky clean now, but it was not always that way.


----------



## Sean K (20 July 2009)

Happy said:


> I know it is all almost squeaky clean now, but it was not always that way.



Hardly squeaky clean.

In this day and age of modern, complex, televised, audited, democratic legal systems, religion still manages to sneak through the gaps to be tyrannical. 

See the 'Religion Gone Crazy' thread.


----------



## bunyip (20 July 2009)

ktrianta said:


> Obviously no one has been able to answer the question I have posed about what is right and wrong. Reason I asked this is that this thread is I would assume made of athiests who revel in the excesses and abuses of religion whilst ignoring predominantly the evils perpetrated by those with an athiestic world view and ignoring the good that is done by religious people and organisations aligned to religion.
> 
> I have already answered the question, but few failed to pick up on it, when I said that morals without reference to absolutes is meaningless. Simply put unless you appeal to a creator God who is the creator of all and to whom we all owe our existence, then how can you say anything is wrong.
> If God created us, and has said it is wrong to murder, then yes it is wrong and that is indeed my position.
> ...




No, you didn't answer the question at all....all you did was demand an explanation of what defines right and wrong, good and evil.
All we wanted was to know was whether you agree or disagree that it's wrong to murder innocent people in the name of religion.
Your answer to that question will depend on _*your*_ definition of good and evil - not on my definition, not on Darkside's definition, *on your definition. *We're not really interested on how or why you arrive at your definition, we just wanted to know if, by your definition, evil is committed when lunatics use religion as an excuse to bomb innocent people.

You have some queer ideas about what atheists believe. Atheists don't necessarily hold any opinion about how the world and the human race came into existence, except that God had nothing to do with it, since God doesn't exist and never has.

As for your claim that atheists ignore the good that's done by religious people and organisations aligned to religion.....
 Who are you to make such a claim about atheists? On what basis do you make such a claim? Are you so foolish as to draw this conclusion simply because on this thread you don't see atheists praising good deeds done by religious people and religious organisations!
Given the title of this thread - 'More Religious Nuts' - I suggest to you that it's hardly surprising that on here you don't see praise for good deeds that are done in the name of religion or for any other reason.
If that's the sort of thing you're looking for, then I suggest you take a look at the thread titled 'The Beauty of Religion'. Read that thread, and you might just open your eyes far enough to see that some atheists do indeed acknowledge and praise good things that are done by churches and religious people.

This thread was set up for people to talk about the bad things that happen in the name of religion. 
Your posts are way off topic. If you want to discuss all that other stuff you've been going on with, then start a new thread.


----------



## trainspotter (20 July 2009)

Sounds like "TELL IT LIKE IT IS" Monday is working fine to me !


----------



## ktrianta (20 July 2009)

bunyip said:


> This thread was set up for people to talk about the bad things that happen in the name of religion.
> Your posts are way off topic. If you want to discuss all that other stuff you've been going on with, then start a new thread.




Fair enough, but my initial post on this thread was to point out that using the term pure evil was really borrowing from religious terminology. This was then toned down to the "right thing" with a demand that I answer if this is right to which I responded you need to define what is right and wrong and the basis on which you came to this conclusion. Not surprisingly no-one answered this and after constant requests and indeed personel attacks I outlined my belief on what is right and wrong and that moriality without reference to absolutes is meaningless. 
Quite simple really, but if people ask me questions, then where it leads is where it leads and I make no apologies for that.


----------



## trainspotter (20 July 2009)

I will attempt to explain right from wrong for you without using religious connotations:- I am right and you are wrong for instance.

Primatologists like Frans de Waal have long argued that the roots of human morality are evident in social animals like apes and monkeys. The animals’ feelings of empathy and expectations of reciprocity are essential behaviors for mammalian group living and can be regarded as a counterpart of human morality. No religious monkey or ape to pollute the psyche of the troop.

People are generally unaware of this process because the mind is adept at coming up with plausible rationalizations for why it arrived at a decision generated subconsciously. Fight or Fright? Split second decision made. Right from wrong. The brain is already hard wired for it.

Now this is only a theory and not a proven fact. Habits are learned from the society we live in. Parents, situations, experiences all assist you in making the RIGHT decision. This theory implies that parents and teachers are not teaching children the *rules of correct behavior from scratch *but are, at best, giving shape to an innate behavior. And it suggests that religions are not the source of moral codes but, rather, social enforcers of instinctive moral behavior.

So, there you have it folks. Monkey see, monkey do.


----------



## darkside (20 July 2009)

bunyip said:


> No, you didn't answer the question at all....all you did was demand an explanation of what defines right and wrong, good and evil.
> All we wanted was to know was whether you agree or disagree that it's wrong to murder innocent people in the name of religion.
> Your answer to that question will depend on _*your*_ definition of good and evil - not on my definition, not on Darkside's definition, *on your definition. *We're not really interested on how or why you arrive at your definition, we just wanted to know if, by your definition, evil is committed when lunatics use religion as an excuse to bomb innocent people.
> 
> ...




Well said Bunyip, now i feel even worse about what i said about you, hope all is forgiven.
It is certainly good to see wise and intelligent posts from quite a numer of members keeping threads on topic, must make Joe feel all warm and cuddly.


----------



## ktrianta (20 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> I will attempt to explain right from wrong for you without using religious connotations:- I am right and you are wrong for instance.
> 
> Primatologists like Frans de Waal have long argued that the roots of human morality are evident in social animals like apes and monkeys. The animals’ feelings of empathy and expectations of reciprocity are essential behaviors for mammalian group living and can be regarded as a counterpart of human morality. No religious monkey or ape to pollute the psyche of the troop.
> 
> ...




Thanks for at least trying. Nice theory as you say.
Not sure that it addresses the question posed though. 1 and 1 = 2 and if you say 3 then I am right and you are wrong. No argument there.

Question posed to me had to do with morality and whether it is right or wrong for Muslims to kill in the name of their religion.  This then becomes a relative question because in the abscence of reference to absolute authority belonging to some diety, which athiests by definition deny, then you have to accept that what can be right to one person may be wrong to another and your view is no more valid than the oppossing view.  

I do agree that it is innate behaviour that there is a sense of right and wrong and that it is hard wired because that is exactly what you would expect if we we are created in the image of God.

Yes i agree with the posters who have said that religion and by implication christianity has fallen short, but that is a theological question and not for discussion on this board as it is further away from where we are haeding on this thread.

To the person who asked if I am a catholic priest, hate to disappoint you but i am not even catholic.


----------



## bunyip (20 July 2009)

darkside said:


> Well said Bunyip, now i feel even worse about what i said about you, hope all is forgiven.
> It is certainly good to see wise and intelligent posts from quite a numer of members keeping threads on topic, must make Joe feel all warm and cuddly.




Weelll.....at least you now believe in bunyips!


----------



## bunyip (20 July 2009)

ktrianta said:


> Fair enough, but my initial post on this thread was to point out that using the term pure evil was really borrowing from religious terminology. This was then toned down to the "right thing" with a demand that I answer if this is right to which I responded you need to define what is right and wrong and the basis on which you came to this conclusion. Not surprisingly no-one answered this and after constant requests and indeed personel attacks I outlined my belief on what is right and wrong and that moriality without reference to absolutes is meaningless.
> Quite simple really, but if people ask me questions, then where it leads is where it leads and I make no apologies for that.




We're not asking you for apologies - we simply asked you for a straight answer to a straight question.
If your neighbour asked you if you'd had a good day, you wouldn't demand that he define 'good' so that you can then answer his question.
You'd simply respond to a simple question with a simple answer by telling him that you've had a good day (by your definition of good) or a bad day (by your definition of bad) or an OK day (by your definition of OK). But I'm damn sure you wouldn't make a fool of yourself by asking him to define 'good', before you answered his question.

Well then, don't make a fool of yourself on this forum by going on with mindless prattle when you're asked a simple question. Either you think that Muslims killing innocent people is wrong (according to your definition of right and wrong), or you think it's OK. But your answer and your views should have nothing whatever to do with my or Darkside's or anyone else's definition of right and wrong.'

Now - why don't you take yourself over to the 'The Beauty In Religion' thread and see if you can put a sensible post or two on there to show some of the good that comes from religion and religious people. And while you're at it, try making some balanced comment by acknowledging that good things are also done by people who are not religious.....yes, even by atheists!


----------



## trainspotter (20 July 2009)

ktrianta said:


> Thanks for at least trying. Nice theory as you say.
> Not sure that it addresses the question posed though. 1 and 1 = 2 and if you say 3 then I am right and you are wrong. No argument there.
> 
> Question posed to me had to do with morality and whether it is right or wrong for Muslims to kill in the name of their religion.  This then becomes a relative question because in the abscence of reference to absolute authority belonging to some diety, which athiests by definition deny, then you have to accept that what can be right to one person may be wrong to another and your view is no more valid than the oppossing view.
> ...




You have answered your own question by your response. Forget the simple math. I am right and you are wrong. Number 3 is not an answer. Unless you are picking door number 3 and leaving the show with the cash and prizes.

To argue that it is OK for Muslims to kill in the name of religion is one of the more poignant stances of transcendental thought process's I have read in a long time. Now please do not take this the wrong way. I am writing explicitly to you and the words that you have purveyed here for all to see. To reference to a deity that ensures this behaviour is somehow socially acceptable whether or not the atheists are in the big river in Egypt (De Nial) is open to conjecture at best. To argue that right and wrong is somehow a commodity that can be transferred from person to person depending on whether or not they roll out a rug and prey to mecca or choose to give money to the Salvos has my nickers in a twist. To liken my view/theory as to explain what is innately right or wrong on it's lowest primeval level as to human nature has somehow gone beyond your grasp of deep psychosis. Agreeing that it is a Muslim right to kill in the name of their beliefs/religion has no place in the society that I live in due to me not choosing to participate in this madness. Go back to your heart and ask yourself the same question. Are you comfortable for innocents to be blown up because you have 72 virgins waiting for you?? UNEDUCATED FOOLS DO THIS. Not rational human beings.

You have thrown God onto the funeral pyre you have created for yourself as we agreed NOT to bring religion/false idols into the debate (your words and not mine) Image of God aside, I wonder what He would look like if he had not created Adam and Eve. Some misty cloud like being that is omniscient perhaps?

Christianity was the opiate for the masses in the late 1700's. King and Church to keep the peasants in fear and paying taxes. We have the leftovers of a very bad experience. Antidisestablishmentarianism is the word that will fix this for you. LOOK IT UP AND LEARN.

I would prefer it if you were a catholic priest. I would be able to have a theological debate that would make your head spin !! Pfffffffftttttt !!


----------



## trainspotter (20 July 2009)

Bu wait there is more. Just like the DEMTEL man I have a set of steak knives to give to you for FREE!

You wrote: _"Question posed to me had to do with morality and whether it is right or wrong for Muslims to kill in the name of their religion. This then becomes a relative question because in the abscence of reference to absolute authority belonging to some diety, which athiests by definition deny, then you have to accept that what can be right to one person may be wrong to another and your view is no more valid than the oppossing view."_

A relative question to whom I ask? Morality that religion allows Muslims to kill in the name of their religion because a diety condones such practices? Last time I tried this as a defence the judge threw me into Ward 4 of Graylands (Mental institute in WA) Killing in the name of? place diety's name here please.

What is right to one person CAN be wrong to another. Like having 3 wives or marrying your cousin (bloody Mormons) or putting your left hand in the food bowl in certain countries is frowned on. How about wearing shoes inside someones house for example. Socially unacceptable practices. AT NO STAGE is strapping a bomb to yourself and commiting acts of atrocities to your fellow man (BLOW UP THE INFIDELS) an acceptable practice. 

For you to opine this view has me very worried that you are not only believing this presupposition but are actually espousing this point of view to other feeble minded followers who actually resemble homosapiens in their true form. I am assuming you do have opposable thumbs (got a grip) and you are in full control of your faculties on this subject matter at hand?

Now as I live in a Westernised modern country and have a very small IQ please go easy on me in your reply. After all, I would not want to be blown up in the name of religion by some Muslim fanatacist.


----------



## bunyip (20 July 2009)

Happy said:


> Very impressive post, but going back 700 or 500 or even 300 years, your religion have had few lapses of mercy too.
> 
> I know it is all almost squeaky clean now, but it was not always that way.




Happy.....I must disagree with you on two points.

First, I don't think his or her post was at all impressive. I would have thought that 'mindless, irrelevant prattle' was a more apt description.

The second point on which I disagree is that religion is 'almost squeaky clean'.
I could give you many examples that show the opposite is true.


----------



## Sunder (20 July 2009)

You don't have to leave this thread long for it to take off without you... 

Although there is a lot I *could* have said when the topic was brought up, seems like a lot has been debated and been inconclusive already, so adding input might be just pouring another cup of water into the ocean. 

Perhaps some things about good and evil that could be brought into it. By a Christian definition, all people, regardless of their belief, have been created with a desire to do good, that has been corrupted. So straight Christian theology should accept that good deeds done by atheists are good. However, straight Christian theology also accepts that "good corrupted by sin" is still not acceptable to God. One analogy I've heard, is like the kind doctor, who looks after the sick, heals the injured, feeds the starving - while on a pirate ship, and looking after pirates. While his individual actions are good, he's already on the wrong side of the law, and no amount of good work is going to save him from hanging when he's caught.

From the Christian perspective, the Muslim who kills 3000 by flying a plane into a building, is no worse off* than an Atheist who works at the RSPCA and donates blood every month. According to Christian theology, both ignored God and both will get what they desire - eternity without God. While that sounds pretty good to someone who never wanted to know him or acknowledge he exists, you need to remember in the Christian theology, this means without any of his gifts either - which means nobody will have any good left in them. This means you, and everyone else's capability to be good will be taken from you before you're cast away from God. 

With regards to charitable works done by atheists though, here's a challenge anyone can take up. List all the non-Christian charities you can, and I bet you over 90% of them are more like "special interest groups", rather than true charities - Greenpeace, WSPCA, WWF, Heart Foundation, Diabetes Australia, <list medical condition here>. List all the Christian charities, and see where their interest lies - Salvation Army, Anglicare, Red Cross (no longer officially Christian, but look up its roots).

At the foundation of all Christian charity, is that all people, not animals, not rainforests - are created in the image of God, and this takes priority over other things that might be good, such as animal welfare or conservation. I find it hard to call anyone "good" who will give $1000 for a ship to ram a whaling vessel, when that $1000 could feed 2 children for a year, or restore sight to 50 people, or provide a "seeding fund" for an entire village.

* Quick edit before I'm accused of anything. Notice I said no worse *off*, not simply, no worse. Of course, the bible has a very strong stance against murder, but the final judgement is the same, hence no worse off. There's a verse somewhere in the bible that says paraphrased: "Don't bother to pray for the sins of someone who has committed the ultimate sin (of rejecting God), pray he accepts God first, then address his sinful behaviour". On that principle, if both murderer and atheist is going to hell, neither is worse off than the other.


----------



## trainspotter (20 July 2009)

ktrianta said:


> Fair enough, but my initial post on this thread was to point out that using the term pure evil was really borrowing from religious terminology. This was then toned down to the "right thing" with a demand that I answer if this is right to which I responded you need to define what is right and wrong and the basis on which you came to this conclusion. Not surprisingly no-one answered this and after constant requests and indeed personel attacks I outlined my belief on what is right and wrong and that *moriality without reference to absolutes is meaningless*.
> Quite simple really, but if people ask me questions, then where it leads is where it leads and I make no apologies for that.




I am perplexed with the above bold statement? _Morality without reference to absolutes is meaningless._ And repeated here in italics as well. So are you saying that if I do not have a reference point to a fixed perspective that I have no morals? So according to this delusional statement I can get away with anything I like because I do not have a Godlike being to refer to if it is OK or not? If it is OK with Allah/Buddah/Jehovah whoever then I can wander this earth and do as I please guilt free? Pauline Hanson once said "Please explain?" I beseech you , NAY I implore you to try and justify this sick and saddend position you have found yourself in.

Killing in the name of religion has run it's course. For people to cohabitat this planet we require TOLERANCE and ACCEPTANCE not HATE because some raghead decides a Jihad or Fatwa for no good cause. I can remember when John Saffron (ABC minor celebrity & John Saffron vs God) in 2003 tricked Sheikh Omar Bakri into placing a fatwa on Safran's colleague Rove McManus by showing him falsified evidence seeming to indicate that McManus had been making fun of Islam. Not a bad thing some might say now?

Is it right or wrong? You have got to be joking me !! How would you like it if some random person (no religious bias) came to your house and decided YOU were not fit to be part of the human race because of YOUR beliefs. Shrug your shoulders and say "Ahhhh it's OK cause he has no morals without references to absolutes" as he detonates the C4 strapped to his body?

To pollute this thread with malarky of an absolutely incomprehensible drivel has certainly caused me to think far lesser of humanity in it's current form. Education is the key to stamp out this kind of perspective that IS NOT part of a common belief or understanding amongst grown ups.


----------



## Sunder (20 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> I am perplexed with the above bold statement? _Morality without reference to absolutes is meaningless._ And repeated here in italics as well. So are you saying that if I do not have a reference point to a fixed perspective that I have no morals? So according to this delusional statement I can get away with anything I like because I do not have a Godlike being to refer to if it is OK or not? If it is OK with Allah/Buddah/Jehovah whoever then I can wander this earth and do as I please guilt free? Pauline Hanson once said "Please explain?" I beseech you , NAY I implore you to try and justify this sick and saddend position you have found yourself in.




Morality needs frame of reference. Everyone thinks murder is wrong, correct? Yet, why do some religions who have strayed from the one true God think honour killings are a good thing?

Think paedophillia is universally reviled? Think again. It was a commonly accepted normal practice in ancient Greece. More frightening, a convicted paedophile made the comment when being sentence something along the lines of "You think of me as a monster. I'm simply before my time". I imagine a homosexual in the early 20th century could have plausibly said something similar. 

Without God, morality changes to suit the majority.


----------



## watsonc (20 July 2009)

ivant said:


> It is always more difficult to prove a negative. Saying that something doesn't exist is one sure way to never win an argument. How do you know?
> 
> Some examples:
> 1. I don't believe in the holocaust.
> ...




The onus is the person claiming "something exists" to prove that it is so! If I don't believe god exists it is not up to me to prove god does not exist. This would be like me trying to disprove the existence of a purple unicorn flying around in the outmost regions of the galaxy. Simply impossible. The person who claims god exists must prove so.


----------



## ktrianta (20 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> Now as I live in a Westernised modern country and have a very small IQ.




At least we have found something that we both agree on.


----------



## ktrianta (20 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> I am perplexed with the above bold statement? _Morality without reference to absolutes is meaningless._ And repeated here in italics as well. So are you saying that if I do not have a reference point to a fixed perspective that I have no morals? :




I have repeated myself so many times and you don't seem to get it. No I did not say that you do not have no morals. What I have been saying consistently is that without reference to absolutes, morality then is relative. What is right for one may be wrong to another but you have no basis to say your morals are better than someone else's.

Really quite simple I would have thought.


----------



## trainspotter (20 July 2009)

I like how we have drawn paedophilia and a purple flying unicorn PLUS my very low IQ into this deabte. 

Bwahahah aha ahha ha ha aha h ah (insert maniacal laugh here)

Hey sunder ... read my post on "hard wired behavioural patterns for mammals" it might help you somewhat.


----------



## Julia (20 July 2009)

ktrianta said:


> I have repeated myself so many times and you don't seem to get it. No I did not say that you do not have no morals. What I have been saying consistently is that without reference to absolutes, morality then is relative. What is right for one may be wrong to another but you have no basis to say your morals are better than someone else's.
> 
> Really quite simple I would have thought.



I agree that it's simple and perfectly sensible.

Maybe accept that to some perpetuating the argument is just sport.


----------



## trainspotter (20 July 2009)

ktrianta said:


> I have repeated myself so many times and you don't seem to get it. No I did not say that you do not have no morals. What I have been saying consistently is that without reference to absolutes, morality then is relative. What is right for one may be wrong to another but you have no basis to say your morals are better than someone else's.
> 
> Really quite simple I would have thought.




Read my post first then have another go at attempting this one. 

You said " Morality without reference to absolutes is meaningless."

And I said "So are you saying that if I do not have a reference point to a fixed perspective that I have no morals?" 

I love it when it gets to a he said, she said thread ... don't you?

My morals tell me it IS NOT OK to strap explosives to your body and blow yourself up. If your morals think this is Ok then my advice is for you to do it well away from me.


----------



## Timmy (20 July 2009)

An old favourite:


----------



## ktrianta (20 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> Read my post first then have another go at attempting this one.
> 
> You said " Morality without reference to absolutes is meaningless."
> 
> ...





Think I will just take Julia's advice and walk away. Not sure how many times i can say the same thing.
Thanks for the discourse anyway. All the best.


----------



## trainspotter (20 July 2009)

Julia said:


> I agree that it's simple and perfectly sensible.
> 
> Maybe accept that to some perpetuating the argument is just sport.




Sorry Julia, I thought I made myself abundantly clear when it came to absolute references and morals on this matter. This is not a sport. More of a game really. really


----------



## trainspotter (20 July 2009)

Julia said:


> Oh, enough of this cryptic, obscure stuff, ktrianta.   Let's get this sorted out.
> So that we can all move on, you should yourself define what is right and wrong to you.
> 
> Hopefully that will then allow you to finally answer the question originally posed in this thread.
> ...




Thanks Julia. Nice one sistergirl !


AND BIG LOL with Timmy on the cartoon. Nice work.


----------



## Sunder (20 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> I like how we have drawn paedophilia and a purple flying unicorn PLUS my very low IQ into this deabte.
> 
> Bwahahah aha ahha ha ha aha h ah (insert maniacal laugh here)
> 
> Hey sunder ... read my post on "hard wired behavioural patterns for mammals" it might help you somewhat.




Just wait until we hit Godwin's law... Oh wait, never mind. Nazis were on page 2, weren't they?

Link for the mammal thing?

If it says what I think it's going to say, then of course animals also have behaviours we determine as good. We don't even get off the first page of the bible, before we encounter:



> God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. *And God saw that it was good.*




You see the world through the eyes of an atheist, who assumes everything is morally neutral until it becomes a survival trait, and then it is "Good" because it helps mammals and humans survive. This then helps you say that "See, even mammals have good behaviour, it's a survival trait".

I see the world through the bible's eyes, which says everything is good, except that which has been corrupted by sin. We can look at the same outcome, and attribute it to a very different source. 

The problem with this line of argument is that it will never succeed - you can say "Look, evolution put this into us, it's not design", I can say "Look, God designed it into us, it wasn't an accident". You can see a pile of twigs in a river, and call it detrius, I can see a pile of twigs in a river and call it a beaver dam. The only problem is, neither you nor I have other Gods to compare against to see whether this pile of twigs, or this ball of dirt, was built by accident, or by design. 

That said, an evolutionist should wonder why a tasty, slow moving, slow breeding, defenseless animal like a sheep still exists. I can only attribute it to the fact that God has a personal liking for lamb. Used in early Jewish sacrifices, and lots of lamb analogies in the new testament.


----------



## Sunder (20 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> My morals tell me it IS NOT OK to strap explosives to your body and blow yourself up. If your morals think this is Ok then my advice is for you to do it well away from me.




Your morals tell you that. A fundamentalist Muslim's morals tell him it is.

A fundamentalist Muslim's morals tells him it IS NOT OK to sleep with a woman before marriage. Yours probably tells you it is.

Who is right, if you have no absolute arbiter?

What right does he have to possibly injure and kill? What right do you have to possibly break someone's heart/leave them with a disease/or an unwanted child?


----------



## weird (20 July 2009)

I just believe in this day and age, how stubborn people are to admit, I just don't know.


----------



## trainspotter (20 July 2009)

*There were Nazis on page 2?* 

Psychology 101 and some of my own stuff (HEY, I said it was a theory)

Not sure how we got onto a survival thing? Yes, I am a practicing Roman Catholic atheist. Can an animal be corrupted by sin? I thought this was the domain of humanoids only? You know the Ten commandment thingy. Do animals read this stuff?

Ummmm ... no mention of evoluton in my posts that I am aware of is there? Probably about 2 weeks ago there was a bit of deabte going on but none by me lately?

Ever tried to outrun/catch a sheep lately? I bet my money on the sheep.

Checkout psalm 137 chapters 8 & 9 . Come back and tell me it's OK to do that to little kiddies and I will reckon you are OK in my book.


----------



## trainspotter (20 July 2009)

Sunder said:


> Your morals tell you that. A fundamentalist Muslim's morals tell him it is.
> 
> A fundamentalist Muslim's morals tells him it IS NOT OK to sleep with a woman before marriage. Yours probably tells you it is.
> 
> ...




Whoa UP sunder !! You saying OK to blow yourself up because we don't have a reference point compared to hitting a roll in the sack?

REREAD my post on the mammal behaviour thing. It is very clear that RELIGION shapes us to perform these acts.


----------



## Bobby (20 July 2009)

ktrianta said:


> Think I will just take Julia's advice and walk away. .




Do that , get out of this thread .    :disgust:


----------



## trainspotter (20 July 2009)

Told you it was _"TELL IT LIKE IT IS" _Monday


----------



## Sunder (20 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> Whoa UP sunder !! You saying OK to blow yourself up because we don't have a reference point compared to hitting a roll in the sack?
> 
> REREAD my post on the mammal behaviour thing. It is very clear that RELIGION shapes us to perform these acts.




I'm not saying that at all. REREAD my post on absolute and relative morals. 

By the way, you haven't linked your mammal post, so I still haven't read it. This thread is 14 pages long by now and you haven't even made it clear it is within this thread, you expect me to find it without you linking it?


----------



## Bobby (20 July 2009)

Sunder said:


> Your morals tell you that. A fundamentalist Muslim's morals tell him it is.
> 
> A fundamentalist Muslim's morals tells him it IS NOT OK to sleep with a woman before marriage. Yours probably tells you it is.
> 
> ...




Hey sunder , why do they have no protection of animals in Muslims countries like we do ( RSPCA )  its because they don't give a **** ! about them .
Would you like to be the arbiter of this ?


----------



## Sunder (20 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> Checkout psalm 137 chapters 8 & 9 . Come back and tell me it's OK to do that to little kiddies and I will reckon you are OK in my book.




Who do you think is acting in verse 8 and 9? Are you assuming that it's God? There's no suggestion that it is God, and there's no command to the Israelites to do it, and certainly no continuity to tell Christians to do it.

I'm not sure I want to be okay in your book if blowing people up is not okay, but smashing kiddies on rocks is.


----------



## trainspotter (20 July 2009)

Post #287 page 15 is where I alluded to mammal behavioural patterns, not that far back in the thread.


----------



## Sunder (20 July 2009)

Bobby said:


> Hey sunder , why do they have no protection of animals in Muslims countries like we do ( RSPCA )  its because they don't give a **** ! about them .
> Would you like to be the arbiter of this ?




Not sure where you are going with this?

No, I would not like to be an arbiter of this. If the bible says it's wrong, then to me it's wrong, even if another religion says it's okay.

Let me get this straight. I am not defending any religion. I am not even defending Christianity, much less Islam. I am defending the authority of the bible. If the bible has no authority, then it is no better than Buddha saying "Don't kill animals", or Muslims saying "Kill infidels". It is just another relative morals system. 

I don't believe the bible is relative. It's absolute. What God designed us for yesterday, applies as much today. Murder hurts today as much as it did when Cain killed Abel.


----------



## Sunder (20 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> Post #287 page 15 is where I alluded to mammal behavioural patterns, not that far back in the thread.




Thanks, read it. It did say what I thought it would say, and my argument stays the same.

You say apes have innate good behaviour, and religion enforces it.

I say God put into us innate good behaviour, and religion reminds us of this.


----------



## trainspotter (20 July 2009)

Wait a minute Sunder. You told me that you believe in the Bible. I said if YOU are OK with this happening to kiddies then you are OK with me. What I meant by this if you are so convinced this act is OK because it is written in the bible then you are a man of conviction. I admire that in a person.

"I don't believe the bible is relative. It's absolute. What God designed us for yesterday, applies as much today."

So you are Ok with this happening? Remember the Bible is absolute.


----------



## trainspotter (20 July 2009)

Nope Sunder. Nothing about GOOD behaviour and religion enforcers at all.

_Primatologists like Frans de Waal have long argued that the roots of human morality are evident in social animals like apes and monkeys. The animals’ feelings of empathy and expectations of reciprocity are essential behaviors for mammalian group living and can be regarded as a counterpart of human morality._

AND

_Habits are learned from the society we live in. Parents, situations, experiences all assist you in making the RIGHT decision. This theory implies that parents and teachers are not teaching children the rules of correct behavior from scratch but are, at best, giving shape to an innate behavior. And it suggests that religions are not the source of moral codes but, rather, social enforcers of instinctive moral behavior._


----------



## Sunder (20 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> Wait a minute Sunder. You told me that you believe in the Bible. I said if YOU are OK with this happening to kiddies then you are OK with me. What I meant by this if you are so convinced this act is OK because it is written in the bible then you are a man of conviction. I admire that in a person.
> 
> "I don't believe the bible is relative. It's absolute. What God designed us for yesterday, applies as much today."
> 
> So you are Ok with this happening? Remember the Bible is absolute.




I'm starting to seriously doubt your powers of comprehension. The passage you refer to is:



> 8 O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction,
> happy is he who repays you
> for what you have done to us-
> 
> ...




There is no instruction to me to dash kiddies on a rock. Therefore, I do not need to be okay with having to dash kids on rocks.

There is no statement that God did this. Note the future tense of the writing. Therefore I do not need to be okay with worshipping a god that dashes kids against rocks.

This is a statement for a desire for justice. It's no different from someone saying "You'll get what's coming to you, for what you've done". Babylon slaughted the Jewish children - the ones too young to be used as slaves, by smashing them on rocks. For someone who went through what the author of the poem did, I'm comfortable with them saying "You'll get what's coming to you". 

There are lots of stories in the bible of people doing evil, that doesn't mean that the bible advocates evil. There are even stories of good people wishing evil upon evil people. This does not mean the bible advocates us taking revenge. 

Besides, if you really knew your bible, there are plenty of other juicier passages you could have used, which require a lot more explaining. You really are grasping at straws here.


----------



## Bobby (21 July 2009)

Sunder said:


> Not sure where you are going with this?
> 
> No, I would not like to be an arbiter of this. If the bible says it's wrong, then to me it's wrong, even if another religion says it's okay.
> 
> ...




Thanks , now I know what I'm dealing with . 

 Tell me this , whats real for you , thats  YOU    ~ how do you think outside your bible ? is there any nebulous areas you feel that just don't do it for you .


----------



## GumbyLearner (21 July 2009)

Bobby said:


> Thanks , now I know what I'm dealing with .
> 
> Tell me this , whats real for you , thats  YOU    ~ how do you think outside your bible ? is there any nebulous areas you feel that just don't do it for you .




I usually weigh up Deuteronomy Chapter 28 vs. Goldman Sucks to establish
a reality ? 

But that's just me!


----------



## trainspotter (21 July 2009)

OOOoeeeerrr !! My comprehension powers have left me !! Te he.

To say this is like "You will get what is coming to you" is a bit far fetched? Is this your interpretation or is this is what is written? Is there any need to go into an in depth juicy analysis of the better bits of the good book?

As for clutching at straws, well, I will leave that for the Muslim bombers to sort out.


----------



## GumbyLearner (21 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> OOOoeeeerrr !! My comprehension powers have left me !! Te he.
> 
> To say this is like "You will get what is coming to you" is a bit far fetched? Is this your interpretation or is this is what is written? Is there any need to go into an in depth juicy analysis of the better bits of the good book?
> 
> As for clutching at straws, well, I will leave that for the Muslim bombers to sort out.




In a stand up fight the Muslim bombers are a bunch of pussies! No shame, no gain.


----------



## Sunder (21 July 2009)

Bobby said:


> Thanks , now I know what I'm dealing with .
> 
> Tell me this , whats real for you , thats  YOU    ~ how do you think outside your bible ? is there any nebulous areas you feel that just don't do it for you .




That's a very short question with a very long answer. 

The bible is not a fixed methodology, or an answer book. The bible does not give me an answer to everything in life. It doesn't say "Speculative investment is wrong, invest only in productive investment". Nor does it say "Investing in sin industries like prostitution is wrong". The bible is a framework, which Jesus summed up in two very short sentences:



> Matthew 22:
> 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."




From this, Christians work out what is right and wrong. When a church leader figures it out, then tells you what to do, this becomes religion, which is what I am ardently against. When a church leader sees a warning against drunkeness, but forgets that Jesus turns water into wine, and tells all his followers that alcohol is evil, and they should totally abstain, this is religion, misses the point.

The second part, verse 40, is where the bible can be more specific. Where laws *hang* off the two commandments. 

Do not steal,
do not murder (not do not kill)
do not bear false testimony (not do not lie)
respect your parents...

These are all more specific guidelines that fit into the Christian framework, and warn us when we're outside acceptable behaviour. But if you had to take a defribulator without asking to rescusciate someone, would you do it? If you could shoot the terrorist before he detonated his explosives vest, would you do it? Religion doesn't allow it, the Christian moral framework does.

To answer your question, is anything nebulous and gray? Yes. Almost everything is. And no, not really, everything can be derived from base principles. Love my God, love those I interact with.


----------



## Bobby (21 July 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> I usually weigh up Deuteronomy Chapter 28 vs. Goldman Sucks to establish
> a reality ?
> 
> But that's just me!




Why not !
The prison-planet is a direction


----------



## Sunder (21 July 2009)

Well, it is well past time that good Christians should still be up </sarcasm>

The way this is going, it'll probably be at least 6 pages longer before I get to get back to this thread. It has been stimulating seeing how some people think (or fail to think) though.

Hopefully we've moved on to other interesting topics regarding irrational religious behaviour to debate next time I'm on. 

Cheers! (or God bless, to those who would care?)

Sunder.


----------



## Bobby (21 July 2009)

Sunder said:


> To answer your question, is anything nebulous and gray? Yes. Almost everything is. And no, not really, everything can be derived from base principles. Love my God, love those I interact with.




 OK Sunder , you now have my respect , thats very rare for me to say that for a religious individual .

AS you age & enjoy the  wonder of life  , open your mind to the freedom without religion


----------



## >Apocalypto< (21 July 2009)

refined silver said:


> Lenin, Stalin, Beria, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, tortured and murdered millions and were militant atheists.
> 
> Very poor logic to pretend religion is the root of all wrong.




don't forget Hitler


----------



## Stormin_Norman (21 July 2009)

its dogmatic beliefs that are the problem.

the greatest example is religion.


----------



## GumbyLearner (21 July 2009)

Stormin_Norman said:


> its dogmatic beliefs that are the problem.
> 
> the greatest example is religion.




Exactly Stormin.

The problem is always lying down between the rational being vs. the religious dogmatic zealot. 

I don't subscribe to either.


----------



## wayneL (21 July 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> Exactly Stormin.
> 
> The problem is always lying down between the rational being vs. the religious dogmatic zealot.
> 
> I don't subscribe to either.




Religion isn't the only source of dogmatic zealots. Politics is another field that immediately comes to mind. In fact they're in everything.

It's a human failing.


----------



## Boggo (21 July 2009)

>Apocalypto< said:


> don't forget Hitler




Its not the Hitler's, pol pots and lenin's etc that are the problem, none of them would have had any success if they hadn't had followers who blindly accepted what they were told without question.

All Hitler had to do was generate a bit of fear, give a bunch of mindless idiots a uniform and tell them that they were the superior chosen ones and point them in any direction and off they went without question.

Anyone starting to see the similarity here, nothing has changed.
If its associated with a religious belief then its even more justifiable with any of the many socially challenged loony brigades.

:nono:


----------



## GumbyLearner (21 July 2009)

Boggo said:


> Its not the Hitler's, pol pots and lenin's etc that are the problem, none of them would have had any success if they hadn't had followers who blindly accepted what they were told without question.
> 
> All Hitler had to do was generate a bit of fear, give a bunch of mindless idiots a uniform and tell them that they were the superior chosen ones and point them in any direction and off they went without question.
> 
> ...




Precisely.


----------



## bunyip (21 July 2009)

Sunder said:


> From the Christian perspective, the Muslim who kills 3000 by flying a plane into a building, is no worse off* than an Atheist who works at the RSPCA and donates blood every month.
> 
> With regards to charitable works done by atheists though, here's a challenge anyone can take up. List all the non-Christian charities you can, and I bet you over 90% of them are more like "special interest groups", rather than true charities - Greenpeace, WSPCA, WWF, Heart Foundation, Diabetes Australia, <list medical condition here>. List all the Christian charities, and see where their interest lies - Salvation Army, Anglicare, Red Cross (no longer officially Christian, but look up its roots).
> 
> ...





If a mass murdering Muslim who flys a plane into a building is no worse off than an atheist who works at the RSPCA and donates blood every month, then that really highlights the absurdity of some Christian beliefs.

Atheist charities? No, I don't know of any, for the simple reason that atheists don't see any need to form themselves into organisations specific to atheists. 
However, I do know many atheists who are very decent people and have given decades of dedicated service to their communities through volunteer work with service clubs, coastguards, and many other organisations.
Nobody is disputing the good work done by Christian charities. On this particular thread though, it doesn't get much mention, simply because it's outside the topic of the thread.

The Bible has a very strong stance against murder??
Are you sure about that? True, one of the ten commandments is 'Thou shalt not kill'.
But then in its typical contradictory style, the Bible goes on to tell numerous stories that glorify murder.
It says 'an eye for an eye'.......clearly an invitation to respond in kind if someone was to kill a member of your family, or commit some other act of atrocity against you.
The Bible tells you to kill your son if he's a drunkard.
I could give many other examples, but I won't bother.


----------



## bunyip (21 July 2009)

Sunder - I'm curious.......You make all these claims about God, but how do you know God exists? And if he does exist, how did he come into existence - who or what created him?


----------



## Knobby22 (21 July 2009)

bunyip said:


> If a mass murdering Muslim who flys a plane into a building is no worse off than an atheist who works at the RSPCA and donates blood every month, then that really highlights the absurdity of some Christian beliefs.
> 
> Atheist charities? No, I don't know of any, for the simple reason that atheists don't see any need to form themselves into organisations specific to atheists.
> However, I do know many atheists who are very decent people and have given decades of dedicated service to their communities through volunteer work with service clubs, coastguards, and many other organisations.
> ...




I think you should look at the new testament. The Christian bit.


----------



## Sean K (21 July 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> I think you should look at the new testament. The Christian bit.



Knobby, the Old Testament is part of the Christian bible isn't it?


----------



## Knobby22 (21 July 2009)

kennas said:


> Knobby, the Old Testament is part of the Christian bible isn't it?




Yea, but you can't ignore the revisions


----------



## Sean K (21 July 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> Yea, but you can't ignore the revisions



You can think of them as revisions, but it's more than generally accepted that the 'Old' bits are integral to the belief system. Are you a cafeteria Christian?


----------



## Knobby22 (21 July 2009)

kennas said:


> You can think of them as revisions, but it's more than generally accepted that the 'Old' bits are integral to the belief system. Are you a cafeteria Christian?




It's a bit more complex than that, otherwise Church would be on Saturday.
Maybe read this.

http://fatherlasch.com/article/472/jesus-and-gandhijesus-and-gandhi


----------



## Sean K (21 July 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> Maybe read this.
> 
> http://fatherlasch.com/article/472/jesus-and-gandhijesus-and-gandhi



No, my compter might catch a virus.

And no, it's not that complicated.


----------



## Knobby22 (21 July 2009)

kennas said:


> No, my compter might catch a virus.
> 
> And no, it's not that complicated.




Yep, too risky. It's by a professor and its about Ghandi.


----------



## Sunder (21 July 2009)

bunyip said:


> Are you sure about that? True, one of the ten commandments is 'Thou shalt not kill'.
> The Bible tells you to kill your son if he's a drunkard.




I rarely log in at work to post, but since this is so deluded and inflammatory, I thought I'd answer before it slips by behind another dozen pages. 

Care to quote any verses to back any of your beliefs about the bible? "Thou shalt not kill" is *NOT* one of the 10 commandments. Every english version, except the oldest has "You shall not murder".

You are criticising a fantasy version of Christianity, an illusion that you have created, to justify your attacks on Christianity. 

"As if you'd follow those evolutionists, they believe you should kill the weak so the species will be stronger... How... distastefully unethical." I've never heard an Atheist say that, yet, taking the basic principles of what atheists believe, (and I am making an assumption that atheists actually believe in evolution - otherwise they'd be agnostics), it'd be pretty easy to ridicule something on a false assertion. Likewise, I have never met a Christian that beleives it's okay to blow people up, dash babies on rocks, or kill drunkards sons. Not that I see anywhere in the bible that any of that behaviour is advocated anyway. 

If Christians did to Atheist beliefs what Atheists did to Christian beliefs, this is what we'd be hearing a lot more of.


----------



## trainspotter (21 July 2009)

You are addicted Sunder. Logging on at work LOLOL. Nice one brudda.

The 10 Commandments - God's Revelation in the Old Testament
The 10 Commandments are found in the Bible's Old Testament at Exodus, Chapter 20. They were given directly by God to the people of Israel at Mount Sinai after He had delivered them from slavery in Egypt: 

"And God spoke all these words, saying: 'I am the LORD your God… 

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

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.' 

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

FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.' 

FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother.' 

SIX: 'You shall not murder.' 

SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.' 

EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.' 

NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.' 

TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'


----------



## Sunder (21 July 2009)

Wow, 4 minutes after I post, you've got a reply, and you say *I'm* addicted?


----------



## trainspotter (21 July 2009)

Whose counting the minutes? I have OCD so therefore I AM ADDICTED.


----------



## Sean K (21 July 2009)

Sunder said:


> Likewise, I have never met a Christian that beleives it's okay to blow people up, dash babies on rocks, or kill drunkards sons. Not that I see anywhere in the bible that any of that behaviour is advocated anyway.



You should read your book again.


----------



## Timmy (21 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'




My neighbour's donkey is just so damned HOT!!!!!


----------



## trainspotter (21 July 2009)

The ADDICTED jibe was a compliment too. Just thought I would share.


----------



## Sean K (21 July 2009)

Timmy said:


> My neighbour's donkey is just so damned HOT!!!!!



Oh dear, I thought I was the only one.


----------



## trainspotter (21 July 2009)

I'm making a bee line for the male servant. I have worn the last one out.


----------



## Sunder (21 July 2009)

kennas said:


> You should read your book again.




I read it regularly. Can you say the same? Or have you just been told about the parts you need justify avoid reading it, and enough to ridicule other's beliefs that you don't understand?

There are 66 books, nearly 1200 chapters, over 31,000 verses, and 600,000 words in the bible.

For a document of that length, it's not exactly a genius' work to find a verse and interpret it however you want. 

It's much harder to read the whole book in context, and still cognitively make it say something that's inconsistent with the whole of the bible.


----------



## Knobby22 (21 July 2009)

I read that a bit quickly.
What was that about a male servant, female servant and a donkey?


----------



## Sean K (21 July 2009)

Sunder said:


> I read it regularly. Can you say the same? Or have you just been told about the parts you need justify avoid reading it, and enough to ridicule other's beliefs that you don't understand?
> 
> There are 66 books, nearly 1200 chapters, over 31,000 verses, and 600,000 words in the bible.
> 
> ...



I've read most of it. Good story. And 6 versions of the Koran. Another good story.


----------



## Sean K (21 July 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> I read that a bit quickly.
> What was that about a male servant, female servant and a donkey?



LOL


----------



## trainspotter (21 July 2009)

Which leads us back to DOH ! A dear, a female dear.


----------



## Boggo (21 July 2009)

The new Priest was so nervous at his first mass that he could hardly speak. Before the next mass he asked the bishop how he could relax. The Bishop said, "Next week, put some vodka in the water pitcher. After a few sips, everything should run smoothly." The next Sunday, the new priest put the suggestion into practice and was able to talk up a storm and felt just great. Upon returning to the rectory, however, he found a note from the Bishop...

Next time sip, rather than gulp.

There are 10 Commandments, not 12.

There are 12 Disciples, not 10.

David slew Goliath, he didn't kick the **** out of him.

We do not refer to Jesus Christ and his Apostles as "J.C. and the boys."

Next week there is a taffy pulling contest at St. Peters, not a Peter pulling contest at St. Taffy.

We do not refer to the cross as "The Big T."

We do not refer to the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost as "Big Daddy, Junior and the Spook."

The recommended way of saying grace is not Rub-a-dub-dub, thanks for the grub, Yea God!"

And last but not least, it is the "Virgin Mary," not "Mary with the cherry."


----------



## trainspotter (21 July 2009)

Help me out here Sunder. I have a vague recollection when Noah fell asleep on the foredeck of the Ark and he was nuding it up. His sons threw a blanket over him to keep him warm. When he woke up he called on God to punish someone or other for throwing a blanket on him? Does this sound right?


----------



## Sunder (21 July 2009)

kennas said:


> I've read most of it. Good story. And 6 versions of the Koran. Another good story.




It takes most Christians a year to two years to go through the entire bible. Most people can't read a short novel a week, and yet there are non-Christians who have no motivation to read the bible, claiming they've read all 66 books... 

Amusing...

Also find it amusing all the criticisms about Christianity, actually focuses on the old testament judgement and lamentations time. Some morbid obsession with when God's people were being slaughtered and enslaved... 

No criticisms of Jesus' love thy neighbour preaching. I wonder why.


----------



## Sunder (21 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> Help me out here Sunder. I have a vague recollection when Noah fell asleep on the foredeck of the Ark and he was nuding it up. His sons threw a blanket over him to keep him warm. When he woke up he called on God to punish someone or other for throwing a blanket on him? Does this sound right?




You do seem to have a good, if somewhat corrupted memory of the bible.

You're refering to Genesis 9


> And Noah began to be a farmer, and he planted a vineyard. Then he drank of the wine and was drunk, and became uncovered in his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside.
> 
> But Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and went backward and covered the nakedness of their father. Their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father’s nakedness.
> So Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done to him. Then he said:
> ...




So basically, it was Noah who did something embarassing. One son thought it was funny, and humiliated poor old dad, the other two did the right thing. Noah cursed his bad son, and blessed his good sons.

I don't see anything wrong with that, do you?

This is the problem I am having. People seem to have a very corrupted memory/view of the bible, and use that to criticise Christians.


----------



## wayneL (21 July 2009)

Sunder said:


> It takes most Christians a year to two years to go through the entire bible. Most people can't read a short novel a week, and yet there are non-Christians who have no motivation to read the bible, claiming they've read all 66 books...
> 
> Amusing...
> 
> ...



http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/


----------



## trainspotter (21 July 2009)

I guess people are more interested in the BAD things that God did to his people. Plagues, pestilence, flood the earth, turning people to salt, you know, all the juicy bits. He did this because they were sinners. If this God is so powerful, rather than wiping everybody out and getting them to start again, (Genesis 10 - Shem, Ham, and Japheth and wives repopulated the world),  why not just make then NOT SIN? Therefore he would not have to have blood on his hands because he was "displeased" with how things had turned out.


----------



## Buckeroo (21 July 2009)

You know, if the economy plunges to new depths or heaven help us, a war begins, I wonder how many will turn to the faith?

As history shows, as people become richer (or the political correct term - people of economic stature), religion becomes less important to the stage where it is castigated.

But come a little hardship & how things turn - are we hypocrites?, of course we are!

Cheers


----------



## Timmy (21 July 2009)

Buckeroo said:


> But come a little hardship & how things turn - are we hypocrites?, of course we are!




Not me.  Speak for yourself.


----------



## trainspotter (21 July 2009)

Like my post claimed Sunder. I was working from memory and asked for your help on this one. Did not criticise one bit. My memory has faded since I was last reading the Bible. I have had several sleeps since then.

I did not say there was a problem did I? I asked for your HELP.

It appears that you have "cognitively" deciphered the Bible to your slant. Someone else reading it could interpret another way. It is FULL of ambiguity.

If the problem that you are having with people criticising the Faith or the Bible why don't you go out and try and convert people to your way of thinking. No wait ... that is what you are doing here !!


----------



## Sunder (21 July 2009)

Buckeroo said:


> But come a little hardship & how things turn - are we hypocrites?, of course we are!




As they say "There are no atheists in the trenches"


----------



## Sunder (21 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> Like my post claimed Sunder. I was working from memory and asked for your help on this one. Did not criticise one bit. My memory has faded since I was last reading the Bible. I have had several sleeps since then.
> 
> I did not say there was a problem did I? I asked for your HELP.




Hmm, you're quite critical of religion, and you have memories of it that are inaccurate in a critical way... Draw your own conclusion.


----------



## bunyip (21 July 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> I think you should look at the new testament. The Christian bit.






Knobby my friend, I've probably spent more time looking at the bible than most people have. I was raised in a Christian family, I attended church and Sunday school 52 weeks a year from when I was born, I went to Bible study classes after I left school.


----------



## trainspotter (21 July 2009)

So by reading my "inaccurate" post you have concluded that it was critical to religion because I asked for your help? GOSH .. can't wait for the next instalment. Read back on my posts. Not critical of religion. More critical of the PEOPLE who use religion to perform acts of atrocities against humanity. LIKE BLOW PEOPLE UP.

You waded into this by saying something about "absolute reference points", Pure Evil being a religious terminology etc etc ad infinitum. Questioning right from wrong was another.

Me, myelf and I live by one motto. _Treat people as you would want to be treated yourself._ If you throw a stone, I will throw one back. Mirror image kinda stuff. The psychologist mate I have calls it the "Chameleon Effect". You work it out.


----------



## Sunder (21 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> So by reading my "inaccurate" post you have concluded that it was critical to religion because I asked for your help?




No. I concluded that from a series of posts.


----------



## trainspotter (21 July 2009)

LMAO .. getting much work done today Sunder?


----------



## Buckeroo (21 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> Me, myelf and I live by one motto. _Treat people as you would want to be treated yourself._ If you throw a stone, I will throw one back. Mirror image kinda stuff. The psychologist mate I have calls it the "Chameleon Effect". You work it out.




May have dug yourself a hole here buddy - basically your saying an eye for an eye? 

There are some problems with this if you applied this to the law. Take an accident, I get crippled in a car crash because someone was negligent, then the punishment is, they get crippled the same way. 

Not sure I personally would want this to happen and I reckon our social system could not afford both of us being crippled.

Cheers


----------



## trainspotter (21 July 2009)

Sorry Buckeroo, that is not what I meant .. It should have said "If you throw a stone into my pond, I will throw one back". It has to do with psychology and not car accidents and being crippled. Human interaction. You start shouting, I will shout, you hurl insults, I will respond in kind. You scratch your head and I will do the same. Mirror image. Chameleon yourself into the person you are up against. Also a great sales technique. If you talk slow, I will talk slow, if you want to use big words then I will open the dictionary. 

No eye for eye sh!te. Get my drift?


----------



## Buckeroo (21 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> Sorry Buckeroo, that is not what I meant .. It should have said "If you throw a stone into my pond, I will throw one back". It has to do with psychology and not car accidents and being crippled. Human interaction. You start shouting, I will shout, you hurl insults, I will respond in kind. You scratch your head and I will do the same. Mirror image. Chameleon yourself into the person you are up against. Also a great sales technique. If you talk slow, I will talk slow, if you want to use big words then I will open the dictionary.
> 
> No eye for eye sh!te. Get my drift?




OK, fair enough - I'll just have to make sure you don't sell me anything, I don't think I would get the best deal knowing what I know now.

Cheers


----------



## trainspotter (21 July 2009)

LOLOLOL ... No worries Buckeroo, I will try and not sell you anything and basically let you buy it from me insted. OK?


----------



## Sean K (21 July 2009)

Sunder said:


> It takes most Christians a year to two years to go through the entire bible. Most people can't read a short novel a week, and yet there are non-Christians who have no motivation to read the bible, claiming they've read all 66 books...
> 
> Amusing...
> 
> ...



It's been my hobby for the good part of 20 years Sunder. Yes, it is amusing.


----------



## bunyip (21 July 2009)

Sunder said:


> I rarely log in at work to post, but since this is so deluded and inflammatory, I thought I'd answer before it slips by behind another dozen pages.
> 
> Care to quote any verses to back any of your beliefs about the bible? "Thou shalt not kill" is *NOT* one of the 10 commandments. Every english version, except the oldest has "You shall not murder".
> 
> ...




Inflammatory? Only because some of you Christians become inflamed when people point out some of the less palatable truths about your Bible and your religion.

Deluded? How so? I'm telling you some of what's in the Bible, not what I _think_ is in the Bible, _*what actually is in the Bible.*_
OK - it's some time since I studied the Bible and I'm no doubt a little hazy on the exact wording. It makes little difference whether it says 'Thou shalt not kill', or whether it's 'You shall not murder'.
As for dashing babies on rocks, I have no idea if that's in the Bible - I never claimed it was.

'Kill your son if he's a drunkard' - you have trouble believing that's in there? I'm not surprised - I found it difficult to believe myself until I read it. I first became aware of it after reading the _'Letters To The Editor'_ section of a newspaper. One of the letters was written by someone who was complaining about being frequently harassed by Jehovah's Witnesses knocking on his door. He told of how he challenged them by quoting the passage in the Bible that says "If your son is a drunkard, you should take him outside the city gates and stone him to death". (I'm working from memory here - I mightn't have it correct word for word, but that's close enough to what it says).
He quoted the chapter and verse etc, so I looked it up in my Bible to see if it really did say that. Sure enough, there it was.

Sorry I can't quote the chapter and verse numbers so you can look it up - they've long since left my memory. But I assure you, the words are there - no fantasy or illusion on my part. The words are there if you care to find them.

Like you, I've never met a Christian who believes it's okay to blow people up, dash babies on rocks, or kill drunkards sons. Most of the Christians I know, and there are many, are good people who are far too decent and intelligent to follow some of the more unsavoury advice and commands in the Bible.
Like all intelligent people, they choose the good of what they have to work with, and reject the bad.

I'm not attacking every aspect of Christianity, I'm simply challenging some of the beliefs and the more controversial issues in Christianity.
Which reminds me.....I'm still waiting for you to answer my earlier post in which I asked how you know God exists, and if he does exist, who or what created him?


----------



## refined silver (21 July 2009)

bunyip said:


> It makes little difference whether it says 'Thou shalt not kill', or whether it's 'You shall not murder'.




The quick difference between the two, is that the State was still instructed to use capital punishment at times, and of course soldiers were allowed to kill. 

"Do not commit murder", does not exclude these two examples, it is much more specific than "do not kill"


----------



## Sean K (21 July 2009)

refined silver said:


> The quick difference between the two, is that the State was still instructed to use capital punishment at times, and of course soldiers were allowed to kill.
> 
> "Do not commit murder", does not exclude these two examples, it is much more specific than "do not kill"



From my understanding the commandment does infer 'murder' not just plain old 'kill'.

So, capital punishment is cool.

However, the commandment was made up by Moses and directed towards the Israelites who were then instructed by Yahweh, through Moses, to murder thousands of people. 

So much for that commandment. 

Their actions were not just murder, but genocidal.


----------



## Buckeroo (21 July 2009)

bunyip said:


> I'm not attacking every aspect of Christianity, I'm simply challenging some of the beliefs and the more controversial issues in Christianity.
> Which reminds me.....I'm still waiting for you to answer my earlier post in which I asked how you know God exists, and if he does exist, who or what created him?




Sounds as if you are Bunyip - the bible was written for a different age and you can't take every word as though its absolute. If you wrote a book today about our society & someone reads it 1000 years from now, I'm sure we would look not much better than Ghingus Khan.

I measure Christianity by their actions - religious groups predominantly run charities, sacrificing their time more than most.

Cheers


----------



## bunyip (21 July 2009)

Buckeroo said:


> Sounds as if you are Bunyip - the bible was written for a different age and you can't take every word as though its absolute. If you wrote a book today about our society & someone reads it 1000 years from now, I'm sure we would look not much better than Ghingus Khan.
> 
> I measure Christianity by their actions - religious groups predominantly run charities, sacrificing their time more than most.
> 
> Cheers




Like you, I too measure Christianity by the actions of Christians. That's why I've been happy to acknowledge on some of the other threads that sometimes great things happen when Christians get together. I suggest you have a look at 'The Beauty In Religion' thread where you'll see two real life stories that I've related from my own experiences......stories that pay the highest compliment to Christians and Christianity.
You'll note that in my previous post on this thread I acknowledged that most of the Christians I know are decent and intelligent people.

No, I'm not attacking every aspect of Christianity, only the aspects that are contradictory or incite people to kill, or Biblical stories that glorify murder and violence.
On more than one occasion on this forum I've stated that there's a lot of good in Christianity.

You can't take every word of the Bible as though it's absolute? How right you are...there's much in the Bible that's rubbish and needs to be culled out. Intelligent and decent people do just that by ignoring the Biblical rules and instructions that go against all reasonable codes of decency.
That's why I've said that the Bible needs re-writing - it's very much outdated and is badly in need of renovation.

What amuses me is the exceptionally naive people who claim that the Bible is 'the word or God', and that they believe and follow what's written in the Bible. 
But when you challenge those 'beliefs' by pointing out the inconsistencies, contradictions and the more unsavoury parts of the Bible, they duck and weave and accuse you of being inflammatory, delusional, and indulging in fantasy.


----------



## Tink (21 July 2009)

well '*Alleluia*'

There's some balance in this thread


----------



## darkside (21 July 2009)

kennas said:


> It's been my hobby for the good part of 20 years Sunder. Yes, it is amusing.




Kennas , right with you brother, in fact i studied religion for years, and realised out of 10000 religions the christians regard 9999 as wrong ,after years of study i regard all 10000 as wrong.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (21 July 2009)

Buckeroo said:


> Sounds as if you are Bunyip - the bible was written for a different age and you can't take every word as though its absolute. If you wrote a book today about our society & someone reads it 1000 years from now, I'm sure we would look not much better than Ghingus Khan.
> 
> I measure Christianity by their actions - religious groups predominantly run charities, sacrificing their time more than most.
> 
> Cheers




So are Financial Planners religious nuts?

gg


----------



## awg (21 July 2009)

Sunder said:


> As they say "There are no atheists in the trenches"




Fair enough saying, I can understand why one may be reluctant to disavow a personal God DURING a war.

I was of the belief however, that many soldiers become atheists, especially after WWI.

I was talking to an Vietnam vet last night, who was seriously injured, he is not a believer


----------



## bunyip (21 July 2009)

Just been watching 'Foreign Correspondent' on TV - a story about Northern Ireland.
They showed a segment where trouble erupted when Catholic kids in Belfast tried to walk through a Protestant area on their way to school.

These clowns call themselves Christians, many of them attend church regularly, both sides worship the same God and live their lives (supposedly) by the same Christian creed. Yet they hate each other like poison and will stop at nothing in their pursuit of that hatred...violent assault, fire-bombs, real bombs, murder - you name it, they'll do it.

More religious nuts.


----------



## trainspotter (21 July 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> So are Financial Planners religious nuts?
> 
> gg




If they are wearing a robe and asking you to put some $$ into a container to be passed onto some superior being then I guess they are? Wait a minute ... sounds like the guy I see ????


----------



## bunyip (21 July 2009)

awg said:


> Fair enough saying, I can understand why one may be reluctant to disavow a personal God DURING a war.
> 
> I was of the belief however, that many soldiers become atheists, especially after WWI.
> 
> I was talking to an Vietnam vet last night, who was seriously injured, he is not a believer




And I believe there were quite a few Jews who abandoned their belief in God after World War 2. Their reasoning was that their God, the so-called God of compassion and love, abandoned them in their darkest hour by ignoring their pleas for help when millions of them were being imprisoned and killed by the Nazis. Therefore, as they saw it, either the existence of God was a complete fallacy, or if he did exist, then he'd shown himself to be such a heartless and uncaring bastard that he was no longer worthy of following.


----------



## bunyip (21 July 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> So are Financial Planners religious nuts?
> 
> gg




Maybe Manny Cassamatis can answer that question for us!


----------



## weird (21 July 2009)

Interesting working paper on Religion and Crime,

http://home.uchicago.edu/~psheaton/workingpapers/religionandcrime.pdf

Btw, I think alot of the previous comments have been extremely emotional and biased, to the point this thread is becoming a ramp for atheism,  with no other argument, than that the loudest wins.

Atheists provide some unbiased research and stats to at least provide an argument.


----------



## wayneL (21 July 2009)

OK, couldn't give a #### either way what people believe, but how does the cruelty of some humans prove or disprove a God?

Where does it say that God will give you a wonderful life free from @ssholes?

I mean, the Bible itself is full of cruelty. Even Jesus himself nailed to a cross, many apostles imprisoned and crucified as well.

Hypocrites. If folks want to believe in what the Bible/Talmud/whatever says, they should take note of what it says. Religion is all about suffering FFS.

People who ask "how can God let _x_ happen" need a serious smack in the head. They want free choice and expect "God" to remove it selectively for their personal benefit. How can religious people believe in an afterlife and sweat about their Earth experience so much?

That is just cognitive dissonance.


----------



## darkside (21 July 2009)

bunyip said:


> Maybe Manny Cassamatis can answer that question for us!




After reading the "Storm Thread" i do believe that he, and a good number of the SICAG site developers actually think he is the one and true messiah.
It's stand to reason , he sold them incredible stories that they lapped up and when put to the test , the wheels fell off.


----------



## weird (21 July 2009)

wayneL said:


> OK, couldn't give a #### either way what people believe, but how does the cruelty of some humans prove or disprove a God?
> 
> Where does it say that God will give you a wonderful life free from @ssholes?
> 
> ...




Good post Wayne, agree.


----------



## trainspotter (21 July 2009)

weird said:


> Interesting working paper on Religion and Crime,
> 
> http://home.uchicago.edu/~psheaton/workingpapers/religionandcrime.pdf
> 
> ...




No emotion or bias here weird. Just plain old english for all to understand.

How can you have an "unbiased reserach" ?? The person writing it has a slant prior to providing evidence. Ktrianta and Sunder wandered off on some "arbiter and reference absolute point" nonsense. Some consummate CRAP about it is OK to blow yourself up in the name of religion because they lived in a country where this is apparently OK because my morals did not understand it??? WTF ... no I say WTF ???

Nothing to do with atheism or religion or agnostics or


----------



## weird (21 July 2009)

No offense Trainspotter, but in your post, it contains nothing which provides evidence that any mainstream religion encourages their members to do any 'nutty' things which involves criminal activity towards others.

People do crazy things, in the name of religion or even full moons. But 'they' ultimately are responsible for their action, whether it was a full moon or not.


----------



## trainspotter (21 July 2009)

Atheism, in its broadest sense, is the absence of belief in the existence of deities. A narrower definition includes only those who believe that deities do not exist, and excludes those who hold no position on the question (agnostics and other non-theists). In other words, an “atheist” can be defined as either:

1) A person who does not believe that at least one god exists; or 
2) A person who has a positive belief that no god or gods exist. 

Nothing to do with morals or absolutes or arbiters. To ask an atheist to prove that God does not exist is liking asking a religious NUT to prove that He does. How can you argue either way? He does. No ... He doesnt. And you want us to prove stats on this?? Hmmmm .... A book was written 500 years after a man by the name of Jesus Christ helped the Jews kick the Romans out of their country and for this he became an idol?? Ok then, King Arthur actually slayed a fire breathing dragon. For this he was the greatest King and some knights and a round table was named after him. 

One all.


----------



## Iffonly (21 July 2009)

I just want you all to know that there is going to be BIG trouble if you don't believe in the same imaginary friend as I believe in because the the two faced lazy blood sucking power barons that say I belong to their imaginary friend have said that our imaginary friend is way way much better than any of your imaginary friends could ever be, and therefore you must yield to my two faced lazy blood sucking power barons and not yours.

so there....chk chk boom...end of argument


----------



## weird (21 July 2009)

Trainspotter, the question is , which relates completely to this thread, provide statistical unbiased evidence that religious people commit more crime, than non-religious people.


----------



## 2020hindsight (21 July 2009)

Maybe we have to define the term "belief" ?
Does it imply "you can prove it"?
or just a hunch?
yet a hunch some are prepared to die for? - 
strange indeed 

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=232887


----------



## trainspotter (21 July 2009)

weird said:


> *No offense Trainspotter, but in your post, it contains nothing which provides evidence that any mainstream religion encourages their members to do any 'nutty' things which involves criminal activity towards others.*
> 
> People do crazy things, in the name of religion or even full moons. But 'they' ultimately are responsible for their action, whether it was a full moon or not.




Fair point weird. Muslims in the name of religion issue a fatwa against Salman Rushdie because he wrote a book called "The Satanic Verses. Apparently it upset Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. The Muslims basically wanted to kill this guy because he wrote a book?

Osama Bin Laden issues a fatwa that ALL Muslims should target/kill Americans until they withdraw their support and funding for Israel. Fly a plane into a building killing how many innocents?

I must be missing the point here ??


----------



## weird (21 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> Fair point weird. Muslims in the name of religion issue a fatwa against Salman Rushdie because he wrote a book called "The Satanic Verses. Apparently it upset Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. The Muslims basically wanted to kill this guy because he wrote a book?
> 
> Osama Bin Laden issues a fatwa that ALL Muslims should target/kill Americans until they withdraw their support and funding for Israel. Fly a plane into a building killing how many innocents?
> 
> I must be missing the point here ??




Unfortunately you are quoting individual incidences (and even if a country takes a stance how can you include the mainstream religion as to blame if it has no such instructions), I could do the same, quoting unabomber, Oklahoma City bombing, triad kidnappings, etc.

Bring some unbiased research and statistics (I thought this is what atheists based their beliefs on ?)  to the table, as mentioned before, crime committed by religious people vs non religious.  Otherwise , no offense, shut up, and stop adding to the attempt of the noisiest person wins the argument.


----------



## trainspotter (21 July 2009)

weird said:


> Trainspotter, the question is , which relates completely to this thread, provide statistical unbiased evidence that religious people commit more crime, than non-religious people.




Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat ?? What kind of crime do you require to be perpetuated? Crimes against humanity or the general shoplifting ones?? I was of the understanding this THREAD was to do with religious NUT JOBS killing/maiming/exorcisms/brutality/kicking the **** out of in the name of their beliefs??

I don't remember it becoming a Mexican standoff with atheists/non believers committing more crimes against humanity than the ones that take Sabbath or prey to mecca or wear a tea towel on their head?

Atheists do not believe in a diety. Full stop. No stats or pie graphs or charts. 

Ok if this is the way it needs to be. Twin towers September 11. Does this compare to the Roman Catholic Inquisition (incorporating the Medieval, Spanish, Portugese and Roman from 1184 - 1860) where if you DID NOT BELIEVE in God you were a heretic and basically killed for non belief?

I was of the understanding we were discussing the here and now. Stuff we can control by controlling our predjudices and not some navel gazing exercise of the last 2000 years !!!


----------



## weird (21 July 2009)

Yup, you can post individual incidents, but can't back up any comparision. Very unatheist to not have science or research backing up your claims or comments - why are you wasting time or space (other peoples time) in posting, you should be researching ?

Bring some unbiased research and statistics (I thought this is what atheists based their beliefs on ?) to the table, as mentioned before, crime committed by religious people vs non religious.


----------



## trainspotter (21 July 2009)

P.S. weird look at the title of the thread "More Religious Nuts" ... NOT "Atheists trying to perpetuate more crimes than Religious people"

 As for being the noisiest person to win an argument I will quite happily lurk in the bakground and observe the future posts in this thread.


----------



## Cartman (21 July 2009)

bunyip said:


> I'm simply challenging some of the beliefs and the more controversial issues in Christianity.




and there are a few -- no doubt about that !




bunyip said:


> I'm still waiting for you to answer my earlier post in which I asked how you know God exists, and if he does exist, who or what created him?





ever considered that he may have "evolved" out of the random nothingness before man did  ---- is that possible?


----------



## pilots (21 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> P.S. weird look at the title of the thread "More Religious Nuts" ... NOT "Atheists trying to perpetuate more crimes than Religious people"
> 
> As for being the noisiest person to win an argument I will quite happily lurk in the bakground and observe the future posts in this thread.




Trainspotter, I would be very careful of what you post here, you could find a bolt of lightening come down and wipe all the numbers of every train in Australia. lol.


----------



## trainspotter (21 July 2009)

weird said:


> Yup, you can post individual incidents, but can't back up any comparision. Very unatheist to not have science or research backing up your claims or comments - why are you wasting time or space (other peoples time) in posting, you should be researching ?
> 
> Bring some unbiased research and statistics (I thought this is what atheists based their beliefs on ?) to the table, as mentioned before, crime committed by religious people vs non religious.




ONE LAST GASP AT THIS :- an ATHEIST does not belive in a diety. Nothing to do with stats or basing beliefs or WHO killed WHO? This is your opinion.

If you want to have this kind of information handed to you on a platter I am sure a quick Google rummage will satisfy your lusty needs. 

Would this help you? "NEWSFLASH .... 37, 123,324 people have been killed in the name of religion compared to 37, 123, 324 people NOt killed in the name of religion." 

GOSH .... that is really, really so much better now. Glad I got that off my chest. Whooooooooeeeeeeee I feel better now.

How can you possibly comapare the two? On what basis wouold you draw the information from? How accurate does it need to be and if a crime has happened but no one has been caught (Osama Bin Laden) did it really happen and does this count?


----------



## weird (21 July 2009)

weird said:


> Yup, you can post individual incidents, but can't back up any comparision. Very unatheist to not have science or research backing up your claims or comments - why are you wasting time or space (other peoples time) in posting, you should be researching ?
> 
> Bring some unbiased research and statistics (I thought this is what atheists based their beliefs on ?) to the table, as mentioned before, crime committed by religious people vs non religious.




Fine, and for any future atheist spruiking ...

Bring some unbiased research and statistics (I thought this is what atheists based their beliefs on ?) to the table, as mentioned before, crime committed by religious people vs non religious.

Otherwise it is just spruiking and making oneself comfortable in ones own belief ... it's a bit pathetic.

I have not enjoyed this thread, and wish I didn't have to participate in it.  I have the highest respect for all that did, however I think it is unfair to post one-side incidences, which are generally posts from those that have a particular view, without having to justify or compare that view.


----------



## trainspotter (21 July 2009)

pilots said:


> Trainspotter, I would be very careful of what you post here, you could find a bolt of lightening come down and wipe all the numbers of every train in Australia. lol.




PMSL pilots. Good on ya !! OOOOPS ! I promised to lurk didn't I, so I could give the Godbotherers a go at this. Sorry, Sorry, Sorry ...Hmmmmm I sound like Kevin Rudd a bit??

Why did you quote your own post weird? Now that is just WEIRD !!!


----------



## Julia (21 July 2009)

wayneL said:


> People who ask "how can God let _x_ happen" need a serious smack in the head. They want free choice and expect "God" to remove it selectively for their personal benefit.



If you're talking about the believers, I'm not sure that they all do, Wayne.
You will, I'm sure, have come across many believers who - when e.g. a child dies - smile bravely, and say "it's God's Will".
Ditto when someone behaves really, really badly, they again don't blame God, but rather say loftily that "God gave us free will.  Therefore he is not to blame for the bad stuff".

The same people say "God has a reason for everything that happens".

I guess the benefit in adopting such an attitude is that it would reduce anxiety and anger.  If you believe that you have no control over anything that happens because God is sorting it all out, then wouldn't life have to be simpler?




> How can religious people believe in an afterlife and sweat about their Earth experience so much?



The few religious people I know really don't do this.  They are irritatingly all-accepting.   I feel vaguely envious at times on the basis that such a view must remove a lot of the angst of decision making.


----------



## weird (21 July 2009)

Sorry Julia, I don't normally find fault in your posts, but not sure what you have attempted to say  ... there doesn't appear to be a logical argument or any statistics/research ... I didn't think this was facebook or twitter where we posted how we feel.

Bring some unbiased research and statistics (I thought this is what atheists based their beliefs on ?) to the table, as mentioned before, crime committed by religious people vs non religious ... otherwise you're wasting other people's time reading posts that have very little too offer, except reading about how you feel ... which could be important I know, but not the focus of this thread.


----------



## Julia (21 July 2009)

weird said:


> Sorry Julia, I don't normally find fault in your posts, but not sure what you have attempted to say  ... there doesn't appear to be a logical argument or any statistics/research ... I didn't think this was facebook or twitter where we posted how we feel.



It wasn't what I 'feel', but rather what I've observed amongst the few religious people I know.

Obviously such a small sample isn't statistically valid and proves absolutely nothing.

It wasn't designed to be anything more than a response to what Wayne suggested earlier.

I have absolutely no objection if you were to ask a moderator to remove my post.  Sorry it offended you.



> Bring some unbiased research and statistics (I thought this is what atheists based their beliefs on ?) to the table, as mentioned before, crime committed by religious people vs non religious ... otherwise you're wasting other people's time reading posts that have very little too offer, except reading about how you feel ... which could be important I know, but not the focus of this thread.



I don't think it's the sort of subject where it's possible to present research and statistics (other than the bland sort of numbers e.g. x% of people believe in a God in Australia etc.)

And if you'd actually read my previous posts (I don't at all mind if you don't) you would know that I have never declared myself an atheist.   

I have absolutely no idea if there is a God or if there is not, so this makes me agnostic.   In a situation where there is no way of proving either the existence of a God or the non-existence, I don't see any other rational stand.

And, Weird, there's no rule on ASF that says you have to read any posts that you consider a waste of your time.   I'm quite happy for you to ignore mine.


----------



## Buckeroo (21 July 2009)

bunyip said:


> What amuses me is the exceptionally naive people who claim that the Bible is 'the word or God', and that they believe and follow what's written in the Bible.
> But when you challenge those 'beliefs' by pointing out the inconsistencies, contradictions and the more unsavoury parts of the Bible, they duck and weave and accuse you of being inflammatory, delusional, and indulging in fantasy.




Second time today, but, fair enough. Some people I suppose are just very passionate in their beliefs like I'm passionate in the belief that one day I'll be a millionaire. There's a lot of inconsistencies in this I can assure you, like, I keep falling on my own sword! 

Cheers


----------



## weird (21 July 2009)

Thanks Julia, btw enjoy reading your posts.

I will however continue to bump this,

Bring some unbiased research and statistics (I thought this is what atheists based their beliefs on ?) to the table, as mentioned before, crime committed by religious people vs non religious.


----------



## Buckeroo (21 July 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> So are Financial Planners religious nuts?
> 
> gg




Oh, very drool, but come to think of it double g, you may be right!


----------



## Timmy (21 July 2009)

The religious nuts just keep spreadin' the love:

Person to be caned for drinking beer in club


----------



## 2020hindsight (21 July 2009)

not sure which of these is more humourous - or sad lol  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4
Kirk Cameron And Bananas

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHaSZtf5I1k
Ray Comfort apologizes for banana illustration


----------



## trainspotter (21 July 2009)

This goes against my better judgement BUT ... Bump away weird ... please ... bump away. You are like a one trick pony.

You can repeat yourself over and over again. And so can I.

*atheist * /  ey-thee-ist] 

_noun_ ~ a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. 

Has nothing to do with unbiased research and statistics. No matter how many times you repeat it. The end result is STILL the same.

I have asked you how do you want me to QUANTIFY the research parameters you are requesting and how far back is required? *ie* Define CRIME

Are you looking for an equation or a just a number ?

I also asked for you to read the topic of the THREAD and not some quasi-position you are trying to justify yourself in. MORE RELIGIOUS NUT JOBS.

If you look in the SENTENCING IN AUSTRALIA IS A DISGRACE thread you will see many "crimes" committed by NON RELIGION PEOPLE


----------



## gooner (21 July 2009)

Timmy said:


> The religious nuts just keep spreadin' the love:
> 
> Person to be caned for drinking beer in club




Timmy

Christians and atheists can quite happily drink beer in Malaysia, but if you are born a Muslim, it is a crime. 

Also in Malaysia, muslims can not convert to Christianity as this is considered apostasy.

The concept of free will is very much a Western concept it seems.


----------



## weird (21 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> This goes against my better judgement BUT ... Bump away weird ... please ... bump away. You are like a one trick pony.
> 
> You can repeat yourself over and over again. And so can I.
> 
> ...




Sorry mate, no trick, believe it is a question asked with no responding answer ... as most getting annoyed reading crap posts ... anyhow if that is how atheists want to be represented ...  

Bring some unbiased research and statistics (I thought this is what atheists based their beliefs on ?) to the table, as mentioned before, crime committed by religious people vs non religious.


----------



## trainspotter (22 July 2009)

Sorry to BORE the CRAP out of the other posters but here goes:

Oh dear ... it seems you are unable to respond to the simplest of requests are you? No matter how many times you try and push the button you cannot get your point across. Not happy with this, you have now decided to make yourself the "spokesman" of the thread and have suggested that my posts have descended into the toilet and that "most" are getting annoyed somehow.

I remember when I had a this guy in my employ once and he never stopped asking the question why? "Can you please explain yourself?" I would ask and the response was "why?" It seems you fit this bill quite nicely. I think he lasted until about lunch time before he no longer was working for me.

Now I will explain it yet again. An atheist does not believe in any diety/God or supreme being. Nothing to do with statistics as you seem so fond of. 

I have repeatedly asked WHAT parameters you would like this information based on and yet a NIL response. The task you have set is indefinable by it's very nature as there is no (X x Y) + (a - b) equation for your request.

It seems that you have locked onto the one thing that is unable to be produced in your mind. I have given you "incidents" and "one offs" which apparently are not suitable for your consumption. SO rather than my good self wasting all my time and energy vomiting in this thread (by the way, who made you God?) about religion crimes VS non religion crimes why don't you go and do the Google rummage yourself?

Exactly what are you bringing to the table by the way? Other than the same repetitive posts about (I thought this is what atheists based their beliefs on ?) This somehow is your base argument? I am not the only one who has posted that I am against religious crimes (not trying to deflect here) but it seems you have decided to be the "bigdog" and take on this task all by yourself. Much to my pleasure I must say. Ohhhh if only rederob were here to read this. Just for the record, I am also against crimes against humanity FULL STOP no matter who they are procured by.

Ooooooooooooh alright then, here, I will throw you a bone:-

http://caribbeanfever.com/forum/index.php?action=printpage;topic=1863.0

Statistics on religious vs non religious crimes


----------



## weird (22 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> Sorry to BORE the CRAP out of the other posters but here goes:
> 
> Oh dear ... it seems you are unable to respond to the simplest of requests are you? No matter how many times you try and push the button you cannot get your point across. Not happy with this, you have now decided to make yourself the "spokesman" of the thread and have suggested that my posts have descended into the toilet and that "most" are getting annoyed somehow.
> 
> ...




Filler again ... boring ... thanks for wasting time again  ... is  the previous post satisfactory in reading any stock update ?

Bring some unbiased research and statistics (I thought this is what atheists based their beliefs on ?) to the table, as mentioned before, crime committed by religious people vs non religious.


----------



## trainspotter (22 July 2009)

https://lists.cthumanist.org/pipermail/hac-announce/2009-February/000354.html    more of the same for you weird.

http://www.adherents.com/misc/adh_prison.html     something not quite right here .. information overload. Statistical proof.


----------



## Timmy (22 July 2009)

Trainspotter and Weird

Your exchange is getting repetitive and getting nowhere.  It would appear that some of the sentences are now being cut and pasted from previous posts.

Please take it to another thread, if you wish, and let this one get back on topic (found in the opening post).

Thanks


----------



## trainspotter (22 July 2009)

LMAO at weird now. Very funny I must admit. Click on the link and get some stats about religion and crime vs non religion and crime. Ooops , this is what you asked for?

Thanks Timmy ... will do Mildew !!


----------



## weird (22 July 2009)

Timmy said:


> Trainspotter and Weird
> 
> Your exchange is getting repetitive and getting nowhere.  It would appear that some of the sentences are now being cut and pasted from previous posts.
> 
> ...




Sorry Timmy, won't because have not yet seen ,

bring some unbiased research and statistics (I thought this is what atheists based their beliefs on ?) to the table, as mentioned before, crime committed by religious people vs non religious.

I keep repeating it because it has not yet been proven in any evidence provided.  

Btw, Trainspotter, anyone can produce a website these days, what is the source ?

Trainspotter  tried to show some 'references' but none had unbiased or unsubstantiated stats, if that is how you want to trade, based on such evidence, heaven forbid on the bigger things in life.


----------



## trainspotter (22 July 2009)

LOLOL @ weird. Good on ya ! I dips me lid to ya.

The links were written by professors. Pfffffffffttt . No bias here. You could not have possibly read ALL of the info on the websites in such a short time.

LMAOooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ! Goodnight.


----------



## trainspotter (22 July 2009)

http://www.adherents.com/misc/adh_prison3.html     just one more makes number 4

read it and weep weird. Actual stats from the British prison system. Hmmmmm ??

Dunno why it would not load? Try again.


----------



## weird (22 July 2009)

Trainspotter, yes I did read what you presented, the first url did not load, and the second url said it was inconclusive ?  Why paste inclusive material and continue to argue a particular view, why are you wasting our time ?

As I said before,

bring some unbiased research and statistics (I thought this is what atheists based their beliefs on ?) to the table, as mentioned before, crime committed by religious people vs non religious.

Also raw numbers without normalizing is a bad comparison ...


----------



## Timmy (22 July 2009)

Weird, this continued cut and paste posting is just trolling.  It needs to stop now please.


----------



## weird (22 July 2009)

I'm sick of it too Timmy ... this thread has a sense of 'ism about it which I do not believe is healthy ...


----------



## Timmy (22 July 2009)

weird said:


> I'm sick of it too Timmy ... this thread has a sense of 'ism about it which I do not believe is healthy ...




Thanks weird.


----------



## Timmy (22 July 2009)

gooner said:


> Timmy
> 
> Christians and atheists can quite happily drink beer in Malaysia, but if you are born a Muslim, it is a crime.
> 
> ...




This is a Catch22 isn't it?


----------



## Timmy (22 July 2009)

Here is "a practising Christian all my life and a deacon and Bible teacher for many years" speaking his mind about religious cruelty.  

A past US president, no less....

The words of God do not justify cruelty to women


----------



## 2020hindsight (22 July 2009)

darkside said:


> http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=830145
> 
> What is it about religion that makes people believe it justifies any level of cruelty.



Criminal, this exorcism stuff. 

Anyone see 4 corners about 2 months ago?

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2009/s2601755.htm

This is arguably worse - they mutilate kids for witchcraft in Nigeria because their family has had some bad luck ( like their parent has died  ), or the fishing is getting worse (when it is really due to the oil slicks from clumsy drilling off the coast. 

An Aussie over there trying to save these kids from their village elders .  Imagine the trauma of being outcast, branded a witch - at the age of 4 or 5 or even teenager! - SHEESH. 

They are encouraged to scrawl in big letters , "We Are Not Witches".  

And the story revolves around a lill girl named Mary (photo below) - starts off she can't even smile - but the story concludes with her living amongst the other kids at this orphanage - and BEAMING this DAZZLING smile at the camera.  

Obviously she has a long way to go in the recuperation stakes, but she's doing well so far.   

One kid at there had a broken arm for 5 weeks  - but not just any brokrn arm.  - the bone had been sticking out into the air by a good 3 inches!

They have made it illegal, but only a handful of the "witch-hunter priests" have been prosecuted.


----------



## 2020hindsight (22 July 2009)

Likewise , )another program, forget where) - female circumcision in Egypt and other moslem countries.  A few bleed to death of course.  

In one family of 5 girls, the father was pondering whether to get the youngest 2 "done" ( clitoris destroyed) - as their 3 older sisters had been "done' - more "21st century" if you like - and suggested that to the wife.  (Who of course was also done). 

But the mother insisted upon it!  arguing  "Who will marry these girls??  
(implied .. what ?// - who would marry them because they can have an orgasm??) 

Why a women would voluntarily become a Muslim beats me. 

Again it has been made illegal, but still massively widestread especially in the rural areas. 

Related Story 
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2005/05/13/1368020.htm

Another unrelated Story :-
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/08/2619602.htm


> Penis falls off in fatal circumcision
> By Africa correspondent Andrew Geoghegan
> 
> Posted Wed Jul 8, 2009 1:08am AEST
> ...



Not religion - then again , initiation into a cult often has religious overtones.


----------



## 2020hindsight (22 July 2009)

On a lighter side  (Far Side in fact) 
"And you were worried they wouldn't like Americans.
Why these people just lit up when I explained we were Virginians"


----------



## 2020hindsight (22 July 2009)

How widespread is this nonsense ? lol
well Sarah Palin's minister was a successful witch hunter 

Returned triumphant from Kenya after routing out the bloke responsible for all the recent traffic accidents, lol . :silly:

Specualtion at the time that she was too far round the bend, even for Alaskans (refer youtube on this link:-
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=365352

And no doubt the ridicule has had something to do with her recent  err "abdication"


----------



## gooner (22 July 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> Likewise , )another program, forget where) - female circumcision in Egypt and other moslem countries.  A few bleed to death of course.
> 
> In one family of 5 girls, the father was pondering whether to get the youngest 2 "done" ( clitoris destroyed) - as their 3 older sisters had been "done' - more "21st century" if you like - and suggested that to the wife.  (Who of course was also done).
> 
> ...




That is sick

But bear in mind that genital mutilation is legal in Australia. It is know as male circumcision here.


----------



## bunyip (22 July 2009)

Timmy said:


> Here is "a practising Christian all my life and a deacon and Bible teacher for many years" speaking his mind about religious cruelty.
> 
> A past US president, no less....
> 
> The words of God do not justify cruelty to women





What a great article by Jimmy Carter. It takes character to challenge traditional religious beliefs - you invariably get attacked and ridiculed for doing so.
I always liked Jimmy and knew he was a man of integrity and character, but now he rises even higher in my estimation.


----------



## Tink (22 July 2009)

Sing *Hallelujah*, sing it 

Hallelujah

Happy People Come on : )


----------



## trainspotter (22 July 2009)

From the link weird provided:- http://home.uchicago.edu/~psheaton/workingpapers/religionandcrime.pdf

I use exogenous potential variation in religiosity generated by the occurrence of the Easter holiday to obtain further evidence regarding the relationship between religion and crime. If there is a negative effect of religion on crime and the substantial increases in church attendance in the United States on Easter represent a temporary increase in religiosity, one might expect to observe lower crime rates immediately following Easter. *I find that crime rates are slightly higher for most categories of crime in the first 4 weeks after Easter, *controlling for seasonal and other factors, although these increases are not statistically significant.

Could not resist. I promise this is the last gasp effort of a drowning man. "It's over to you back in central missionary position" .. "It's central commentary position you dimwit" Taken from the 12th Man and tidied up a bit just for this place.


----------



## Glen48 (22 July 2009)

This was written by a Brisbane Doctor why he bothered I don't know:


----------



## bunyip (22 July 2009)

Sunder

I'm still waiting for your answers to my questions....

1. How do you know that God exists?

2. If he does exist, who or what created him?

These are confronting questions I know, but they're nevertheless relevant and are worthy of answers.

Confronting questions cause some people to run and hide. 
Others with more character face them head on and do their best to answer them.


----------



## Buckeroo (22 July 2009)

gooner said:


> That is sick
> 
> But bear in mind that genital mutilation is legal in Australia. It is know as male circumcision here.




I have to jump in here, I have a theory on this...after world war 2, to ensure the Jews were never persecuted ever again, the allies decided to circumcise every male - then nobody could tell us apart.

They obviously said it was because of health issues to mask the ultimate reason.

What do you reckon?

Cheers


----------



## Buckeroo (22 July 2009)

bunyip said:


> Sunder
> 
> I'm still waiting for your answers to my questions....
> 
> ...




How about these Bunyip

1. How do you really know if the theory of relativity exists - folding space & time? Have trouble getting a handle on this

2. How about black holes - could be little space creatures eating light & matter

3. UFO's?

I think in the end its a matter of faith - I have faith that the scientists are right...religious people have faith that god exists.

Cheers


----------



## pilots (22 July 2009)

Buckeroo said:


> I have to jump in here, I have a theory on this...after world war 2, to ensure the Jews were never persecuted ever again, the allies decided to circumcise every male - then nobody could tell us apart.
> 
> They obviously said it was because of health issues to mask the ultimate reason.
> 
> ...




Look at it this way, two people apply for the same job, one has his sleeves rolled up, the other one has them down, most women can see that the man with his sleeves rolled up has come ready for work. FACT.


----------



## 2020hindsight (22 July 2009)

pilots said:


> Look at it this way, two people apply for the same job, one has his sleeves rolled up, the other one has them down, most women can see that the man with his sleeves rolled up has come ready for work. FACT.



Lol ...

Still, you'd think with 36 boys dying during 1 month that they might let em keep their sleeves rolled down.   After all, we're not talking about digging a trench under a hot sun here  

PS always assuming that it didn't fall off as a result of the op.   Here's the rest of that article  on post #440 :- 



> Botched initiation ceremonies in the South African province of the Eastern Cape have killed at least 36 teenage boys over the past month.
> 
> In one case, a teenager was admitted to hospital *after his gangrenous penis fell off.*
> 
> ...




PS They used to say that the original Speedo budgie-smugglers were so thin that you could not only tell what sex the wearer was, but also what religion.


----------



## bunyip (22 July 2009)

Buckeroo said:


> How about these Bunyip
> 
> 1. How do you really know if the theory of relativity exists - folding space & time? Have trouble getting a handle on this
> 
> ...




Yes, I know they have faith that God exists. What I'd like to know is, on what basis?
And since they believe that God exists, they surely must have thought about how God came into existence, who or what created him.

I'll be very interested to hear Sunder's views on this....I'm sure he has enough character to attempt an answer.


----------



## pilots (22 July 2009)

bunyip said:


> Yes, I know they have faith that God exists. What I'd like to know is, on what basis?
> And since they believe that God exists, they surely must have thought about how God came into existence, who or what created him.
> 
> I'll be very interested to hear Sunder's views on this....I'm sure he has enough character to attempt an answer.




When I worked for the Americans the best way to push some buttons was to say that God was black and she was not happy with what we was doing.


----------



## darkside (22 July 2009)

Tink said:


> Sing *Hallelujah*, sing it
> 
> Hallelujah
> 
> Happy People Come on : )




Tink , once again if you promise not to tell anyone, you and i could do an Enya medley.>


----------



## andione1983 (22 July 2009)

The thing i find frustrating with religion, is that everyone thinks they are right, and that their way to God is the right way. and then you have the extremists, that say if you don't do it my way its either convert or be killed, 

so out of every single denomination and religion (according to a wikipedia as of 1988 there were in excess of 33,000 denominations of some type in Protestantism) and in the world up to 19 major world religions, and 270 large religious organizations, where do you go??? Religion over-complicates things and only creates havoc, and confusion within people. 

I myself am a self confessing Christian, the only reason being is that i find it quite easy to believe in a God who created the world, but i am not going to force you to believe the way i do, as i have studied, and look at other people, we all think we are doing the right thing. Its your personal relationship in the end no one else's.

For those of you who are bagging out people that believe in God as uneducated, and not smart. I disagree totally, because we all got here some how, and whether you choose to believe in evolution or creation, the facts are there to support either belief, and we cannot prove either because we were never there to see it. So either way you believe it takes faith of some sort to believe in what you have been told.

So yes i do believe in GOD, and how you get to God, depends on your sincerity in your beliefs.

its not up to us to judge on how other religions/denominations do things.
i can speak from personal experience, as i have been brought up and been to many different churches over my 26 years of life, and yes i have seen very extreme stuff, and very one eyed theology's, and the more i look at the theology that man has made for himself the more i can see the flaws in it, we so often make things more complicated than what things really are. 


hope to hear your opinions......


----------



## trainspotter (22 July 2009)

pilots said:


> When I worked for the Americans the best way to push some buttons was to say that God was black and she was not happy with what we was doing.




Well done pilots. I laughed so hard my ribs hurt. I also brought up a bit of lung.


----------



## darkside (22 July 2009)

andione1983 said:


> The thing i find frustrating with religion, is that everyone thinks they are right, and that their way to God is the right way. and then you have the extremists, that say if you don't do it my way its either convert or be killed,
> 
> so out of every single denomination and religion (according to a wikipedia as of 1988 there were in excess of 33,000 denominations of some type in Protestantism) and in the world up to 19 major world religions, and 270 large religious organizations, where do you go??? Religion over-complicates things and only creates havoc, and confusion within people.
> 
> ...




Andione1983, good honest post, i do like that live and let live attitude, and believe that many others on this forum will certainly agree with your sentiment. 
And i strongly beleive that we all tend to make things harder and more complicated than we need to . 

Respect .


----------



## bunyip (22 July 2009)

andione1983 said:


> For those of you who are bagging out people that believe in God as uneducated, and not smart. I disagree totally, because we all got here some how, and *whether you choose to believe in evolution or creation, the facts **are there to support either belief*, and we cannot prove either because we were never there to see it. So either way you believe it takes faith of some sort to believe in what you have been told.




I'd be very interested in hearing what facts are there to support the creation theory.

I spent the first 25 years of my life as a regular at church, had in depth private discussions with men who were highly qualified in the area of Theology, I read the Bible at length, attended Bible study classes for quite some time.
I've had quite strong friendships with ministers of religion with whom I discussed this issue many times. 
At no time did I manage to dredge up even one single fact to support the theory that God created the world and everything in it including the human race.


----------



## trainspotter (22 July 2009)

*WHOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA up there bullocks. *

andione 1983 posted this _"whether you choose to believe in evolution or creation, the facts are there to support either belief"_

This means he has a foot in both camps Bunyip. I admire that you spent 25 years studying theology (Are you a priest?)

The status quo is that BOTH sides have a relevant argument. PERSONALLY ... I find it hard that some almighty being (GOD) made the universe, humans, animals, and all the known black holes in 6 days  ... and suddenly got tired on the 7th day?? 

"Yawn ... I have done as much as I can, gosh .. might have a nana nap now" AND "Hey honey, grab me a beer will ya ... I been working so HARD creating this universe thingy"

Get my drift?


----------



## explod (22 July 2009)

> andione 1983 posted this "whether you choose to believe in evolution or creation, the facts are there to support either belief"





Don't fall for that.

Evolution supported by physical evidence, creation by myth and baloney


----------



## bunyip (22 July 2009)

[QUOTE

_This means he has a foot in both camps Bunyip. I admire that you spent 25 years studying theology (Are you a priest?)_

QUOTE]

A priest? Me?? LOL

I didn't spend 25 years studying theology, just 25 years as a Christian, and quite a few years after that as a 'half way Christian'.

I put in some serious effort investigating and challenging what Christianity had taught me.
In the end I could no longer go on accepting on blind faith the fantastic claims made by Christianity. It just didn't hold water.


----------



## weird (22 July 2009)

Try to put some religious spin to these news articles, I am sure on a daily basis, using a global e-news source I can post a sample or all daily articles, but would a disproportionate amount of news articles of crime or concern reported have a religious reason as being the cause or concern ?,

http://www.smh.com.au/national/sweet-sixteen-and-missing-plea-to-find-rista-20090722-dsug.html

http://www.smh.com.au/world/accused-of-letting-rats-chew-girls-toes-off-20090722-dswi.html

I am sure I can post twice as many articles, of crimes committed internationally, based on international news agencies, of crimes committed based on cultural beliefs or otherwise, compared to those which have been directly acted upon following the direct teaching of any specified religion.


----------



## trainspotter (22 July 2009)

BUNYIP ... well thank GOD for that ... for a moment there I thought I would have to go down on one knee and kiss your ring. WHEW !!

I too have spent many years as a "christian" ... ain't life grand ! To be honest with you Bunyip .. we are gonna look like complete D!CKHEADS when the second coming of Christ comes!! Pfffffffttttttttttt !!!!!

Hey weird.. by all means PLEASE post what relevant information you have available to you. We enjoy your view of what we have become. NO QUESTION. Any information is good information in my books. I will read IT ALL and report back the stuff I cannot comprehend

_*ie*_ ... I will ask for your HELP (I have done previously) for the stuff that eludes me. OK?

It is not about the crime as such, it is more about the "people" (religious or otherwise) that perpetuate the crime that this thread is about !! PLEASE !


----------



## weird (22 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> It is not about the crime as such, it is more about the "people" (religious or otherwise) that perpetuate the crime that this thread is about !! PLEASE !




The thread topic boldly states otherwise.


----------



## trainspotter (22 July 2009)

Ohhh FUDGE weird. Just when I thought we were getting somewhere.


*MORE RELIGIOUS NUTS*


----------



## weird (22 July 2009)

lol, Trainspotter, unfortunately I think one can have faith or simply acknowledge they don't know ... one of the errors anyone can make is being absolutely sure about something based on White swan events.


----------



## trainspotter (22 July 2009)

*shrug* Thanks weird ... post the stuff you have in context. Like we have discussed previously. The parameters for good and evil that you want to describe to are far fetching. I respect what you want to say. I understand that you have an opinion. (THIS IS NOT A TRUCE BY THE WAY) and I will fight vehemently for my point of ire to be put across. Same as you.

Black swan, white swan .. it is irrelevant to me. I do not understand any of this. I live in a black and white world (swan or no swan) If you commit a crime in the name of religion (blow yourself up in the name of Allah) or beat a child (Man hits kid for 12 hours in the name of exorcism) annoys me.

It also annoys me when in a custody battle a B*LLSH!TFATHER kills his kids in a fit of rage to piss of the mother so she "can never see them again." OR some idiot punches his girlfriend in the guts to abort a pregnancy. They are about 15 years of age by the way. atheists, agnostics who really cares?

NUFFIN TO DO WITH ATHEISTS or statistics or RELIGION.

BUT the "thread is to do with "MORE RELIGIOUS NUTS".

Sorry old foe. It is what it is!!!!


----------



## weird (23 July 2009)

Mate we certainly are not foes, just posting on a board, sharing thoughts.

White/Black Swan theory can be read here,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory

Btw, he is not a christian, and believe he does not even try to get involved in discussions about not or religion (this guy is a serious thinker, and other things,  and knows it is a waste of time to try to argue, hence why I have not tried to go in that direction).


----------



## Mr J (23 July 2009)

Pascal's Wager is more relevant than the Black Swan theory. My insurance is that if a god does exist and that he's worthy enough of my respect, he's going to respect my logical stance - the stance being that it is unlikely that a god exists, especially in the form that we perceive, but that it isn't impossible. If he does feel insulted and vengeful, then I couldn't care less about him.


----------



## trainspotter (23 July 2009)

Well thanks for that weird who is no longer my foe. Board or no board, just sharing toughts. I will study this black swan theory with as much intensity as I can muster. Admittedly the beer goggles are kicking in. BUT nontheless, it seems that many people of your ilk tend to throw this down as a mantra. I will observe this exercise and derive from it what I will. 

Just so we are both very clear this is NOT a "Christmas truce" ... The truce began on Christmas Eve, 24 December 1914, when German troops began decorating the area around their trenches in the region of Ypres, Belgium, for Christmas. They began by placing candles on trees, then continued the celebration by singing Christmas carols, most notably Stille Nacht (Silent Night). *The British troops in the trenches across from them responded by singing English carols.*

I look forward to exercising my opinion on future matters and I hope you do as well.


----------



## trainspotter (23 July 2009)

I am currently standing in the kitchen typing my thoughts whilst drinking a Crown Lager. After reading Mr J's comment I found myself looking up from the floor. PMSL !!!!!! :


----------



## trainspotter (23 July 2009)

Just read the ethos on the "Black Swan" on Wikepedia theory by Nassim Nicholas Taleb's  version. The event is a surprise. The event has a major impact. After the fact the event is rationalised. Is that it? 

The main idea in Taleb's book is not to attempt to predict Black Swan events, but to build robustness to the negative ones, while being able to exploit positive ones. Taleb contends that banks and trading firms are very vulnerable to hazardous Black Swan events and are exposed to losses beyond that predicted by their defective models. Taleb states that a Black Swan event depends on the observer -- a Black Swan surprise for the turkey is not a Black Swan surprise for the butcher, hence his idea is to "avoid being the turkey" by finding out where one may be exposed to being a turkey and "turn the Black Swans white".

OMG !!!!!!! I give up in the face of such stupendous mediocrity ! You have got to be joking me? I deal with this everyday ! Black Swan ............ CHRIST ........... last time I saw a decent BLACK SWAN was on the side of Alan Bonds brewing company. SWAN LAGER !!!!!!!!!


----------



## weird (23 July 2009)

Mr J said:


> Pascal's Wager is more relevant than the Black Swan theory. My insurance is that if a god does exist and that he's worthy enough of my respect, he's going to respect my logical stance - the stance being that it is unlikely that a god exists, especially in the form that we perceive, but that it isn't impossible. If he does feel insulted and vengeful, then I couldn't care less about him.




As mentioned in Nassim's book Black Swan, Pascal's Wager has a flaw, that is, even being swayed by the odds, one still needs to "believe".

However, I more accept some people siding on the I don't know wager ... than adamantly taking a conclusive stance based only on personal white swan evidence that there is nothing  (although some don't seem to need any evidence at all to make that leap).

This is narrow-mindedness.


----------



## wayneL (23 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> CHRIST ........... last time I saw a decent BLACK SWAN was on the side of Alan Bonds brewing company. SWAN LAGER !!!!!!!!!




A truly odious brew, indistinguishable from cat's urine. :frown:


----------



## Mr J (23 July 2009)

> Taleb states that a Black Swan event depends on the observer -- a Black Swan surprise for the turkey is not a Black Swan surprise for the butcher, hence his idea is to "avoid being the turkey" by finding out where one may be exposed to being a turkey and "turn the Black Swans white".




Yes, being open to any possibility and preparing for it as best as possible. A Black Swan really only refers to when someone is fooled. The GFC for example was a black swan to many, but not to those with half a clue.



			
				weird said:
			
		

> As mentioned in Nassim's book Black Swan, Pascal's Wager has a flaw, that is, even being swayed by the odds, one still needs to "believe".




Just to be clear, you're talking about not just choosing to go along with the relgious stuff, but to actually believe (on the assumption a god would know the difference)?



> However, I more accept some people siding on the I don't know wager ... than adamantly taking a conclusive stance based only on personal white swan evidence that there is nothing (although some don't seem to need any evidence at all to make that leap).




Personally, I find complete belief either way to be quite foolish. While there is no evidence of a god (although many religious people will disagree), there is also no proof that a god does not exist. Neither can be proven. The difference is that some are willing to believe (that a god exists) on little evidence, and some are willing to be certain (that a god doesn't exist) on no evidence. A little evidence does not prove, and no evidence does not dissprove. Of course, it's arguable whether a 'holy book' can be claimed as evidence, as to some it is and to others it is not. I don't see a logical mind concluding that it is evidence though, as there is clearly the possibility that a book written by men can be false.


----------



## bumclouds (23 July 2009)

I believe in God, but I dont believe in praying or rituals.

If God was all knowing, all loving and all powerful.  Why exactly does he need me to tell him my thoughts?  Doesn't he already know?  And why would he want me to kneel down and perform some ritual?  Wouldn't he rather that I was out helping sick people?

So that's what I do.  I try to help those less fortunate than me, and try to be a generous and good person in my daily life.  And I'm not a religious person!  I do believe that if God exists, than he would want me to live my life this way... 

I'm not mucking around fasting or growing a beard or lining up for wine.  I'm just being a good person as best I can.  Imagine if everybody did this.  How much better would the world be?


----------



## wayneL (23 July 2009)

bumclouds said:


> I'm not mucking around fasting or growing a beard or lining up for wine.  I'm just being a good person as best I can.  Imagine if everybody did this.  How much better would the world be?




I don't mind lining up for free wine.


----------



## Cartman (23 July 2009)

agree with most of what u say above Mr J --

i'm on the fence with this one ---dont want to inflict my weird sense of reality on you poor folk --- but ---

its interesting how non believers can easily accept how complex life forms evolved into millions of species out of basically nothingness --- yet ---

when a "believer" comes out and suggests that a higher more superior life form (ie god) actually may have done the very same thing *before* us, the non believers basically call him or her nuts  !!  --- ironic perhaps

i like to keep the doors unlocked just in case the delivery man drops in when i'm not at home --- if you get where ive drifted


----------



## bunyip (23 July 2009)

There's absolutely no question that evolution has been happening for millions of years, and is still happening today. 
Today's animals in their current form were not created by God in one fell swoop when the world began - they evolved over the ages and they're still doing so. 
Anyone driving through the NSW town of Coonabarabran should call in and check out their museum - it contains the several million year old reconstructed skeleton of a wombat that was found in the area. The animal has many similarities to today's wombats, except that it's the size of a horse. The present day smaller wombats evolved over millions of years from the larger version.

The Himalayan mountain range wasn't created in one fell swoop by God at the beginning of the world - it developed, or evolved if you like, over many years into it's current form. The climate created in Northern Australia by the influence of weather patterns that have their origins in the Himalayas - they too evolved over millions of years.
And so it goes on.
Only a fool disbelieves evolution - the evidence is right there in front of us. However, the fact of evolution doesn't explain how something was created from which evolution could begin.
Science tells us that all life on earth started from micro-organisms, and has evolved from there into the different life forms that we know today. Personally I have no idea if that's true or not, but it doesn't answer the question of 'How did these organisms come into existence in the first place'?


----------



## trainspotter (23 July 2009)

wayneL said:


> A truly odious brew, indistinguishable from cat's urine. :frown:




*Note to self* Never, ever drink anything that WayneL offers you that resembles beer. It could be cats urine !


----------



## explod (23 July 2009)

> Personally I have no idea if that's true or not, but it doesn't answer the question of 'How did these organisms come into existence in the first place'?





Just part of infinate matter coming together in the right conditions to germinate.    NASA scientist recently put the chemical blocks together to show how life began here.

Infinity is the hard one of course because it has no beginning and no end, allways been here and will allways be here.

If you can get your head around that then reincarnation is an easy one.   In total infinity our matter may in the cosmos come together again to have consciousness again.


----------



## ktrianta (23 July 2009)

bunyip said:


> Sunder
> 
> I'm still waiting for your answers to my questions....
> 
> ...





Bunyip you say you were a christian for 25 years and you did extensive research, then surely you would know the answers to these questions? Whether you accept these is in fact a different question.

I am happy to respond.

Q - How do you know God exists?

A - We do not KNOW that God exists. Christianity is based on faith, so to know that God exists would not require faith at all.
 I could ask you the same question, not how you know that god does not exist, but rather than having you say you can't prove a negative I would rather ask :

How do you know:

That all space, time , matter miraculously appeared in a singularity?

How this singularity exploded and what caused it?

How complex single celled organisms spontaniously  generated from inorganic matter?

How did asexual reproduction change to sexual reproduction?

How languages developed?

I could add many more such questions to this list, but the simple answer is that no-one really knows. Many theories and speculations abound but we just do not know. 

What you then do is look at the world around us and then decide what is a best fit.

The fact that we are having this discussion is a better fit with a creator God than a random explosion as we have been created in the image of God with intelligence and the ability to communicate.

The fact that the universe follows certain laws is a better fit with a Creator God than a random explosion.

Morality with reference to an absolute is a better fit than a random explosion.  

If a creator God exists, then it would be logical to assume that Natural selection is a better fit with a creator who creates using economy of design so that species adapt to their environment as they spread accross the earth. (speciation is indeed an intergarl part of creation models). 

A creator God who creates different kinds to reproduce within their boundaries, is more logical than relying on random genetic copying errors to result in dinosaurs changing to birds to humans etc.

A creator God who creates humans would logically have interaction with them and this is the history throughout the Bible.

Now each of these topics can be expanded into a book, but I acknowledge that the biggest weakness in my position is that if you do not believe in a Creator god, then you cannot accept what I believe and that is fair enough and I respect your opinion but we both cannot be correct.

So simply put, why I believe is that it is a better fit with the evidence.  

Who created God?

Bunyip, thought this was a bit disappointing this question as my 5 year old daughter could answer this. If you did extensive research you should know the answer even though you do not accept it.

Answer is no-one.

God created all space, time and matter and it is ridiculous to limit God to the creation boundaries he has placed us in. 
I guess a good analogy to this is that if i write a book, you do not limit me to the contents of what i have written within the book.

So there you go. Hope you acknowledge that this is an attempt at an honest answer to your questions. I responded not so much for your benefit as you I am sure have considered these and rejected these ( and that is your prerogative). Hopefully there may be others who are interested especially given that you made it sound that these questions are questions whcih are in the too hard basket for christianity which they are clearly not.


----------



## trainspotter (23 July 2009)

Nice one ktrianta ! I like it.


----------



## ktrianta (23 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> Nice one ktrianta ! I like it.




Careful there trainspotter, next step we will be praying the sinners prayer together.


----------



## Sean K (23 July 2009)

ktrianta said:


> Bunyip you say you were a christian for 25 years and you did extensive research, then surely you would know the answers to these questions? Whether you accept these is in fact a different question.
> 
> I am happy to respond.
> 
> ...



Assigning these things you list to 'God' does not mean He exists. It simply means the answers have not being discovered yet. Why assign this to the Judo/Christian/Islam myths when SO MUCH is unknown. The ancients look pretty damn foolish now for believing the Earth was flat and the centre of the Universe. How I imagine religious people will look in centuries to come. Looks foolish now really. If your idea of God is not a supernatural being that created the Universe in a few seconds, and sent His only Son to be tortured and killed on our behalf, but is simply the unknowable, you're probably getting closer to tha mark.


----------



## ktrianta (23 July 2009)

kennas said:


> Assigning these things you list to 'God' does not mean He exists. It simply means the answers have not being discovered yet. Why assign this to the Judo/Christian/Islam myths when SO MUCH is unknown.




True enough, but as I said in my post in response to Bunyip's questions, it is the best fit for the evidence. You may not agree and that is fine, but why should I believe what you believe because of the unknowns (or vice versa)?


----------



## trainspotter (23 July 2009)

ktrianta said:


> Careful there trainspotter, next step we will be praying the sinners prayer together.





Our lager 
Which art in barrels 
Hallowed be thy drink 
Thy will be drunk, (I will be drunk) 
At home as it is in the tavern 
Give us this day our foamy head 
And forgive us our spillage 
As we forgive those who spill against us 
And lead us not into incarceration 
But deliver us from hangovers 
For thine is the beer, the bitter, and the lager 
Barmen​


----------



## spooly74 (23 July 2009)

ktrianta said:


> How do you know:
> ...
> Many theories and speculations abound but we just do not know.




You seem to have not one clue as to what a scientific theory actually is.

Try this. I have a hypothesis that you don't have a clue what you're talking about. 
To formulate that into a theory, I would need observational evidence.



> A creator God who creates different kinds to reproduce within their boundaries, is more logical than relying on random genetic copying errors to result in dinosaurs changing to birds to humans etc.
> 
> So simply put, why I believe is that it is a better fit with the evidence.




Hypothesis + Evidence = Theory


----------



## bellenuit (23 July 2009)

ktrianta said:


> True enough, but as I said in my post in response to Bunyip's questions, it is the best fit for the evidence. You may not agree and that is fine, but why should I believe what you believe because of the unknowns (or vice versa)?




I have to agree with Kennas. You response isn't the best fit for the evidence. It isn't a fit at all, except to assign everything that isn't yet understood to your mythical deity. But why should your deity be any better fit than any other deity that is believed to have infinite powers. 

The thing I find interesting in your argument is that you seem to be adopting the more enlightened strategy of modern religious thinkers in accepting most of what science has learned and currently believes in, even though much of it would have been heresy in the past, and really saying that they are just following the laws of nature that were put in place by your God. Yet you cannot accept that God could have put in place laws of nature that allow some of the things you say are illogical. Why did he need to intervene at certain times in order to kick start some processes that you seem to assume couldn't have happened otherwise. 

As science discovers more and more, this explanation recedes further from God intervening to kick start certain processes to God not intervening at all except to start the one initial process. And of course you would still argue that your 'belief' is still the best fit because science still hasn't explained that one event, so an all powerful deity MUST be the answer.


----------



## Cartman (23 July 2009)

bellenuit said:


> As science discovers more and more, this explanation recedes further from God




mmm --- interesting hypothesis Bell --- can you elaborate on your reasoning ?


----------



## trainspotter (23 July 2009)

*Now I find this offensive. This is not art. I may not know art but I know what I like and this aint it !*

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25824780-23109,00.html

If this was a Koran then a fatwa would be issued against this so called "artist" ... and rightly so I would think !!!!!


----------



## ktrianta (23 July 2009)

bellenuit said:


> As science discovers more and more...you would still argue that your 'belief' is still the best fit because science still hasn't explained that one event, so an all powerful deity MUST be the answer.




Conversley the more science discovers the more strongly it may support my best fit scenario by raising even more questions which can be slotted into this best fit scenario. This is the unknown as stated by Kenna and why do you automatically assume that it will support your view rather than mine?
All we have to look at is the incredible complexity of DNA which shows there is no such thing as a simple life form, as all are incredibly complex and yet just 200 years ago it was thought that "simple" life forms did exist.

Simple fact is this will never be resolved as you and I will most likely be long gone as more questions are raised with each new discovery.


----------



## trainspotter (23 July 2009)

Eric Clapton is God. The phrase was spray-painted by an admirer on a wall in an Islington Underground station in the autumn of 1967. The graffiti was captured in a now-famous photograph, in which a dog is urinating on the wall. Clapton is well reported to have been embarrassed by the slogan, saying in The South Bank Show profile of him made in 1987, "I never accepted that I was the greatest guitar player in the world. I always wanted to be the greatest guitar player in the world, but that's an ideal, and I accept it as an ideal". The phrase began to appear in other areas of Islington throughout the mid-60s.


----------



## explod (23 July 2009)

ktrianta said:


> Conversley the more science discovers the more strongly it may support my best fit scenario by raising even more questions which can be slotted into this best fit scenario. This is the unknown as stated by Kenna and why do you automatically assume that it will support your view rather than mine?
> All we have to look at is the incredible complexity of DNA which shows there is no such thing as a simple life form, as all are incredibly complex and yet just 200 years ago it was thought that "simple" life forms did exist.
> 
> Simple fact is this will never be resolved as you and I will most likely be long gone as more questions are raised with each new discovery.




Where does this exactly fit into the existence of a superior being.  

It seems that what some minds are unable to comprehend we believe is beyond all explanation so we turn to the safety of God.


----------



## bunyip (23 July 2009)

ktrianta said:


> Bunyip you say you were a christian for 25 years and you did extensive research, then surely you would know the answers to these questions? Whether you accept these is in fact a different question.
> 
> I am happy to respond.
> 
> ...




Ktrianta

Thanks for making a sincere attempt to answer my questions.

Actually my original question in post No. 339 was a little broader than simply 'Who or what created God' - I also asked how he came into existence.

You're disappointed that I don't know the answer? Let me assure you that I do in fact know the answer, at least from the viewpoint of Christianity.
The only problem is that the answer just doesn't hold water. 
I've asked this question of a number of ordained ministers of religion. The most common answer I received was something along the lines of  "Nothing created God - he always just 'was'."

Well no actually, he always wasn't. If he exists then he was created in some way by someone or something or some process....but nobody has the faintest idea who or what it was. 
That is, assuming that he does in fact exist....and there's not one single shred of evidence or proof that he does.

I appreciate that you've been honest enough to admit that, in your own words..._'We do not KNOW that God exists. Christianity is based on faith'._
I can have faith in something only if there's a reasonable basis for that faith. I won't have faith that the Wallabies will win the next Rugby Word Cup unless they're in outstanding form leading up to the World Cup.
I have faith that my kids will lead good and decent lives as adults, but only because we've given them a decent upbringing and they've so far proven themselves to be good and responsible people.

For the record, I don't subscribe to the 'random explosion' theory to explain the origins of our world. 
The random explosion theory begs the question - 'what exploded'?
Something has to explode for there to be an explosion. And that something has to be created in the first instance by someone or something or some process. Again, there are no credible answers as to who or what that might have been.

You've posed a number of questions. I don't pretend to know the answers and I don't need to know them.
Frankly I couldn't care less how we got here or how our world got here.
But I can tell you one thing.....I'm not naive and gullible enough to have absolute, unshakable faith in something or someone or some theory that is not supported by one single shred of evidence, let alone fact.

I don't need to come up with theories. Irrespective of the origins of the world and the human race, I'm just happy to be decent person who feels privileged to be part of it all.


----------



## ktrianta (23 July 2009)

bunyip said:


> Ktrianta
> 
> Thanks for making a sincere attempt to answer my questions.
> 
> ...




At least you have thought through some of the relevant issues, but think that we can agree to disagree. 
Guess that this thread is way off topic now, so I am more than happy to move on.


----------



## trainspotter (23 July 2009)

*Agree to disagree *_or "agreeing to disagree" is a phrase in English referring to the resolution of a conflict (usually a debate or quarrel) whereby all parties tolerate but do not accept the opposing position(s). It generally occurs when all sides recognise that further conflict is unnecessary, ineffective or otherwise undesirable. They may also remain on amicable terms while continuing to disagree._

*"What we have hear folks, is a failure to communicate." *Cool Hand Luke said this (or a version of it) and BOY is it appropriate.


----------



## bellenuit (23 July 2009)

ktrianta said:


> Conversley the more science discovers the more strongly it may support my best fit scenario by raising even more questions which can be slotted into this best fit scenario. This is the unknown as stated by Kenna and why do you automatically assume that it will support your view rather than mine?




Because history has shown us that when scientific reasoning is pitted against biblical beliefs, the latter has always lost out. I don't know of any exception to date.

When I referred to some of your arguments as representing the more enlightened views of some modern religious thinkers, that enlightened view is very much a retreat and regroup position following defeat of previously held positions by overwhelming scientific evidence. For example, if I understand you correctly, you seem to be accepting evolution as an explanation for diversity within species, but not an explanation for the existence of different species. God created the different species, and evolution created the diversity within. However, accepting evolution as an explanation for diversity within species is a retreat from the position that was held by religious thinkers in the past (and quite a few of the US variety today) that every living creature was uniquely and individually created by God.


----------



## bunyip (23 July 2009)

ktrianta said:


> At least you have thought through some of the relevant issues, but think that we can agree to disagree.
> Guess that this thread is way off topic now, so I am more than happy to move on.




Oh, I've thought through the relevant issues all right - I've spent decades thinking them through.

However, there are many Christians who, rather than thinking things through, have simply accepted and believed every aspect of Christianity that was brainwashed into them as children.
Christianity, Islam and probably most other religions are well aware that the best way to get converts for life is to drum it into them when they're too young to think for themselves.
By the time they're old enough to think for themselves, their minds are so impregnated with the beliefs of their religion that they have no interest in questioning or challenging those beliefs. 

Yes, the discussion has wandered well and truly off topic.

Maybe we need a new thread titled 'All Things Religious' where we can talk about anything at all relating to religion without wandering off topic.


----------



## Julia (23 July 2009)

bunyip said:


> Maybe we need a new thread titled 'All Things Religious' where we can talk about anything at all relating to religion without wandering off topic.




Oh, please no.  Not another damn religion thread.  There are umpteen already.
They all go round in the same interminable circles.  No one ever actually says anything remarkable or different.  Just the participants change every now and then.


----------



## trainspotter (23 July 2009)

More of a case of "I reject your sense of reality and replace it with my own" kind of thread. This way we can argue over nothing for hours, NAY, days or even months. I am sure that theologians and atheists smarter than us have had this wordy battle prior to us vomiting our opines for all to see. 

How many christians does it take to change a lightbulb? 
NONE ... because they already see the light !!

Back to the topic. Ummmmm ... what was it again? I forgot.


----------



## bunyip (23 July 2009)

Julia said:


> Oh, please no.  Not another damn religion thread.  There are umpteen already.
> They all go round in the same interminable circles.  No one ever actually says anything remarkable or different.  Just the participants change every now and then.




Too late Julia....it's already done. My guess is that you'll put an odd post on there, same as you've done in here.


----------



## Julia (23 July 2009)

I doubt it, Bunyip, unless someone actually says anything different.


----------



## bunyip (23 July 2009)

Julia said:


> I doubt it, Bunyip, unless someone actually says anything different.




Julia Julia Julia, of course you will - you know you can't resist putting your two bobs worth into these religious discussions!

Come to think of it, you could always be the someone who _'actually says anything different'._


----------



## bunyip (24 July 2009)

Sunder

One final call for you to step up and answer my questions....

Who or what created God?
How did he come into existence?

You were pretty quick to denounce me as deluded and inflammatory when I quoted a passage from the Bible that you didn't like the sound of.
You accused me of creating an illusion, a fantasy version of Christianity. 
I could have given you a dressing down for using such strong language against me, but I didn't - instead I answered your post in a polite and courtesy manner.
And I asked you the quite reasonable questions of who or what created God, or how you think he came into existence.
Haven't heard from you since. For someone who was very outspoken and definite in your views, it's disappointing to see you run and hide as soon as you're asked a couple of confronting questions.

Ktrianta had enough character to make a genuine attempt to address these questions. 
You apparently do not.


----------



## trainspotter (24 July 2009)

Lost cause methinks Bunyip. He came in for a bit of schtick lately and did not like the taste of birch.


----------



## 2020hindsight (25 July 2009)

Graveyard thief dies
Personally I think it was a bolt of lightning ... 
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/25/2636136.htm?section=justin


----------



## darkside (25 July 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Yes, but seriously, would you send Tom Cruise down to the corner shop with a $20 note to get a pack of Benson and Hedges. He'd get mugged or lose the change or bring back a pack of Drum.
> 
> He's not the brightest star in the sky. He was handsome and could remember his lines, and he's had a fair bit of luck, and good on him, but this puppy won't be following him if he decides to do a Jonestown or get into a spaceship.
> 
> gg




GG, great news, we may be getting John Travolta back from "scientology" , seems that since the tragic death of his son,   Travolta now regrets adhering so closely to Scientology's strict rules about refusing medications for Jett, who suffered from the rare Kawasaki Syndrome. 
Wow John really , so if you followed Dr's recommendations as opposed to Ron Hubbard's bizzare beliefs, your child would still be alive and you would'nt be driving the golf buggy around alone at night.  Me thinks "religious nut"
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/entertainment/841734/guilt-ridden-john-travolta-in-constant-distress


----------



## trainspotter (25 July 2009)

Pretty much sums up both sides of the argument really. Woopeeeee !


----------



## darkside (25 July 2009)

Trainspotter, nice work "champ", very apt. !!!!!!!!!

Your cartoon holds pride of place on the fridge for the week .


----------



## trainspotter (25 July 2009)

"Why thank you very much" in my best Elvis voice


----------



## Savoy Special (26 July 2009)

Good one Trainspotter!

Laughted? I shat!

Ah ha ha (in my Elvis voice)


----------



## bunyip (26 July 2009)

Sunder

Have you found that Bible passage yet, the one about killing your son if he's a drunkard?

Turns out that my memory was a little faded. It doesn't say that you personally should stone your drunken son to death - it says you should hand him over to the city elders, and all the men of his city (presumably including you) shall stone him to death.
Sounds like pretty much the same thing to me....whether you personally kill your son, or hand him over to others so they can kill him, you're still responsible for the gruesome crime of killing your son.


_*Deuteronomy 21:18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: 
21:19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; 
21:20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. 
21:21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear. *_

Not very nice, is it?....not exactly how any of us would treat our sons!

There's another interesting segment in the Bible that says when you attack a city, you should kill all the males, plunder everything in the city, and take the cattle and women for yourself.

Great...kind of makes a mockery of _'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you'_, does it not?
Likewise with the command _'You shall not murder'_.....it mocks and contradicts that commandment as well.

Anyone still want to claim the Bible is the word of God?


----------



## trainspotter (26 July 2009)

LMAO Bunyip. The velvet sledgehammer approach is not working ! Talk about "shock and awe" stuff. The "Little Boy" (Atomic bomb droppped on Hiroshima) device has nothing on you when wound up ! 

Maybe "weird" can answer that one with some paper that contradicts itself and also dismisses it's own argument by allowing for seasonal adjustments?

Or ktrianta can try and dispel it with some double meaning verbosity straight out of Psychology 101 that when read backwards means the same thing.

Bwahaha ha ha hah h aha hh ah (insert maniacal laugh here)


----------



## bunyip (26 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> LMAO Bunyip. The velvet sledgehammer approach is not working ! Talk about "shock and awe" stuff. The "Little Boy" (Atomic bomb droppped on Hiroshima) device has nothing on you when wound up !
> 
> Maybe "weird" can answer that one with some paper that contradicts itself and also dismisses it's own argument by allowing for seasonal adjustments?
> 
> ...




Don't be too hard on Ktrianta, mate. We may not agree with his views, but at least he didn't run and hide when difficult questions were asked about how God came into existence - he stepped forward and made a sincere effort to answer them. For that, I admire him. 

Ktrianta - if you're female, which I suspect you are, my apologies for referring to you as 'he'.


----------



## 2020hindsight (26 July 2009)

no question - the world was made in the week around 23 Oct 4004 BC. 
(which I think - but not sure - was a Monday - and t 6012 years ago. )

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=200746&highlight=4004#post200746


----------



## MS+Tradesim (26 July 2009)

bunyip said:


> Sunder
> 
> One final call for you to step up and answer my questions....
> 
> ...




You said to ktrianta:



> Well no actually, he [God] always wasn't. If he exists then he was created in some way by someone or something or some process....but nobody has the faintest idea who or what it was.




If you're reasonable you will agree that your statement is a claim, not an argument. It is no more compelling to say, "God was created in some way" then to say, "God always was."

Why does God have to have a creator? What is the reasoning behind this statement?

(And by "God", I'm not restricting it to the Christian God - feel free to assume any maximal conception, be it theistic, deistic or panentheistic)


----------



## Tink (26 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> Pretty much sums up both sides of the argument really. Woopeeeee !




..and what do you say to the ones that arent religious in Mental Health?

More excuses?

That was what I was referring to in Post #177


----------



## Sean K (26 July 2009)

MS+Tradesim said:


> You said to ktrianta:
> 
> If you're reasonable you will agree that your statement is a claim, not an argument. It is no more compelling to say, "God was created in some way" then to say, "God always was."
> 
> ...



The answer is we don't know.

Why assign it to anything other than, 'something unknown'. Why invent a character who has shape (in our form) who created Adam and Eve, and the Universe in 7 days, etc etc.

No need to be Neanderthalic.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (26 July 2009)

kennas said:


> The answer is we don't know.
> 
> Why assign it to anything other than, 'something unknown'. Why invent a character who has shape (in our form) who created Adam and Eve, and the Universe in 7 days, etc etc.
> 
> No need to be Neanderthalic.




Sorry Kennas, but you must have skipped the part where I said, "_And by "God", I'm not restricting it to the Christian God - feel free to assume any maximal conception, be it theistic, deistic or panentheistic_".

You've made a number of claims which seemingly are to be imputed to me (or are a broad misrepresentation of theistic views), but since I hold none of them, I'll pass on responding.


----------



## Sean K (26 July 2009)

MS+Tradesim said:


> Sorry Kennas, but you must have skipped the part where I said, "_And by "God", I'm not restricting it to the Christian God - feel free to assume any maximal conception, be it theistic, deistic or panentheistic_".
> 
> You've made a number of claims which seemingly are to be imputed to me (or are a broad misrepresentation of theistic views), but since I hold none of them, I'll pass on responding.



My mistake.

I thought you believed that a modern idea of God exists. 

What is your idea of God exactly?


----------



## bellenuit (26 July 2009)

bunyip said:


> Sunder
> 
> Have you found that Bible passage yet, the one about killing your son if he's a drunkard? ..........
> 
> ...




Bunyip, if you take the words literally (unless there is something in a previous passage that we may have missed), your son is to be stoned if he is stubborn and rebellious. It is when you are persuading the elders of the city to have him stoned that you make the additional claim that he is a glutton and a drunkard. In an attempt to sway the elders, you are to commit perjury by making those extra claims.


----------



## 2020hindsight (26 July 2009)

bunyip said:
			
		

> 21:20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
> 21:21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones ...




So what about if everyone wants to take on the elders for THEIR drunkenness and gluttony ? 
(who else can afford gluttony these days?)



> 21:22 That is unless everyone wants to take on the elders for THEIR drunkenness and gluttony, and then all the men of the city shall stone them with tomatoes


----------



## MS+Tradesim (26 July 2009)

kennas said:


> My mistake.
> 
> I thought you believed that a modern idea of God exists.
> 
> What is your idea of God exactly?




A nuanced Christian idea. ie. God is in essence a necessary being, having the properties of eternality, mind, logical omnipotence and logical omniscience, along with some other stuff.

I am not a fundamentalist or inerrantist, and I freely explore the biblical literature in terms of its historical location. ie. taking into account genre, literary devices, developing theology etc over time.


----------



## Sean K (26 July 2009)

MS+Tradesim said:


> A nuanced Christian idea. ie. God is in essence a necessary being, having the properties of eternality, mind, logical omnipotence and logical omniscience, along with some other stuff.



Why does it have eternity?
How can it have a 'mind'?
I'm not sure what 'logical' omnipotence means, but omnipotence is being able to do anything. If you mean anything 'logical' then creating the world in an instant means he does not exist. It did not happen like that. 
Logical omniscience means He should know that I would be questioning you, and would have already come up with an answer to persuade me. No. Not very omniscientific at all.
Other stuff? Faith I assume. Belief in something not resting on logical proof. 
That is: myth. Myth.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (26 July 2009)

kennas said:


> Why does it have eternity?



A necessary being cannot not exist. Eternality is deduced from necessity. And necessity is deduced from contemplating the nature of being: ie. any entity exists either contingently or necessarily. And so on. Philosophy 101. Of course there are differing views among philosophers, but the concepts are well understood and debated, each participant being more or less persuaded by different factors towards different views. Still, I came to my opinion while an atheist.

_How can it have a 'mind'?_

I don't understand this question. Do you mean does it need a physical brain in which a mind can be located? Or do you mean something else?

_I'm not sure what 'logical' omnipotence means, but omnipotence is being able to do anything. _

Logical omnipotence is the power to do only that which is logically possible eg. does not have the power to cause 'A' to both exist and not exist at the same moment.

_If you mean anything 'logical' then creating the world in an instant means he does not exist. It did not happen like that. _

Again, you'll need to clarify what you mean.

_Logical omniscience means He should know that I would be questioning you, and would have already come up with an answer to persuade me. No. Not very omniscientific at all._

That's quite a non-sequitur.

_Other stuff?_

Other properties belonging to a necessary being, which I'm not too interested in extending into a debate.

_ Faith I assume. Belief in something not resting on logical proof. 
That is: myth. Myth._

Look Kennas. I did undergrad in Biology. Then studied philosophy and theology. My current interests mean I may well do more study in new testament history. I don't say this to assert any kind of authority or expertise. My point is to say, I'm exposed to a very wide variety of thinkers from a broad collection of backgrounds. So this kind of simplistic reductionism is not very engaging.


----------



## Sean K (26 July 2009)

MS+Tradesim said:


> Look Kennas. I did undergrad in Biology. Then studied philosophy and theology.



You've trumpted me. You are the expert.

However, you should check your definitions.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (26 July 2009)

kennas said:


> You've trumpted me. You are the expert.



I hope this is not intended sarcastically as I *deliberately stated* I only mention it to underline that I've read widely from many different viewpoints and am not impressed by simplistic reductions of the issues, not to suggest anyone should uncritically believe me.



> However, you should check your definitions.



What do you think I have incorrectly defined?


----------



## GumbyLearner (26 July 2009)

Scene from Religulous - Bill Maher interviewing Jose Miranda




Great flick. worth a look imo right on topic for this thread.


----------



## Sean K (26 July 2009)

MS+Tradesim said:


> I hope this is not intended sarcastically



No, serious, you've trumpted me. You have a degree in biology.



But you've read widely too, so that's ok.

I obviously haven't.


----------



## Sean K (26 July 2009)

I think we're getting off topic a bit too.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (26 July 2009)

kennas said:


> But you've read widely too, so that's ok.
> 
> *I obviously haven't.*




I seriously doubt that, given your blog. I just get annoyed at popular level perceptions of religious concepts being forwarded as though being a believer, I should automatically accept the popular (mis)representation. There is a distinction between the definition of _faith_ as popularly construed and in dictionaries, and its definition in NT lexicons and philosophy of religion debates.

And yes, it's off-topic.


----------



## trainspotter (26 July 2009)

Something like this Kennas? I respect everybodies right to their opinion as long as they respect my right to call them Religious Nut Jobs !!


----------



## ktrianta (26 July 2009)

bunyip said:


> Ktrianta
> 
> Thanks for making a sincere attempt to answer my questions.
> 
> ...




Bunyip,

Seems to me like you want to hound Sunder to the ends of the earth here demanding that he respond to you. Up to him/her to choose to respond, so if no response why not just move on rather than make it a vendetta?

I know that if I feel a post is not worth responding to, I just ignore it.

In relation to your response to me, I did answer this question for you. Thought that i would let this response go initially but on reviewing it 
I have one major concern to your response to my answer.

That is the fact that you elected to edit this quote from my post when you quoted me:

"God created all space, time and matter and it is ridiculous to limit God to the creation boundaries he has placed us in. 
I guess a good analogy to this is that if i write a book, you do not limit me to the contents of what i have written within the book."

Whilst you do not need to agree with this, I am sure that logically it flows.

What is not so logical is why you edited my quote by  deleting that quote which came in just before the last paragrapgh which you did not delete.

Am I reading something sinister into this?

If you are going to quote someone, then surely you should quote it correctly?


----------



## trainspotter (26 July 2009)

Touche' ktrianta ... a direct hit amidships.


----------



## bagasas (26 July 2009)

ivant said:


> It is always more difficult to prove a negative. Saying that something doesn't exist is one sure way to never win an argument. How do you know?
> 
> Some examples:
> 1. I don't believe in the holocaust.
> ...




OK: there is as much evidence for the truth of religion as there is for any other ridiculous belief that is nevertheless impossible to disprove. Is that better?


----------



## ktrianta (26 July 2009)

Lest I be accussed of misquoting you Bunyip, this is the quote of my quote from your post:

"God created all space, time and matter and it is ridiculous to limit God to the creation boundaries he has placed us in. 


So there you go. Hope you acknowledge that this is an attempt at an honest answer to your questions. I responded not so much for your benefit as you I am sure have considered these and rejected these ( and that is your prerogative). Hopefully there may be others who are interested especially given that you made it sound that these questions are questions whcih are in the too hard basket for christianity which they are clearly not."

In between these paragraphs, this is what you selectively edited:

" I guess a good analogy to this is that if i write a book, you do not limit me to the contents of what i have written within the book."

My apologies for misquoting you earlier as I accidently included the "God created all... " sentence as being edited when it fact it was only the above portion that was edited.

By the way, don't know why you thought I was female, i am in fact male. Guess I must be in touch with my feminine side.


----------



## Sean K (26 July 2009)

ktriana, you seem to be saying that you believe in one God. Why one? Could there be many?


----------



## bunyip (26 July 2009)

MS+Tradesim said:


> You said to ktrianta:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I expressed an opinion.....call it whatever you want - a claim, a statement, an argument - it makes no difference to me.

Do you know of anything that came into existence without being created in some way? 
I don't. I could be wrong, but unless something is created then in my opinion it cannot exist.
I believe God was created in the minds of ancient people to explain what they didn't understand. Their views were passed down from one generation to the next, and were gradually accepted by the masses. 
The Australian aborigines did something similar by creating dreamtime stories and fantastic creatures like rainbow serpents and bunyips, to explain what they didn't understand. Although these creatures were myths, the aborigines had absolute faith and belief in their existence even in the total absence of supporting evidence or proof.

As the skill or writing was developed, people stated writing down these views about God and creation and life and the laws of their time. Other stories were included and recorded over time, stories that chronicled the feats of legendary heroes, some of them no doubt real, some of them probably fictional.
Over time, this collection of writings was collated into a book that became known as the Bible.
Eventually this book became accepted and revered by Christians as the word of God. And because they believed in God, they believed what was written in the Bible, including the explanation of how the world and the human race were created.

Just my opinion of course....or claim or statement or argument or whatever you want to call it.


----------



## ktrianta (26 July 2009)

kennas said:


> ktriana, you seem to be saying that you believe in one God. Why one? Could there be many?




My belief is in the traditional christian belief as expressed in God's revealation to us in the Bible.

My response to Bunyip's question is a good summation, albeit not an exhaustive summation. To simplify it, God created us and has chosen to reveal to us through the interaction in human history as recorded in the Bible.

I know we can go on many tangents and that wont change my mind or anyone elses mind about our individual beliefs.

Think that trainspotter made the valid observation, that far greater minds than us have wrestled with these questions and have come down on differing sides of the fence. As also stated, we cannot add anything new because I don't think there are any Nobel prize winners or rhodes scholars on these boards (why would they watse their time), but maybe someone can be caused th think from a post made by someone and that will be good.

A belief system that is not challenged is hardly a belief sytsem worth having.


----------



## Sean K (26 July 2009)

ktrianta said:


> My belief is in the traditional christian belief as expressed in God's revealation to us in the Bible.



So, it's ONLY due to what is written in the bible. 

OK.


----------



## bunyip (26 July 2009)

bellenuit said:


> Bunyip, if you take the words literally (unless there is something in a previous passage that we may have missed), your son is to be stoned if he is stubborn and rebellious. It is when you are persuading the elders of the city to have him stoned that you make the additional claim that he is a glutton and a drunkard. In an attempt to sway the elders, you are to commit perjury by making those extra claims.




Whatever. 
My point is simply that the Bible contains hypocrisy, contradictions and inconsistencies, one example being the command not to murder, and then in other parts of the Bible, encouraging murder and various other despicable crimes.
I find it quite perplexing why anyone would beleive this stuff is 'the word of God'.


----------



## ktrianta (26 July 2009)

kennas said:


> So, it's ONLY due to what is written in the bible.
> 
> OK.




Partly but also because it is in my opinion (and you are entitled to have a different opinion on this) the best fit for the world in which we live.

So i refer to my earlier words as follows;

My response to Bunyip adds a bit more:

Q - How do you know God exists?

A - We do not KNOW that God exists. Christianity is based on faith, so to know that God exists would not require faith at all.
I could ask you the same question, not how you know that god does not exist, but rather than having you say you can't prove a negative I would rather ask :

How do you know:

That all space, time , matter miraculously appeared in a singularity?

How this singularity exploded and what caused it?

How complex single celled organisms spontaniously generated from inorganic matter?

How did asexual reproduction change to sexual reproduction?

How languages developed?

I could add many more such questions to this list, but the simple answer is that no-one really knows. Many theories and speculations abound but we just do not know. 

What you then do is look at the world around us and then decide what is a best fit.

The fact that we are having this discussion is a better fit with a creator God than a random explosion as we have been created in the image of God with intelligence and the ability to communicate.

The fact that the universe follows certain laws is a better fit with a Creator God than a random explosion.

Morality with reference to an absolute is a better fit than a random explosion. 

If a creator God exists, then it would be logical to assume that Natural selection is a better fit with a creator who creates using economy of design so that species adapt to their environment as they spread accross the earth. (speciation is indeed an intergarl part of creation models). 

A creator God who creates different kinds to reproduce within their boundaries, is more logical than relying on random genetic copying errors to result in dinosaurs changing to birds to humans etc.

A creator God who creates humans would logically have interaction with them and this is the history throughout the Bible.

Now each of these topics can be expanded into a book, but I acknowledge that the biggest weakness in my position is that if you do not believe in a Creator god, then you cannot accept what I believe and that is fair enough and I respect your opinion but we both cannot be correct.

So simply put, why I believe is that it is a better fit with the evidence. 

Who created God?

Bunyip, thought this was a bit disappointing this question as my 5 year old daughter could answer this. If you did extensive research you should know the answer even though you do not accept it.

Answer is no-one.

God created all space, time and matter and it is ridiculous to limit God to the creation boundaries he has placed us in. 
I guess a good analogy to this is that if i write a book, you do not limit me to the contents of what i have written within the book.

So there you go. Hope you acknowledge that this is an attempt at an honest answer to your questions. I responded not so much for your benefit as you I am sure have considered these and rejected these ( and that is your prerogative). Hopefully there may be others who are interested especially given that you made it sound that these questions are questions whcih are in the too hard basket for christianity which they are clearly not.


----------



## trainspotter (26 July 2009)

I think we need to remember who wrote the Bible? Over a period of time I reckon it has been polluted by certain "people of faith" who wanted it to attest to what they required it to dictate to the masses. Since the Bible has undergone numerous translations, some Biblical scholars suggest that earlier translations were fraught with error. As well, not all Bibles are the same. The Catholic Bible, for example, contains several Books that are not in the King James Bible. This has to do with decisions regarding what books were divinely inspired, and what books were not. Thus the Catholic Apocrypha is considered to be not a part of the King James Bible, and to many non-Catholics, represents a divergence in what is believed in Christianity.

http://www.allabouttruth.org/when-was-the-bible-written-faq.htm for the dates concerned.

Oh Dear ... could this be possible? Man has somehow influenced the Good book? 

Ktrianta ... please no trolling allowed.


----------



## Sean K (26 July 2009)

ktrianta said:


> Partly but also because it is in my opinion (and you are entitled to have a different opinion on this) the best fit for the world in which we live.
> 
> So i refer to my earlier words as follows;
> 
> ...



I would like to delve in to your post in more detail, but it is 1.45 am here, so there will probably be some severe gramattical errors. 

However, I am happy that you have decided that 'we do not KNOW that God exists'. 

OK.


----------



## ktrianta (26 July 2009)

kennas said:


> I
> However, I am happy that you have decided that 'we do not KNOW that God exists'.
> 
> OK.




This one does surprise me I must admit. Why does anyone consider this an issue? Have people missed those bits in the Bible where it talks about faith and belief?

Christianity is based on faith. Why do I need faith if I know God exists? It is a strange one for people to assume that we should KNOW that God exists.


----------



## bunyip (26 July 2009)

ktrianta said:


> This one does surprise me I must admit. Why does anyone consider this an issue? Have people missed those bits in the Bible where it talks about faith and belief?
> 
> Christianity is based on faith. Why do I need faith if I know God exists? It is a strange one for people to assume that we should KNOW that God exists.




I think the issue for non-believers is that Christians have such absolute faith in God, and that he created the world and the human race, when they admit they don't know if God exists, and given that there's no evidence or proof whatever that he exists. 
To non-believers it seems like faith without a solid foundation.

I once took a sheila to the races. Neither she nor I were racing people and we had no idea of how to pick horses. It was just a day out for us, but we reckoned we might as well have a couple of bets while we were there.

So we go through the names of the horses in the next race and she points to one of the names and says 'I'm backing this one'.
When I asked her why she chose that horse, her reply was 'Because it has a cute name'!
I said to her 'Just because it has a cute name, that doesn't mean the darned thing is going to win'.
But she was adamant.....'No no, this horse is going to win' says she, I can feel it in my bones. I have absolute faith in this horse'.
So she goes over to one of the bookies and plonks down $10. I'd love to tell you the horse won, but it finished well back in the field.

Now, the reason I've related this little story is to emphasize the point that this girl had faith that this horse would win, but what was lacking was solid reasoning to back that faith. She had faith without foundation. 
It would have been a different story if she'd picked the horse because its recent form had been excellent - then her faith in the horse would have had some solid foundation.

Non believers feel that the Christian faith has no solid foundation, since there has never been any evidence, let alone proof, to support Christian beliefs.
On the contrary, science is slowly but surely making discoveries that disprove some Christian beliefs.
And please, don't anyone waste my time or yours by challenging me to name those discoveries. 
We've all been to school, we all have access to the internet, we all have TV and access to libraries. There's nobody among us who can be unaware of some of the more notable scientific discoveries of our era.

Incidentally Ktrianta - the reason I thought you might be a sheila is that your name sounds a bit like the female name of 'Katrina'.


----------



## beamstas (26 July 2009)

The above comment about horses is completely retarded.


----------



## bunyip (26 July 2009)

beamstas said:


> The above comment about horses is completely retarded.




Guess I must be a retard then.

Would you care to explain your view?


----------



## trainspotter (26 July 2009)

Bunyip .. your sheila must have been betting on one of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse? :


----------



## beamstas (26 July 2009)

If i have to explain why having faith in a horse with a nice name and believing in god are two different things, then im not even going to bother.

As usual, im not picking sides, it's just a terrible analogy.


----------



## ktrianta (26 July 2009)

beamstas said:


> If i have to explain why having faith in a horse with a nice name and believing in god are two different things, then im not even going to bother.
> 
> As usual, im not picking sides, it's just a terrible analogy.




Unfortunately Bunyip has lost all credibility with me ( and I am sure he could not care less). Selectively editing my post and won't explain why, becoming more irrational and dogmatic with each post on the issue.


----------



## bunyip (26 July 2009)

beamstas said:


> If i have to explain why having faith in a horse with a nice name and believing in god are two different things, then im not even going to bother.
> 
> As usual, im not picking sides, it's just a terrible analogy.




They may be two different things, but if neither faith is supported by sensible reasoning then it's fair to draw parallels between the two by saying that both are lacking in solid foundation.

If you can't see that, then your views look just as retarded to me as mine look to you.

Perhaps you many wish to make some intelligent contribution to this discussion by telling us why you do or don't share the Christian faith.


----------



## beamstas (26 July 2009)

bunyip said:


> They may be two different things, but if neither faith is supported by sensible reasoning then it's fair to draw parallels between the two by saying that both are lacking in solid foundation.
> 
> If you can't see that, then your views look just as retarded to me as mine look to you.
> 
> Perhaps you many wish to make some intelligent contribution to this discussion by telling us why you do or don't share the Christian faith.




I've already stated on this thread that im religion nuetral. Im not going to side with either.

Having faith in a horse because you like the name is baseless, you are correct. It was a spur of the moment decision based on something that isn't at all related to the performance of the horse.

Having faith in god is not baseless to the person who has faith in god. It is not spur of the moment and takes alot of dedication and commitment, you can't have faith in your god overnight, nor can you just choose what you want on the spur of the moment.

I think that comparing a spur of the moment deicision based on the name of something to believing in god is ridiculous. Maybe if a person announced their faith in a certain god because they like the name that analogy could be used, otherwise it's just a bad analogy that wasn't well thought out.


----------



## Aussiest (26 July 2009)

I get what you were saying Bunyip. Your analogy could have been better, but we can always find things / said things that could have been better right?!

What you were saying is "whim" versus "reasoning and solid evidence". I get it. It's the old Science vs. Belief issue.

A better analogy could have been following the advice of a share trading guru based on their word, rather than learning for yourself through observation and back testing!


----------



## bunyip (26 July 2009)

Aussiest said:


> I get what you were saying Bunyip. Your analogy could have been better, but we can always find things / said things that could have been better right?!
> 
> What you were saying is "whim" versus "reasoning and solid evidence". I get it. It's the old Science vs. Belief issue.
> 
> A better analogy could have been following the advice of a share trading guru based on their word, rather than learning for yourself through observation and back testing!




I was talking about faith that's without solid reasoning. Whether it's a horse or a football team or a politician or a god or a cure for an illness or a solution to a problem, or a trading system or whatever, if you're going to place your faith in it then my thinking is that your faith ought to have some solid reasoning behind it.
I've never yet heard any solid reasoning or seen any evidence or proof to support a belief in the existence in God, or that he created the world or the human race.


----------



## beamstas (26 July 2009)

bunyip said:


> I was talking about faith that's without solid reasoning. Whether it's a horse or a football team or a politician or a god or a cure for an illness or a solution to a problem, or a trading system or whatever, if you're going to place your faith in it then my thinking is that your faith ought to have some solid reasoning behind it.
> I've never yet heard any solid reasoning or seen any evidence or proof to support a belief in the existence in God, or that he created the world or the human race.




While i agree there has been no proof of either, physical proof that will cause any argument against it to be estopped, 

This topic is beating a dead horse. 

The analogy was a bad one, that needed to be clarified. Im not having a go at you bunyip, i don't know you and i'm surely not going to judge you over a few posts, But you are laying an attack on people who devote their lives to their god. Saying that it's a baseless faith and comparing it to choosing a horse because of their name is not neccesary. 

I don't know enough about religions to comment on their faith or why they believe what they believe. All i know is it must be strong, for them to devote their life to it, i think you should respect that.

In regards to the rest of the topic,
Was hitler religious?
Stalin?
Mussolini?

There are always going to be bad eggs, sometimes stupidity will get in the way of rational thinking (neale), sometimes religion (links to the news on here), there are many ways to skin a cat, or in this case many ways to be regarded as a "nut", don't just pin it on one group as a stereotype. 

These people raping kids, or doing whatever they do, cannot be justified by the bible, they are living a fake doctrine. I will never condone this type of behaviour, religious or not.

Regards
Brad


----------



## bunyip (26 July 2009)

ktrianta said:


> Unfortunately Bunyip has lost all credibility with me ( and I am sure he could not care less). Selectively editing my post and won't explain why, becoming more irrational and dogmatic with each post on the issue.




That's right ktrianta, I couldn't care less if you think I have no credibility. 
But you don't know me very well if you think I'm the sort of person who dodges around answering questions.

I guess you won't believe me, but I had actually typed out a reply in which I explained why I edited your post. The reply is this.....I quoted the parts of your post that I wished to comment on. I edited out part of your post because I had no comment to make on that particular part. Simple as that. Nothing sinister about it, as you suggested.

As for being dogmatic and irrational and lacking in credibility, well I guess we must be two of a kind then, you and me. Because quite honestly, there's more than just me on here who has regarded you as irrational and lacking in credibility ever since you started posting on this thread.
The most glaring example or your irrationality is the fact that you admit you don't know if God exists, yet you have this unshakeable faith that he did all these wondrous things that are attributed to him. Further, that science disproves quite a few of your beliefs about God, but you persist with those beliefs anyway.


----------



## bunyip (26 July 2009)

beamstas said:


> you are laying an attack on people who devote their lives to their god.
> Regards
> Brad






What I'm doing, Brad, is questioning and challenging Christian beliefs. If you see that as 'laying an attack on people who devote their lives to their god', then you're welcome to your view even though I disagree with it.

The people I've laid an attack on are the bastards in Africa who tear apart the lives of little children by declaring them to be witches.....all in the name of God of course. Or the so-called Christians in Northern Ireland who use their opposing religions as an excuse to hurl petrol bombs and stones and bullets at each other.
Or the Muslim suicide bombers who kill and maim innocent people in the name of God.
These are the people who are truly religious nuts.


----------



## beamstas (26 July 2009)

bunyip said:


> The people I've laid an attack on are the bastards in Africa who tear apart the lives of little children by declaring them to be witches.....all in the name of God of course. Or the so-called Christians in Northern Ireland who use their opposing religions as an excuse to hurl petrol bombs and stones and bullets at each other.
> Or the Muslim suicide bombers who kill and maim innocent people in the name of God.
> These are the people who are truly religious nuts.




In my opinion, these are not religious people. They are as bad as the dogs who eat their own vomit.


----------



## trainspotter (26 July 2009)

Good to see that we can all live in peace in here.


----------



## trainspotter (26 July 2009)

Another forum have had this discussion in order of rank and file.

http://listverse.com/2008/04/02/8-atrocities-committed-in-the-name-of-religion/


----------



## Julia (26 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> Ktrianta ... please no trolling allowed.



I haven't seen any evidence that Ktrianta is trolling.  On the contrary, I've found his answers to be polite and clearly responsive, as much as is possible on such a topic, to the questions posed.




bunyip said:


> I was talking about faith that's without solid reasoning. Whether it's a horse or a football team or a politician or a god or a cure for an illness or a solution to a problem, or a trading system or whatever, if you're going to place your faith in it then my thinking is that your faith ought to have some solid reasoning behind it.
> I've never yet heard any solid reasoning or seen any evidence or proof to support a belief in the existence in God, or that he created the world or the human race.



This is one of those rather abstract concepts which will mean something different to most of us.
I know what you are meaning Bunyip, but might suggest that the girl at the races was somewhat misusing the notion of "having faith" when referring to the horse.

I guess most of us need something on which to base our existence.  For those of us who do not believe in a God (or are agnostic which is my own preferred position), we need to believe in our own capacity to make meaning of our existence.   This might take any number of forms, including simply believing in our own ability to make a difference to the world in which we live.

But for others, they prefer the concept of a 'guiding force' if you like, some entity which is in charge of all existence.  I expect this is reassuring and offers a sense that whatever happens, it was 'meant to be' in the Great Plan.

When I look at the few religious people I know, I see that this faith/belief gives them a great deal of comfort and confidence, and at times I even vaguely envy that.

So maybe we need to acknowledge that a faith or belief must, ipso facto, be not demonstrable in concrete, material terms, and therefore expecting anyone to justify having a 'faith' will never be fruitful.




beamstas said:


> In my opinion, these are not religious people. They are as bad as the dogs who eat their own vomit.




Ah, beamstas.   It's certainly disgusting to us.  However, dogs do this when they have eaten too fast, essentially just inhaling the food.  It's therefore undigested and comes back up pretty much whole.   To them, it's just as good as having the whole meal all over again!


----------



## beamstas (26 July 2009)

Julia said:


> Ah, beamstas.   It's certainly disgusting to us.  However, dogs do this when they have eaten too fast, essentially just inhaling the food.  It's therefore undigested and comes back up pretty much whole.   To them, it's just as good as having the whole meal all over again!




And im sure raping little kids, hurling petrol bombs and suicide bombing is perfectly acceptable to the people who do it too. 

Your comment, proved my point exactly, and the fact that the people do the above does not mean it's true for all religion. It's just true for the sick people who do it. 

Anyway, im going to depart from this thread, and agree to disagree/whatever. I have had my say 

Brad


----------



## bunyip (26 July 2009)

beamstas said:


> In my opinion, these are not religious people. They are as bad as the dogs who eat their own vomit.




They're religious people alright Brad.......they're absolute religious fanatics. 
Many of them are regulars in churches and mosques. 
Many of them spend countless hours praying to God, many of them are regulars in the confession box.
Some of them are convinced that their actions will be pleasing to God and he'll reward them with 80 virgins when they get to heaven.

Which brings me to another thought.....I wonder if the female suicide bombers believe they'll get 80 virginal men when they get to heaven.


----------



## Julia (26 July 2009)

beamstas said:


> The above comment about horses is completely retarded.






beamstas said:


> If i have to explain why having faith in a horse with a nice name and believing in god are two different things, then im not even going to bother.
> 
> As usual, im not picking sides, it's just a terrible analogy.






beamstas said:


> I think that comparing a spur of the moment deicision based on the name of something to believing in god is ridiculous. Maybe if a person announced their faith in a certain god because they like the name that analogy could be used, otherwise it's just a bad analogy that wasn't well thought out.






beamstas said:


> And im sure raping little kids, hurling petrol bombs and suicide bombing is perfectly acceptable to the people who do it too.
> 
> Your comment, proved my point exactly, and the fact that the people do the above does not mean it's true for all religion. It's just true for the sick people who do it.
> 
> ...




Beamstas:   you are doing exactly what you earlier criticised someone else for doing - making a quite ridiculous analogy.

To compare a religious belief which encourages rape and suicide bombing to the entirely physiological mechanism of dogs' vomiting is one of the more ludicrous analogies I've ever come across!


----------



## bunyip (26 July 2009)

Julia said:


> I haven't seen any evidence that Ktrianta is trolling.  On the contrary, I've found his answers to be polite and clearly responsive, as much as is possible on such a topic, to the questions posed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Ah Julia....where would this forum be without your clear thinking and steady guiding hand to steer us back on track when we stray from the beaten path!

Seriously, you show your usual good sense in abundant measure, and I'm sure that most of us on here appreciate it.


----------



## gooner (26 July 2009)

There is a program on the fatwa on Salmon Rushdie on right now.

Ayatollah Khomeini - now there is a real religious nutter


----------



## bunyip (26 July 2009)

Julia said:


> Beamstas:   you are doing exactly what you earlier criticised someone else for doing - making a quite ridiculous analogy.
> 
> To compare a religious belief which encourages rape and suicide bombing to the entirely physiological mechanism of dogs' vomiting is one of the more ludicrous analogies I've ever come across!




Perhaps we should borrow from Beamstas vocabulary and call his analogies 'retarded'.


----------



## weird (26 July 2009)

bunyip said:


> They're religious people alright Brad.......they're absolute religious fanatics.
> Many of them are regulars in churches and mosques.
> Many of them spend countless hours praying to God, many of them are regulars in the confession box.
> Some of them are convinced that their actions will be pleasing to God and he'll reward them with 80 virgins when they get to heaven.
> ...




Statistics point that 1 in 5 Americans attend church weekly, I have seen similar stats in AUS.  

I am amazed you feel safe to walk outside, cause you have a high chance of being religiously nutted at any time with all these loonies about  ... or perhaps when you walk down a dark alley, it's not that 1/5 you are more worried about.


----------



## trainspotter (26 July 2009)

72 virgins are waiting for you in heaven/wherever if you are a suicidal Muslim. I understand that the women get martyrdom and the family receives approximately $1000 USD for her efforts. Nice work if you can get it but apparently you can only do the job once?

Yes Julia, ktrianta has been very concise in his posts. Unfortunatley he copied and pasted a 300 plus word edict TWICE. Maybe for the benefit of the people who have been left behind in this thread. Afterall it seems to be clipping along at a fairly fast pace you know.

Good to see weird is finally calling them by their official name these days *"I am amazed you feel safe to walk outside, cause you have a high chance of being religiously nutted at any time with all these loonies about"*

Ho hum ... I will continue to worship the almighty dollar. 

_"You say that money isn't everything 
But I'd like to see you live without it 
You think you can keep on going living like a king 
Oohh babe, but I strongly doubt it"_

Courtesy of silverchair from the Frogstomp album (1995)


----------



## ktrianta (27 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> Yes Julia, ktrianta has been very concise in his posts. Unfortunatley he copied and pasted a 300 plus word edict TWICE. Maybe for the benefit of the people who have been left behind in this thread.




And I stated clearly that that is what i was doing. Quite simply, the same question was asked of me again. So rather than write out my response again I merely referred to it and then cut and pasted it for easier access to anyone who wa sinterested.


----------



## trainspotter (27 July 2009)

No pyjamas ktrianta. I was just letting my OCD get the better of me. I also gave my reason as to why you did perform such deeds. 

_Maybe for the benefit of the people who have been left behind in this thread._

Thank you for clarifying what I already knew would be the case.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (27 July 2009)

bunyip said:


> I expressed an opinion.....call it whatever you want - a claim, a statement, an argument - it makes no difference to me.



Then it appears if it is only an opinion, ktrianta is equally as justified in holding the belief that God has always been, which seems to be a satisfactory answer for him but not for you.



> Do you know of anything that came into existence without being created in some way?



No. I don't know of anything that came into existence without being created.  But that is a tautology delimiting the discussion in a way that excludes things that didn't come into existence and have always been. 



> I could be wrong, but unless something is created then in my opinion it cannot exist.



Created things (contingent entities) are our general experience. This raises the question of whether only created things provide a necessary and sufficient reason for the existence of any one thing, let alone the whole collection of created things. To skip the in-between steps one must finally consider one of two possibilities:
1) an infinite causal regress of contingent entities
2) an uncreated, eternal first cause or ground of being

*For myself*, I've found no satisfactory reasons to accept (1) as there are too many attendant paradoxes (confer "Hilbert's Hotel") and it violates Occam's razor. (2) has the best explanatory scope and is simpler, thus to be preferred, IMO. Ultimately one should decide as best as one can, which option is preferable. 

There are several steps from (2) to any particular definition of God, but God fits in the set of independent (or uncaused) entities as opposed to the set of  created (or contingent or caused) things. To ask, "Who or what created God?" is a categorical mistake of the same type as asking, "Has this created thing existed eternally?" 

You may not agree with Ktrianta, but what he said is in fact an answer.


----------



## bunyip (27 July 2009)

MS+Tradesim said:


> Then it appears if it is only an opinion, ktrianta is equally as justified in holding the belief that God has always been, which seems to be a satisfactory answer for him but not for you.
> 
> 
> No. I don't know of anything that came into existence without being created.  But that is a tautology delimiting the discussion in a way that excludes things that didn't come into existence and have always been.
> ...





I'm amused by you poor buggers who scramble your brains with all your deep thinking mumbo jumbo.

Let me know when you come up with some evidence or proof that the god being worshipped by Christians is anything more than just a figment of their imagination.
Let me know when you come up with proof that God created the world and the human race.
Good luck.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (27 July 2009)

Reply noted as expected. Thanks.


----------



## Agentm (27 July 2009)

i think the point being painfully demonstrated time and again is the use of force, killing, maiming, and oppression with religion or faith is demonstrated globally and through all religious tangents..

Faith is one thing, and spiritually has a very useful place in the general mental heath of those needing it.

Faith does not always bring rational and conclusive understandings or answers to all, and faith has been, is now ,and will forever more be misused universally.

we dont seem to have adequate "faith police" on this planet, as the ultimate figurehead that the faithful answer to are inevitably not in living in the present in most cases. we have adopted centuries of self regulation which has never had a smooth outcome thus far.

"religious nuts" and their extraordinary claims and behaviors are imho just criminal activity.  

abraham seems to be the guy most of these present offshoots stem through

i think abraham tried his best to stop thinking of many gods and look for perhaps one god as the creator..  many variations of his genius philosophy still seem to be relevant to the masses, but imho they are failing also in terms of having scriptures that become binding laws to follow and adopt.. and as these documents become older and society changes, they also can be easily used to both condemn the religion or faith, or can be used by the twisted as the building blocks to guide faithful believers into criminal activity.

ons own faith and beliefs should be respected and imho, the abusers of the faith are far too many and far too protected in all cultures and never brought to account

imho another abraham will surface one day.. but perhaps with some very interesting and strong philosophies that will be far more tangible to the masses universally.


----------



## weird (27 July 2009)

More religious nuts,



Perhaps we should be careful at church, cause the whole place is full of sinners.

Nutty ... "Love one another as yourself".:bananasmi


----------



## trainspotter (27 July 2009)

It seems to me that we have a Belief vs Truth altercation. By combining the two we may end up with Knowledge. While MS + Tradeism is coming from his epistemologists point of view and rationalising the debate into building blocks of proof and justifed belief it is like living next to an airport for quite a few of the posters. A lot is going above their heads.

The Aristotelian definition of truth states: _"To say of something which is that it is not, or to say of something which is not that it is, is false. However, to say of something which is that it is, or of something which is not that it is not, is true."_

Place the Rotary 4 Way Test on this thread for a moment; Is it the TRUTH? Is it FAIR to all concerned? Will it build GOODWILL and BETTER FRIENDSHIPS? Will it be BENEFICIAL to all concerned? 

Nope ... not working HUH? Ok then ... 

*Religious Nut Job* = 7th July 2005 London. No 30 bus and the Tube blown up by suicide bombers in the name of their religious beliefs. 56 people died and 700 injured. Islamic Fundamentalists.

*Old fashioned Nut Job *= April 16th 2007 Virginia. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University massacre by Seung-Hui Cho, killed 32 people and wounded many others before committing suicide. He was mentally ill.


----------



## bunyip (27 July 2009)

weird said:


> Perhaps we should be careful at church, cause the whole place is full of sinners.




That's another thing that used to cheese me off about Christianity.....every time I went to church I was told I was a sinner who needed to pray for forgiveness.
I met some wonderful people through church - good, decent people, unselfish and caring, pillars of the community. 
They too were constantly being told they were sinners who should pray for forgiveness.


----------



## Cartman (27 July 2009)

bunyip said:


> I'm amused by *you poor buggers* who scramble your brains with all your deep thinking mumbo jumbo.
> 
> Let me know when you come up with some evidence or proof that the god being worshipped by Christians is anything more than just a figment of their imagination.
> Let me know when you come up with proof that God created the world and the human race.
> Good luck.





lol --- (no disrespect intended and not specifically directed at u Bunyip) 

but ---

irrespective of anyone's stance on the existence of god/gods or whatever,  id rather be a thinker like MS/T and hopefully come to a valued educated conclusion based on *open mindedness* --- as opposed to making unsubstantiated dogmatic assumptions based on "common" beliefs --

and that opinion goes for both sides of this debate !!  ---- pro "godders" are probably more at fault in my view at "accepting" what they are told without cross examination of the facts at hand --

what i question is our "true" knowledge of the facts" (bearing in mind that *todays facts may in fact be tomorrows fiction*) ----- i prefer to believe everything yet believe nothing --- while accepting that *anything is possible*, yet may change at any given moment   ---- 

and u lot wonder why i appear confused !! ----

this is an interesting thread


----------



## weird (27 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> It seems to me that we have a Belief vs Truth altercation. By combining the two we may end up with Knowledge. While MS + Tradeism is coming from his epistemologists point of view and rationalising the debate into building blocks of proof and justifed belief it is like living next to an airport for quite a few of the posters. A lot is going above their heads.
> 
> The Aristotelian definition of truth states: _"To say of something which is that it is not, or to say of something which is not that it is, is false. However, to say of something which is that it is, or of something which is not that it is not, is true."_
> 
> ...




Lost me Trainspotter, using circles in your diagram, cause perfect circles do not exist.


----------



## Cartman (27 July 2009)

Just as a side issue --- have any of the believers and non believers alike considered the fact that *our* god is in fact both a woman and the greatest micro-biologist in our known universe !!?? --- and yes i am serious 

ps   bear in mind our known universe may only hold just a pin-prick of importance on the cosmic ladder of importance -------- 

narrow mindedness and dogma -------------- very detrimental attributes


----------



## Chris45 (27 July 2009)

In that vein, if (and that’s a very big IF) a scientist, say Giovanni Murtas or Craig Venter, succeeds in creating artificial life in a test tube (Giovanni Murtas apparently thinks he’s very close), how would that affect the people who fervently believe in God, eg the believers who post on this thread?

Since God is supposed to be the one and only creator, would this not be proof to them that He doesn’t exist and therefore there is no spirit world, or would they evolve an explanation that allows for the human creation of artificial life?

Science has shown rather convincingly how species evolve through mutation and natural selection, so it seems to me that all God based religions would surely be destined to collapse, or, would they somehow reinvent themselves with increasing focus on their prophet and his more secular teachings and allow God to slowly fade into oblivion? I think some Christian ministers and priests are already heading in that direction.

However, without the promise of an afterlife with its heavenly rewards, what would sustain the billions of poverty stricken souls who endure their daily hardships in the belief that they will ultimately be rewarded for staying true to their religion and its sometimes cruel and repressive disciplines?


----------



## 2020hindsight (27 July 2009)

Chris45 said:


> However, without the promise of an afterlife with its heavenly rewards, what would sustain the billions of poverty stricken souls who endure their daily hardships in the belief that they will ultimately be rewarded for staying true to their religion and its sometimes cruel and repressive disciplines?



gr8 post chris...

to say nothing of the moslems who speak of "the slow lane to heaven" = living a good life, honest  etc....

compared to the "express tollway" of blowing yourself up 

Trubel is some of em seriously believe it - virgins must be getting in real short supply up there... 
virgin on the ridiculous if you ask me... 
and the US Bible belt is almost as bad.


----------



## weird (27 July 2009)

Chris45 said:


> In that vein, if (and that’s a very big IF) a scientist, say Giovanni Murtas or Craig Venter, succeeds in creating artificial life in a test tube (Giovanni Murtas apparently thinks he’s very close), how would that affect the people who fervently believe in God, eg the believers who post on this thread?
> 
> Since God is supposed to be the one and only creator, would this not be proof to them that He doesn’t exist and therefore there is no spirit world, or would they evolve an explanation that allows for the human creation of artificial life?
> 
> ...




lol, sounds like the infinite monkey theorem, except I don't believe he (Giovanni Murtas or Craig Venter or whoever he or she is) will need as many monkeys to 'produce' the results he wants in his lifetime, unless he forces it ... hmmm. 

Sounds like hindsight to me - "it's random, but we needed that and this, and that's ok for my discovery, Nobel please, as this is what appears naturally and are ingredients to produce life, and they are already here !!!!".

Try doing it in a vacuum tube !

Btw, Catholicism does not exclude evolution - google it.

I would not be surprised to see scientists to be able to create single cell organisms at some point ... however I don't think it dismisses God.

It's just us imitating, and using the rich soup around us.


----------



## wayneL (27 July 2009)

Chris45 said:


> In that vein, if (and that’s a very big IF) a scientist, say Giovanni Murtas or Craig Venter, succeeds in creating artificial life in a test tube (Giovanni Murtas apparently thinks he’s very close), how would that affect the people who fervently believe in God, eg the believers who post on this thread?




Artificial life? Not quite. The devil is in the detail.


----------



## 2020hindsight (27 July 2009)

weird said:


> Btw, Catholicism does not exclude evolution - google it.



hey weird , 
 are we talking catholicism as practiced in 2000?

1990?
1980? lol 
you get my drift I'm sure.. 

I mean Catholicism is a follower of science.  
It's days of leading went out with the invention of the telescope (Galileo).



> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_pur_si_muove!
> E pur si muove!
> Nonetheless, it moves



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_pur_si_muove!

to be fair they forgave Galileo - in 1992 lol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo



> On 31 October 1992, Pope John Paul II expressed regret for how the Galileo affair was handled, and *officially conceded that the Earth was not stationary*, :silly: as the result of a study conducted by the Pontifical Council for Culture...


----------



## trainspotter (27 July 2009)

You are very seriously disturbed weird. The youtube post is a window to your mind. Freudian at best. I was trying to tie in the two case point arguments in regards to the idealogy's flying around the room . BUT NO !! You cannot make an omelete without cracking a few eggs. Oh well ... at least I tried.


----------



## weird (27 July 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> hey weird ,
> are we talking catholicism as practiced in 2000?
> 
> 1990?
> ...




Just read at the picture of Pope John Paul II, and below,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church


----------



## trainspotter (27 July 2009)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4JIBjxcFn0  if only eh?


----------



## 2020hindsight (27 July 2009)

I just wish Jesus had dedicated 10% - even 5% of his teachings to explaining why the universe was expanding so fast , - the red shift - silly little details like that 

dinosaurs ? - hang on ... according to Hovind, dinosaurs were called "unicorns" in the bible lol 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjKMhtyI3L8

ali G interviews hovind 
It's worth persevering with - assuming you're an Ali G fan, lol.
He gets to the nub of the problem at the 5m 30 s mark lol


----------



## weird (27 July 2009)

Can you guys at least show a preview to the videos, I am multi-tasking most of the time when on this site, at least want a clue of any video to see if it is interesting.

Thought 2020hindsight would correct, the king of YouTube.

Over Ali G btw ... it is so like ...


----------



## wayneL (27 July 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> I just wish Jesus had dedicated 10% - even 5% of his teachings to explaining why the universe was expanding so fast , - the red shift - silly little details like that





FYI, here is an article by Electric Universe theorist Michael Goodspeed.

Silly details.... might just turn out to be silly details.



> The French mathematician Jules Henri PoincarÃ© once compared science to a house of stones. He said, "Science is facts; just as houses are made of stone, so is science made of facts; but a pile of stones is not a house, and a collection of facts is not necessarily science." This analogy is apt, because like a house of stones, a collection of "facts" can easily crumble. "Facts" are not truth; they are the transient perception of truth.
> 
> For members of the general public with no training in the sciences, the "facts" are whatever they are told by the scientific establishment. The problem is, the "facts" are profoundly colored by interpretation, and interpretation is often based on nothing more than a guess. Perhaps this is most evident in the dominance of the Big Bang theory. Space age discovery has discredited and finally refuted the theory, yet within the halls of official science, it is presented as "fact." Very few scientific publications today express doubt about a hypothesis which a few decades ago was acknowledged to be precarious. And the truth is, nothing has happened to substantiate the theory, despite repeated self-serving announcements of new "verifications."
> 
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (27 July 2009)

weird said:


> Can you guys at least show a preview to the videos, I am multi-tasking most of the time when on this site, at least want a clue of any video to see if it is interesting.
> 
> Thought 2020hindsight would correct, the queen of YouTube.




well if you go to the youtube, you'll see these details given 
this shining light of christian morality (Hovind) ... 



> *Da Ali G Show does science. Ali G (Sasha Baron-Cohen) invited (now federal inmate and tax cheat) creationist Kent Hovind to discuss evolution. *The show erroneously lists Hovind as a "Dr," but his "doctorate" was earned from an unaccredited diploma mill. For more Hovind videos look at ones made by http://youtube.com/ExtantDodo and for answers to Hovind's misinformation see: http://www.toarchive.org/faqs/hovind/
> 
> ==Youtube controversy:==
> *Kent Hovind is now in prison for 58 felony/tax related convictions. Now his son, Eric Hovind, took over the family business.*
> ...



....


----------



## 2020hindsight (27 July 2009)

wayneL said:


> FYI, here is an article by Electric Universe theorist Michael Goodspeed.
> 
> Silly details.... might just turn out to be silly details.



like I say wayne
 shame Jesus didn't set the record straight on all these options ...

then again , it's a pretty safe bet that he thought the world was flat.


----------



## wayneL (27 July 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> like I say wayne
> shame Jesus didn't set the record straight on all these options ...
> 
> then again , it's a pretty safe bet that he thought the world was flat.



While you indulge in extreme binomial and tangential arguments, discussion is hopeless.

What Jesus thought and taught about science is not relevant to this discussion.


----------



## 2020hindsight (27 July 2009)

wayneL said:


> While you indulge in extreme binomial and tangential arguments, discussion is hopeless.
> 
> What Jesus thought and taught about science is not relevant to this discussion.



mmm interesting take


I thought he knew everything  - or at least his dad did 

PS I believe this thread is about exorcism - and I'm thinking I'm one of the few who has posted to that topic.  (refer Witch Children of Nigeria etc)

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=463884&highlight=nigeria#post463884

compare the first post ... all about exorcism.


----------



## weird (27 July 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> like I say wayne
> shame Jesus didn't set the record straight on all these options ...
> 
> then again , it's a pretty safe bet that he thought the world was flat.




Perhaps one day you can ask him.

Good post Wayne, good to see some actual reasoning.


----------



## 2020hindsight (27 July 2009)

weird said:


> Perhaps one day you can ask him.
> 
> Good post Wayne, good to see some actual reasoning.



see weird , YOU claimed that the church has sound scientific backing - believes in evolution I believe you said - or tolerates it whatever. ...

so what do you suggest that the church should do about it's scientific credentials, considering it took almost 400 years to "forgive"  Galileo.


----------



## weird (27 July 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> see weird , YOU claimed that the church has sound scientific backing - believes in evolution I believe you said - or tolerates it whatever. ...
> 
> so what do you suggest that the church should do about it's scientific credentials, considering it took almost 400 years to "forgive"  Galileo.




Scientific backing ... no such claim, it has been called faith all along.

I am about to duck out, so won't be able to respond for abit, and saying this off the cuff, and I could be wrong, 

but my current understanding is that the Jesuit's put Galileo comfortably under house arrest, with complete access to all scientific equipment, and Galileo was heavily under attack by Protestants at the time.

I completely respect  Protestants , their historical research into the old and new testament, by historical scholars (not the self-serving morning crew most people scorn, but actual research) has been useful to all.


----------



## 2020hindsight (27 July 2009)

weird said:


> ... the Jesuit's put Galileo comfortably under house arrest, ...




bit like Aung San Suu Kyi maybe?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aung_San_Suu_Kyi

now there's a modern day Jesus (imo)


----------



## wayneL (27 July 2009)

BTW

The Big Bang was originally proposed by.... a catholic priest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_LemaÃ®tre



> Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Ã‰douard LemaÃ®tre (July 17, 1894 – June 20, 1966) was a Belgian Roman Catholic priest, honorary prelate, professor of physics and astronomer at the Catholic University of Leuven. He sometimes used the title AbbÃ© or Monseigneur.
> LemaÃ®tre proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, which he called his 'hypothesis of the primeval atom'.[1][2][3]



::


----------



## 2020hindsight (27 July 2009)

> Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Ã‰douard LemaÃ®tre



way to go joe


----------



## wayneL (27 July 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> way to go joe
> </delete annoyingly trivial graphic>




You won't like the inference from the original theory.


----------



## 2020hindsight (27 July 2009)

I take it you're suggesting he proposed that theory with the Pope's blessing?


----------



## wayneL (27 July 2009)

BTW, while researching this, here's a nice little spray that could neatly cross over into a number of theories, with little modification.

Open minds folks.



> CONCLUSION
> 
> Astrophysics pseudo-skeptics like Bridgman have certain recognizable characteristics in common.
> 
> ...


----------



## weird (27 July 2009)

wayneL said:


> BTW
> 
> The Big Bang was originally proposed by.... a catholic priest.
> 
> ...





lol, yup ...


----------



## Julia (27 July 2009)

Cartman said:


> what i question is our "true" knowledge of the facts" (bearing in mind that *todays facts may in fact be tomorrows fiction*) ----- i prefer to believe everything yet believe nothing --- while accepting that *anything is possible*, yet may change at any given moment   ----



Indeed.  Sane thinking, Cartman, not confused at all.






2020hindsight said:


> well if you go to the youtube, you'll see these details given
> 
> 
> 
> ....



2020 why is it so damn difficult for you to simply accede to the request to give a brief description of the content of your interminable videos, rather than forcing anyone with a possible mild interest to actually have to start playing them?  Just a single sentence would suffice.


----------



## trainspotter (27 July 2009)

Is it just me or have we completely LOST our way? This has turned into a debate over ecumenical matters and those who opppose their POV. With links to youtube thrown in (guilty myself but mine was of camp Jesus being hit by a bus) so can we please get back onto reporting about RELIGIOUS NUT JOBS?

Like this bloke: *Man beat daughter over church refusal, court told 1:26PM Thursday Jul 09, 2009*

A 55-year-old man who beat his daughter over the head with a lump of concrete when she refused to go to his Mormon church "does not understand what all the fuss is about", Hastings District Court has heard. Uluia Muliipu appeared in court after pleading guilty to one count of assault with intent to injure. Judge Geoff Rea said on February 22 this year Muliipu had become involved in an argument with his daughter who refused to attend church.

*He chased her down the street and back into the house picking up a lump of concrete along the way. He then whacked her over the head in a bedroom with the concrete causing skin on her head to split and start bleeding.*

They were both "covered in blood" and he kicked her in the face causing bruising. "When police arrived you told them your daughter was lucky you did not kill her," Judge Rea said. He took his shirt off and ran into the laundry where he attempted to rinse the blood out of the shirt. When told by police to desist he continued rinsing the shirt and blocking their way before he was pepper sprayed.

His daughter was taken to Hawke's Bay Hospital with head injuries. Defence lawyer Roger Stone told the court Muliipu had been angry his daughter refused to go to church. He had been under stress before the incident.

He was a "proud" man who was "disappointed" his daughter had elected not to follow his Mormon faith. Mr Stone said blood on Muliipu's shirt came from him hugging his daughter just before police arrived at his house.

Judge Rea said a probation officer's report made "grim reading" because he "still does not understand what all the fuss is about".

He had been ejected from an anger management course because of his views and had an inability to understand "whacking someone on the head is unacceptable". In the circumstances there was only one response and that was imprisonment. Muliipu was sentenced to 12 months in jail. 

Now this may be a case of ugly parent syndrome when daughter decides she doesn't want to go to church with Daddy BUT .... never mind.


----------



## 2020hindsight (28 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> 1. Like this bloke: *Man beat daughter over church refusal, ....
> whacked her over the head in a bedroom with the concrete causing skin on her head to split and start bleeding.*...
> "daughter was lucky _ did not kill her"
> ...
> ...



_
in reverse order ...
4. inability to understand violence unacceptable
3. inability to understand that blatant lies - it was from hugging her  - only compound the "sin" - (PS for "sin", read "criminally devious mind")
2. proud of himself - based on his idea of his christian morals no doubt
1. no doubt he'd criticise the Moslem practice of stoning people to death.  (equally barbaric of course - doh).  

There's an old fairly sick joke ... "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone " .. "thud"  ... " sometimes Mother dear .."  etc.  An oldie and not very goodie. 

I'm reminded of a Mormon boy who killed his father (with some justification as I recall - physical abuse etc - but the boy sounded like a problem child) .  Anyway the sentencing judge made him enlist for 3 years missionary work ! - lol -   "go forth, boy,  spread the good word to the ignorant masses overseas - like in Australia for instance!!"    

We had Mormon missionaries come by our house a few times when I was a boy , "poaching" christians from other christian "clubs".  (Mum was fairly religious, and too polite to tell them to go jump).   Anyway, we soon tired of the nonsense - and I'm sure they'd be more use in Africa or India - I always thought of missionaries as people out there doing good stuff - felt like telling them to go follow the footsteps of Mother Teresa - you get a better CV and a better hearing at the Pearly Gates I'm sure. 
Try going to a place that doesn't have a MacDonalds on every second corner... 
yeah right.  _


----------



## 2020hindsight (28 July 2009)

As for this next article, authenticity unknown ...  probably true you'd have to say.  
Bludy gruesome yarn ,  Man cuts out daughter's tongue , then burns her to death ...  etc  (for becoming a christian) 



> http://www.southasianconnection.com...ther-Kills-Daughter-For-Accepting-Christ.html
> Muslim Father Kills Daughter For Accepting Christ
> By The Christian Messenger Published 10/23/2008
> 
> ...




But of course you could then go on to talk about Jonestown etc etc 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown



> Jonestown was the informal name for the "*Peoples Temple Agricultural Project",* an intentional community in northwestern Guyana formed by the Peoples Temple, *a cult from California, United States, led by Jim Jones*. It became internationally notorious when, on November 18, 1978, 918 people died in the settlement as well as in a nearby airstrip and in Georgetown, Guyana's capital. The name of the settlement became synonymous with the incidents at those locations.
> 
> *909 Temple members died in Jonestown, all but two from apparent cyanide poisoning in an event termed "revolutionary suicide"* by Jones and some members on an audio tape of the event and in prior discussions. The poisonings in Jonestown followed the murder of five others by Temple members at a nearby Port Kaituma airstrip. The victims included Congressman Leo Ryan, *the first and only Congressman murdered in the line of duty in the history of the United States*.




Jonestown would have to be the perfect example of man's weakness for this stuff,  no doubt arising from some deep insecurity possibly about death - and also his vulnerability to mass hypnosis. 

Like the Moonies ... ahh heck, lol the list is too long.   My wife met some Moonies in San Fran when she was travelling way back when - the 70's.  They invited them (she and a girlfriend) back to some commune with view to indoctrination - they were amazed at the trance-like state the rest of them were in ...  she never forgets "the sheep farmer from NZ" lol - sitting there crosslegged, bleating like a sick sheep, - with her friend - a Kiwi nurse - great bird lol , funny as - trying to click her fingers in front of his eyes and making loud noises to try to wake him out of it lol.


----------



## bunyip (28 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> Is it just me or have we completely LOST our way? This has turned into a debate over ecumenical matters and those who opppose their POV. With links to youtube thrown in (guilty myself but mine was of camp Jesus being hit by a bus) so can we please get back onto reporting about RELIGIOUS NUT JOBS?
> .




Yes, these discussions always end up drifting away from the topic of the thread, and we'll all guilty of doing it.

That's why I put up a new thread titled *'All Things Religious'*...at least in there we can discuss any matter at all relating to religion, without getting off topic.


----------



## bunyip (28 July 2009)

Trainspotter

Loved the cartoon in Post 574


----------



## trainspotter (28 July 2009)

*shrugs* Thanks Bunyip ... just fighting the good fight.


----------



## Timmy (29 July 2009)

Another tragic, tragic story of religious nuts.  This time an 11 year-old girl dies for her parents' misguided beliefs.

Mother of dead girl: sickness was test of faith

_The mother of an 11-year-old girl who died of undiagnosed diabetes as the family prayed for her to get better has testified that she believes sickness is caused by sin and can be cured by God...
"I asked her if she loved Jesus," the mother testified. "She might have said yes. I know for sure she was acknowledging it. What sounds came out, I don't remember. She was making noises ... My focus definitely was to pray."_


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 July 2009)

tragic all right Timmy. - Wisconsin bit of a worry you'd have to say 


> she didn't take the girl to a doctor because that would have been "complete disobedience to what we believe".




PS Ancient Greek Sylligism....“From nothing, nothing comes; Something is, therefore something eternally was”


----------



## bunyip (29 July 2009)

Timmy said:


> Another tragic, tragic story of religious nuts.  This time an 11 year-old girl dies for her parents' misguided beliefs.
> 
> Mother of dead girl: sickness was test of faith
> 
> ...




I wonder if these sort of people ever learn from their stupidity, or whether their views remain largely unchanged. Quite likely the latter.
Not much different really, to Jehovah's Witnesses who will let a loved one bleed to death rather than authorise a life-saving blood transfusion.


----------



## trainspotter (29 July 2009)

It would certainly test my sense of faith (If I had any) They would reason that it was Gods will and she/he is in a better place blah blah and BLAH. I thought they locked people up under the mental health act when you have an imaginary friend?


----------



## Boggo (30 July 2009)

And another mob of child abusers escape free of any responsibility in the name of religion.

Joe public would get 20 years but if you have a collar its ok apparently 
http://www.independent.ie/national-...o-pay-a-penny-towards-ryan-plans-1844681.html


----------



## trainspotter (30 July 2009)

Something about this picture made me smile. I do not know why?


----------



## gav (30 July 2009)

Boggo said:


> And another mob of child abusers escape free of any responsibility in the name of religion.
> 
> Joe public would get 20 years but if you have a collar its ok apparently
> http://www.independent.ie/national-...o-pay-a-penny-towards-ryan-plans-1844681.html




Boggo - No need to worry about priests, keep your children away from their older brother! 

*Almost all child sex abuse is incest - report*
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,,25824202-421,00.html

"AS much as *90 per cent* of child sex abuse is the result of incest with the perpetrators often being the victim's adolescent brother, research suggests."


----------



## Boggo (1 August 2009)

Another oxygen thief.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...hter-calling-medical-help-disobeying-God.html


----------



## darkside (1 August 2009)

Boggo said:


> Another oxygen thief.
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...hter-calling-medical-help-disobeying-God.html




Ah yes , the lord does work in mysterious ways, and of course this is just a test of the fathers faith and he passed with flying colours. How dare the prosecuters want him jailed, if anything for his strong faith he should be rewarded. The hide of the judge believing he should have obtained medical help when we all know prayer is more than enough. !!!!!!!


----------



## Timmy (1 August 2009)

I'm going to have to lighten it up for a minute.

Check this out:

7-year-old steals car to skip church

_PLAIN CITY, Utah -- Police in Utah say a 7-year-old boy led officers on a car chase in an effort to avoid going to church.

Dispatchers received reports of a child driving recklessly on Sunday morning. Weber County Sheriff's Capt. Klint Anderson says one witness said the boy drove through a stop sign.

Anderson says two deputies caught up with the boy and tried unsuccessfully to stop the Dodge Intrepid in an area about 45 miles north of Salt Lake City. The car reached 40 mph before the boy stopped in a driveway and ran inside a home.

Anderson says when the boy's father later confronted him, the boy said he didn't want to go to church. The boy is too young to prosecute and no citations were issued, although police did urge the father to make his car keys more inaccessible to children._

Smart kid.


----------



## bunyip (2 August 2009)

darkside said:


> Ah yes , the lord does work in mysterious ways, and of course this is just a test of the fathers faith and he passed with flying colours. How dare the prosecuters want him jailed, if anything for his strong faith he should be rewarded. The hide of the judge believing he should have obtained medical help when we all know prayer is more than enough. !!!!!!!




The father of the girl will probably believe _'The Lord is now holding her hand in __glory'_, or some similar rubbish.
A few weeks ago I saw a religious couple say something similar on a TV show about some strange religious mob in the US.
Their daughter had Leukaemia. The parents were getting treatment for her and were hopeful she'd recover her health. But they also said _'If the Lord chooses to hold her hand in glory, then we're OK with that too'._They were of course talking about the possibility of their daughter dying.
At least they had the intelligence to get medical treatment for her, rather than rely on prayer.


----------



## Julia (2 August 2009)

bunyip said:


> The father of the girl will probably believe _'The Lord is now holding her hand in __glory'_, or some similar rubbish.
> A few weeks ago I saw a religious couple say something similar on a TV show about some strange religious mob in the US.
> Their daughter had Leukaemia. The parents were getting treatment for her and were hopeful she'd recover her health. But they also said _'If the Lord chooses to hold her hand in glory, then we're OK with that too'._They were of course talking about the possibility of their daughter dying.
> At least they had the intelligence to get medical treatment for her, rather than rely on prayer.



So weren't they doing what most people do, i.e. having a bet both ways?

As you point out, they'd been responsible in getting medical treatment, so - although the phrase about the Lord holding her hand in glory is a bit over the top - they're really just preparing themselves for her possible death.
If it helps them to think she will 'move on to the next life' or whatever, then that seems reasonable to me.

Wouldn't work for me, but comfort is comfort, no matter its source.


----------



## Duckman#72 (3 August 2009)

bunyip said:


> The father of the girl will probably believe _'The Lord is now holding her hand in __glory'_, or some similar rubbish.
> A few weeks ago I saw a religious couple say something similar on a TV show about some strange religious mob in the US.
> Their daughter had Leukaemia. The parents were getting treatment for her and were hopeful she'd recover her health. But they also said _'If the Lord chooses to hold her hand in glory, then we're OK with that too'._They were of course talking about the possibility of their daughter dying.
> At least they had the intelligence to get medical treatment for her, rather than rely on prayer.




You are being extremely harsh Bunyip. You are skewing the facts of a story to suit the topic thread.

I saw that program as well - it was based on the Mormons in the US.

It was girl was only about 5-6. The family did everything they could to raise the funds for the necessary treatment (and by the way the money was raised primarily through friends, family and their local congregation). At no stage did they contemplate not having the treatment. It was obviously an extremely difficult and emotional time for the family and as a viewer I felt great sorrow for the little girl.

However the family remained strong, positive and encouraged - primarily and presumably through their faith and close support network. I am no expert but I would think strong, positive and encouraged would be three things most health workers would like patients and their families to be when fighting cancer. 

They were being optimistic but at the same time being realistic about her chances. If being a *religious nut* means that after you have done all that you can medically for your cancerous 5 year old girl you are able to take some comfort, and find some sense and purpose in having your daughter tragically taken away from you - then good luck to them. I'm all for those types of religious nuts.    

It appears that on reaching Post #628 of this thread topic, it has got to the stage where a Religious Nut can be official defined. It is someone that uses the phrase "The Lord is holding her hand in glory", rather than "She will be at peace and suffer no more". How dare they use language that is so offensive to your ideas and beliefs Bunyip.   

Duckman


----------



## Duckman#72 (3 August 2009)

Duckman#72 said:


> I saw that program as well - it was based on the Mormons in the US.




I apologise for misleading. The family were actually breakaway Amish - not Mormons.  They were "experimenting" with other similar religious options including Mormon and Baptist faith.

Duckman


----------



## bunyip (3 August 2009)

Duckman#72 said:


> You are being extremely harsh Bunyip. You are skewing the facts of a story to suit the topic thread.
> 
> I saw that program as well - it was based on the Mormons in the US.
> 
> ...




The story was about the Amish religion. 

I'm being extremely harsh? No, I'm simply expressing an opinion that when a child has a life-threatening illness like Leukaemia that may well take her life, it's completely over the top to talk about 'If the Lord chooses to hold her hand in glory'.
There won't be any glory in it if the child is unfortunate enough to succumb to her illness. I've seen a small child die from Leukaemia - I know what it's like.
There'll be heartache, misery, ongoing sorrow for the family for the rest of their lives, considerable suffering for the little girl, and sundry other unpleasant aspects, but there won't be any glory. 

I don't agree that I'm skewing the facts of a story to suit the topic. I've correctly stated what the parents said, and I've acknowledged that they're getting medical treatment for their daughter.

You've chosen to elaborate by saying how they've done everything they could to raise funds for her treatment, including enlisting the help of family, friends, and the members of their congregation.
I'm not disagreeing with you.
You've stated that it's a difficult and emotional time for the family - yes of course it is, I fully understand that.
And you've made various other statements, most of which I agree with.

For the record, I haven't stated that these people are religious nuts. I've simply expressed my disagreement with their comments about 'the Lord holding her hand in glory'.
Their language does not offend me as you've suggested, but their attitude does perplex me.
Still, if such an attitude gives them comfort if the girl dies, then I guess that's a positive. It won't, however, change my view that they are being 'over the top' in their belief.

It's unfortunate if my view offends your Christian perspective - my views are not expressed for the purpose of offending people, any more than your views are.


----------



## pilots (4 August 2009)

Any one see 4 corners last night, all done in the name of religion, what hope have we got when you have nut cases like that running around.


----------



## bunyip (4 August 2009)

pilots said:


> Any one see 4 corners last night, all done in the name of religion, what hope have we got when you have nut cases like that running around.




Didn't see it - what was it about?


----------



## derty (7 August 2009)




----------



## Timmy (4 September 2009)

Here's another one:

September 2010 Mega Thrust Earthquake to hit US West Coast


----------

