This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Religion IS crazy!

Jump to new

I didn’t Chris, no. Over the years I’ve heard so many fantastic claims regarding creation, reincarnation etc that these days I more or less just shrug my shoulders and walk away, so to speak.
I did read the summary though, since you took to trouble to post the link.
I can see you’re fascinated by this subject.
 
bellenuit said:
Muslim protesters take to London's streets to demand shops stop selling alcohol
Click to expand...
After all of the "alcohol fueled" extreme violence that's been reported lately, I'm starting to wonder if maybe they've got a valid point.

On SBS last night there was a documentary about the marijuana experiment in Colorado. With so many young people addling their brains with drugs, what hope have we got?

bunyip said:
I can see you’re fascinated by this subject.
Click to expand...
Yes, when two reputable scientists discover evidence of paranormal activity and, after meticulous investigations and considerations of all possible alternative explanations, come to the conclusion of reincarnation, I'm very fascinated, especially when the other weird theories of strings, mutiverses, holograms etc. are considered. At this stage I don't see a conflict with my Christian beliefs, but all beliefs, scientific ones especially, should evolve and adapt as new discoveries are presented.

I just don't find the simplistic atheistic beliefs in "big bang" and autogenesis very convincing. But, each to his own and if you are happy with shrugging your shoulders and walking away from it all, then of course you are free to make that choice.
 
Chris45 said:
I just don't find the simplistic atheistic beliefs in "big bang" and autogenesis very convincing. But, each to his own and if you are happy with shrugging your shoulders and walking away from it all, then of course you are free to make that choice.
Click to expand...

The big bang theory doesn’t convince me either, Chris. But nor do the wild stories in the Bible about God creating the world and its creatures in just six days, Adam and Eve and the serpent in the garden of Eden, Jonah living in a whale as punishment from God, Noah building an ark in just two years that would had to have been bigger than the largest ships of today if it was to accommodate two of every living creature on earth, not to mention food for them for 40 days and nights, not to mention the impossibility of catching two of every living species and getting them aboard his boat, keeping them segregated so they didn’t kill each other...etc etc etc.

I don’t propose to spend my life searching for the truth or the meaning of it all. I’ll leave that to the scientists and the theologians and others whose interest lies in that area.
 
Chris45 said:
After all of the "alcohol fueled" extreme violence that's been reported lately, I'm starting to wonder if maybe they've got a valid point.
Click to expand...

You must be kidding! Did you not read this bit...... Dozens gathered on Brick Lane to voice their disapproval, and warned retailers they face 40 LASHES if they continue to sell the product.

Our Western freedoms have been hard won and your apparent willingness to throw them away at the behest of ignorant and backward fundamentalist seems strange to say the least.

I just don't find the simplistic atheistic beliefs in "big bang" and autogenesis very convincing. But, each to his own and if you are happy with shrugging your shoulders and walking away from it all, then of course you are free to make that choice.
Click to expand...

Simplistic would probably be the most inappropriate word in this case. Although the origin of the universe (or multiverses, should that be the case) is still an open question, those who propose the big bang theory could hardly be accused of adopting a simplistic explanation or worse still a simplistic belief (as the word belief implies there is no evidence to support their theories). Calling that an atheistic belief is ridiculous as many of the scientists who support the theory (or similar theories) are Christian or of other faiths. In fact one of the first to postulate that there may have been a Big Bang that started it all was Georges Lemaître, a Belgian priest. The Big Bang is, going by an interview with the Chief Vatican Scientist that I recently saw, also accepted as a plausible possibility by the Catholic Church, though they assume that their God instigated it. You can read more on Georges Lemaître here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître

As to simplistic, the big bang explanation is the end result of the experimentation, calculations and discoveries of some of the greatest minds that the world has produced in the last 100 years and to properly understand their theories requires a knowledge of science that only few possess. I regard myself as having a pretty good understanding of science (for a well educated intelligent layman) and I read a lot on the subject of the origins of the universe, but find at best I only have a superficial understanding of what the scientists are saying

The only thing that comes across as simplistic to me is your casual dismissal of the body of knowledge on the subject that we have accumulated in the last 100 years or so.
 
Bellenuit, I agree with Chris sentiments regarding alcohol and drugs in society, with freedom comes responsibility and its not happening.

4 years for killing someone with alcohol fueled violence and drugs, whose freedom?
Not the law abiding ones..
 
Whether it is the big bang theory or that the universe was made by god, both leave questions begging.

What was before the big bang or who made god?

As an analogy, I am happy watching television with out needing to know the intricacies of how it works. I certainly don't need to read a fictional book written by someone who also does not know how TV works, trying to explain it. While I would prefer the words of a scientist from an age that does not know how TV works, but has at least applied scientific methods to his investigation, this is also not a real explanation just a theory.

Cheers,
Surly
 
bunyip said:
nor do the wild stories in the Bible
Click to expand...
Bunyip, I am also not convinced by those "wild stories" in the Old Testament and I tend to think of them more as myths rather than hard historical facts. I think they are open to interpretation and were probably designed to get some basic messages across to the unsophisticated people of the time, but I have not studied the Old Testament in detail so I can't speak with any authority.

When I went to church as a teenager, little time was spent discussing the Old Testament and the focus was on Christ's teachings in the New Testament which is what Christianity is all about. However, I wouldn't dismiss the entire Bible just because of the Old Testament.

Bellenuit, "alcohol fueled" violence is pervasive in our society these days due largely to alcohol vendors being able to sell their alcohol at all hours, so that irresponsible young people can binge-drink all night long and abuse it as a drug to "get off their faces". Given the facts that one in eight deaths of Australians aged under 25 is now related to alcohol consumption, and on average four young people die each week as a consequence of "alcohol fueled" violence, do you seriously say that's a hard won freedom we should cherish? What sort of person are you?

As Tink says, "with freedom comes responsibility". A glass or two of red wine with a meal is healthy, but consuming alcohol as a drug is certainly not. The alcohol industry has far too much freedom in our Western society and excessive alcohol consumption is destroying people's lives, and our society. No longer can people go out for a joyous evening celebration with friends without the very real threat that they might end up being killed by someone under the influence of alcohol.

I did NOT say I agreed with the Muslim's demands to prohibit all sales of alcohol and punish retailers with 40 lashes, however since you mentioned the 40 lashes, the idea of thrashing those drunken violent thugs who go around mindlessly king-hitting people and stomping on their heads sounds quite appealing! At least it would deliver more justice to the unfortunate victims than our limp-wristed, bleeding heart legal system does.

Simplistic would probably be the most inappropriate word in this case.
Click to expand...
You are nitpicking about my use of simplistic. What I was referring to was that your average, largely uninformed, atheist believes it as fact that an unexplained Big Bang produced stars and planets, and then autogenesis mysteriously produced life and ultimately us here on Earth. These are still theories, but are being accepted by many people incorrectly as facts. Compared to what has been emerging lately about dark matter, dark energy, worm holes, the accelerating universe, multiverse, holographic universe, etc. ... and now reincarnation, don't you think the belief that your average atheist holds, that everything has been explained by these theories, is a little simplistic?

The Big Bang theory is certainly based on a huge body of scientific observation and thinking by the some of the greatest minds that the world has produced in the last 100 years, as you correctly say, but it's still only a theory and unfortunately is now starting to develop some inconvenient cracks. The Big Bang theory has some merit if you can handle the concept of all the matter in the universe commencing from a form smaller than a subatomic particle called a singularity, and time only coming into being as that primordial singularity expanded toward its current size and shape. But what I don't find at all convincing is the theory of autogenesis/abiogenesis/spontaneous generation, whatever you like to call it because, apart from the Miller-Urey experiment, there's no other evidence to support it.

Simplistic is a relative term. One hundred years ago when Niels Bohr introduced his shell model of the atom involving protons neutrons and electrons, which at the time were believed to be the fundamental particles of matter, it was a masterpiece of scientific thinking for which he won a Nobel Prize, and rightly so. However, in the light of current atomic and nuclear theory, doesn't the Bohr model now look a little simplistic, or do you still think of atoms as like little solar systems with electrons orbiting the nuclei like tiny planets?

Now, do you have anything intelligent to say about Stevenson's and Tucker's work on reincarnation, or is your focus on nitpicking?
 
Surly said:
Whether it is the big bang theory or that the universe was made by god, both leave questions begging. What was before the big bang or who made god?
Click to expand...
One of Donald Rumsfeld's greatest contributions was his classification system involving "known knowns" etc.

There are logically four categories in this system and the two I find most intriguing are "known unknowns" and "unknown unknowns".

What was before the Big Bang is a "known unknown", but one suggestion I heard was that our universe came into being when two other universes collided resulting in a humongous release of energy that transformed into matter and antimatter. Another suggestion was that our universe is just an elaborate computer simulation. Pull together the ideas behind the movies "The Truman Show" and "The Matrix" to get the idea.

Questions about the creation of God fall into the category of "unknown unknowns" as far as I am concerned, but I don't accept the notion that God was created by man.
 
I agree, and the thrashing should be extended to the money-hungry politiciians who have progressively extended pub and club hours over the years so that more alcohol is sold, hence more revenue for government.
And another class of person who deserves a good thrashing is the judges who hand out lenient sentences to boozed up, violent idiots.

Chris45 said:
Questions about the creation of God fall into the category of "unknown unknowns" as far as I am concerned, but I don't accept the notion that God was created by man.
Click to expand...
Did I miss something here - I'm not aware of anyone having suggested that god was created by man. Or were you referring to the concept of god being dreamed up by men, just as various other gods have been dreamed up by various peoples over time?
 
Hear Hear, Chris, great posts

Agree with the 40 lashes, a better deterrent than whats happening now.
 
Muslim staff at Marks & Spencer can refuse to sell alcohol and pork

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...ncer-can-refuse-to-sell-alcohol-and-pork.html

Next it will be threats of 40 lashes for those muslim store staff who choose to serve alcohol or pork to supermarket customers.

How stupid have our politically correct society become. Will vegans be allowed not to serve meat to customers? How about a female muslim cashier not serving an unrelated male customer? If it were a bookshop, could muslims refuse to sell a bible or perhaps a book by Richard Dawkins to a customer? Some Christians may take offence with selling books on evolutions to customers.

It is the same as the selling alcohol issue discussed above. Though many societal issues may be alcohol related, bowing to the demands of ignorant religious fanatics is not the solution. We should value our freedoms and tackle any problematic side effects in an intelligent manner consistent with our values as a society. Temporarily siding with the fanatics because one shares a common adversary (alcohol in this case) even though their objections are based on adherence to some barbaric book and our objections are related to potential social problems is not the way to go. Those who advocated giving 40 lashes to those who legitimately sell alcohol should be condemned, not encouraged by suggesting they may have a point.
 

I'll file that under political correctness is crazy. Seriously, if you're uncomfortable selling a company's products, don't work for the company.

I'm in Germany now and it's been wurst and beer for the last few days.
 
Bellenuit, do you think the justice in this country is fair?

The rise of the 'untamed' is unsettling, and I am not just talking the young in society, its through all generations, even the politicians, namingly the labor party and their disgusting language and behaviour.

So do you tackle the company and punish everyone, or the people, that have no responsibilities or respect for others?

No one is talking about dishing out Muslim justice, but there needs to be changes somewhere, in my view.
 

I agree and that is what I more or less said: Though many societal issues may be alcohol related, bowing to the demands of ignorant religious fanatics is not the solution. We should value our freedoms and tackle any problematic side effects in an intelligent manner consistent with our values as a society.

However, everyone should take a stand against the erosion of our liberty by those who place no value on it whatsoever and in fact think our liberty abhorrent as it creates obstacles in the way of enforcing compliance with their stone age doctrines. Even though the end effect of their abhorrent actions may in some way be beneficial to society (e.g. diminished theft when punishment involves cutting off the hands of the thieves), they should be afforded no support whatsoever. This is not a situation where we should be saying "my enemies enemy is my friend". Islamic fanatics will never be your friend.
 
bellenuit said:
We should value our freedoms and tackle any problematic side effects in an intelligent manner consistent with our values as a society.
Click to expand...
So, just how should we be intelligently tackling the increasing problems of drug and alcohol abuse and the sickening violence we are continually being confronted with, without eroding our liberties ... in your opinion? Do you have any workable solutions to offer?
 

When I talk about liberties that we have obtained over time, I am referring to free speech, religious freedom, sexual and racial equality etc. Freedoms that do not infringe on the rights and freedoms of others. I do not regard the ability to inflict violence on others as a right (or a freedom we should have) nor is abusing the use of alcohol or drugs to the extent that it can harm others (or harm oneself in particular circumstances).

We already know that existing laws could be enforced better. Judges shouldn't be so lenient. This is something that we as a society have been arguing about for years.

Do we do like they do in Singapore where corporal punishment is an accepted practice for such crimes? Maybe. In particular circumstances some form of corporal punishment administered humanely (if such a thing is possible) may be the right course of action. We as a society have to decide whether the means justify the ends. But even if we were to lean more towards the justice system in Singapore, that is vastly different to the point of this sub thread. We are talking about punishment for doing nothing other than going about ones legal business, not punishment for breaking the law.

To get back on point. If as a society we come to the conclusion that allowing alcohol to be sold through liquor stores is detrimental to our society taking everything into account, then perhaps the intelligent answer is to ban the sale of alcohol through liquor stores. We are trading off the freedom to purchase alcohol when and where desired against the reduction in street violence. This is the same as the restriction on the purchase of guns. We reduce violent crime but restrict the freedom of law abiding citizens who might use guns responsibly. Whether the unrestricted sale of alcohol or the unrestricted access to guns is right or wrong is something we as a society must decide weighing up all the pros and cons. That is what I mean by intelligently tackling the issues in a manner consistent with our values as a society. However, if (as is currently the case) the sale of alcohol to adults is legal through registered liquor stores, then threatening to give 40 lashes to the owner and/or employees of the store who are simply doing their job is something that should be condemned. It is barbaric and the product of a value system that we left behind in the dark ages. It is not something that should be encouraged. And remember these are the same people who demand the beheading of people who insult (by their definition) Allah and the stoning of homosexuals. I, for one, have no qualms in condemning those who are making those threats.
 

One can only hope they have a very bad 4 years!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...