Finally, proof there is no God.

[///ajd]

mcdjl said:

So in short, we're fairly sure this new theory hasn't proved anything about god(s)?

It has proved (again) you can't sway or persuade some even with reasonably hard facts.

This is obviously not news, but it is still very interesting to observe what some may consider irrational denial from real people.

For me the subject has renewed interest following Hebdo and its implications for all religions.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Jinx said:

supertouring said:

But what about the stoning of gays or the burning in hell of those that dont follow the same beleifs.
As with most religionists, you pick and choose the nice bits and convenient ly ignore the bad.

The old testament is the "history" of the covenant between God and his chosen people (the Israelites) . The new testament is the "new" covenant between God and all people. Hell is not promised to unbelievers in the new covenant - nor is the stoning of those that have a sexual preference for their own sex.
What part is picking and choosing?

The bit where Jesus says in the NT, on several occasions and in a few different ways, that he is not in the business of overwriting the OT, and that the OT still stands as the word of god. That bit.

[Troubleatmill]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Jinx said:

supertouring said:

But what about the stoning of gays or the burning in hell of those that dont follow the same beleifs.
As with most religionists, you pick and choose the nice bits and convenient ly ignore the bad.

The old testament is the "history" of the covenant between God and his chosen people (the Israelites) . The new testament is the "new" covenant between God and all people. Hell is not promised to unbelievers in the new covenant - nor is the stoning of those that have a sexual preference for their own sex.
What part is picking and choosing?

The bit where Jesus says in the NT, on several occasions and in a few different ways, that he is not in the business of overwriting the OT, and that the OT still stands as the word of god. That bit.

And racist Jesus - treating some poor woman worse than dirt. That bit too.
And racist Jesus saying that if you insult your mother and father - then you should be put to death. Then he goes on to slag his mother off.
etc etc

I'm waiting for someone of faith to defend racist Jesus. Or indeed his thoughts on being killed if you disagree with Mum and Dad.
Is there anyone whose faith is so strong.. that they can defend these actions.

So far... No takers.

[///ajd]

Troubleatmill said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Jinx said:

supertouring said:

But what about the stoning of gays or the burning in hell of those that dont follow the same beleifs.
As with most religionists, you pick and choose the nice bits and convenient ly ignore the bad.

The old testament is the "history" of the covenant between God and his chosen people (the Israelites) . The new testament is the "new" covenant between God and all people. Hell is not promised to unbelievers in the new covenant - nor is the stoning of those that have a sexual preference for their own sex.
What part is picking and choosing?

The bit where Jesus says in the NT, on several occasions and in a few different ways, that he is not in the business of overwriting the OT, and that the OT still stands as the word of god. That bit.

And racist Jesus - treating some poor woman worse than dirt. That bit too.
And racist Jesus saying that if you insult your mother and father - then you should be put to death. Then he goes on to slag his mother off.
etc etc

I'm waiting for someone of faith to defend racist Jesus. Or indeed his thoughts on being killed if you disagree with Mum and Dad.
Is there anyone whose faith is so strong.. that they can defend these actions.

So far... No takers.

Its amazing isn't it.

Do you think they read posts like those above, jam their fingers in their ears and sing "la la la" before pretending they never read it?

They clearly don't identify the statements with anything related to 'their' religion.

[Troubleatmill]

And then we get to caring loving Jesus..... meek and mild...

Jesus said.....

34Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
....Matthew 10


What a stellar guy.

The more you read the Bible- the more you reach the inescapable conclusion that Jesus was a racist, bigoted, nasty piece of work.
Did I mention he was a huge fan of slavery too?

[///ajd]

ash73 said:

IainT said:

///ajd said:

ash73 said:

///ajd said:

Humans are inherently good (apart from the few bad ones).

Surprised you would say that tbh, I thought you would be an advocate of the selfish gene theory.

I am, to an extent, but the title of that book is somewhat misleading, by Dawkins own admission.

It also explores the inherent altruistic qualities of organisms too - which was my point that certainly applies to humans.

Indeed - sometimes altruism is the ultimate selfishness.

Yes, but what does it mean to say humans are inherently good? By what measure? Man's own measure of goodness; i.e. civility? It's a bit circular. Or does an atheist still believe in absolutes?

(One) biological explanation is summarised here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene#Altr...

That is not to say this is the only or right explanation, and it may be refined / changed by future science, but it seems likely this is on the right lines.

I think this is a fairly logical and simple explanation for humans inherent altruism, no? Does this not make sense to you, or seem plausible? If not, why not?

[Derek Smith]

Troubleatmill said:

And racist Jesus - treating some poor woman worse than dirt. That bit too.
And racist Jesus saying that if you insult your mother and father - then you should be put to death. Then he goes on to slag his mother off.
etc etc

I'm waiting for someone of faith to defend racist Jesus. Or indeed his thoughts on being killed if you disagree with Mum and Dad.
Is there anyone whose faith is so strong.. that they can defend these actions.

So far... No takers.

Jesus said that anyone who says ignore the least of the commandments will be at the back of the queue for heaven. Matt

The smallest part of the letter of the law will not become invalid. Luke and Matt

I don't want to do away with the law. Matt

Use scripture to instruct. Tim

No personal interpretation of the law. That's NO PERSONAL INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW. Tim

If your children disobey you, kill them. Mark and Matt. (Mind you, we've all felt that way at some time, so perhaps an off day?)

Whilst the Jewish punishment for adultery is death, Jesus reckons even looking means your eyes should be gouged out and you'll spend an eternity in hell. Matt.

The slavery bit in the OT is repeated. John

And, the scripture cannot be broken. John

It is fair to say that some of this stuff might well have been added to the NT at a later date. I mean, Constantine would not have been happy if there was a bit saying that slaves should revolt. But then that goes for everything in the bible.

[Jinx]

Derek Smith said:

Oh, I see, you too have invented a religion.

Faith in Jesus? What does that mean without the bible?

If Jesus, the one in the bible, existed, then, as you suggest, he was just like Mohammed, a reformer. There have been many other reformers over time and there will be many more.

You seem to suggest that there is 'a' christian religion, when there patently is not. There is no single catholic religion, no single protestant religion, and even the minor cults have schisms. So the phrase 'christianity as a faith' it meaningless, at least to those other than you.

There were any number of christs at the purported time of Jesus (not to mention before and since, so I won't mention them) and many of them went on to found their own little sects. Some were amalgamated into the Constantine creation, which designed, to an extent, the modern perception of Jesus.

If you have a faith in someone you have invented, then OK, but by suggesting it as a christian faith means that it is based not so much on a creator as your own creation.

If your individual religion is good enough for you, then OK. I'm happy for you to believe what you want to believe. As, I believe, everyone should be. Whether you, unlike all the other christians in the world, have managed to crack it and get it spot in is, to my way of thinking, unlikely.

I baulk at Jesus not mentioning he was a god, part of the trinity. Woudl it not have crossed his mind?

I used Christian as a "religion" to cover all "Jesus is the Messiah" based religions - sophistry will not add to this discussion.
Jesus said He was the Son of God. The holy trinity, much as western Catholicism holds dear to the concept, is a theoretical concept to explain Jesus "divinity" and not necessary for the Christian faith as a whole.
Your assertion of lots of Christ's with a couple merged together to form the theodicy of Constantine's holy empire has as much evidence for it as for a single Jesus - and as with all history is in the eye of the historian.
I assert that there is a fundamental difference between the OT and the NT - which whilst NT Jesus was careful not to be killed for heresy before He could spread his message (by being careful with his wording) the OT covenant was fulfilled and only the NT covenant applies (if you wish to live forever etc. )
All faith is individual - it doesn't become a problem until someone turns it into a religion.

[///ajd]

Jinx said:

I used Christian as a "religion" to cover all "Jesus is the Messiah" based religions - sophistry will not add to this discussion.
Jesus said He was the Son of God. The holy trinity, much as western Catholicism holds dear to the concept, is a theoretical concept to explain Jesus "divinity" and not necessary for the Christian faith as a whole.
Your assertion of lots of Christ's with a couple merged together to form the theodicy of Constantine's holy empire has as much evidence for it as for a single Jesus - and as with all history is in the eye of the historian.
I assert that there is a fundamental difference between the OT and the NT - which whilst NT Jesus was careful not to be killed for heresy before He could spread his message (by being careful with his wording) the OT covenant was fulfilled and only the NT covenant applies (if you wish to live forever etc. )
All faith is individual - it doesn't become a problem until someone turns it into a religion.

Is there really a difference between faith and religion? I'm not sure I follow there is a distinction.

If you have faith that Jesus was real and the son of God etc., then you have (whether you want to admit it or not) signed up to a religion.

Why is the distinction important to you?

[anonymous-user]

Ajd, you could do with reading up on Durkheim.
There is a difference between personal faith and organised religion, that's just a matter of fact.
I'm sure Derek would be interested in reading his work too.

[dirkgently]

FFS I thought there was proof that there is no God, but we are on page thirty nine already Oy vey.

[///ajd]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Not sure I follow.

"A religion," writes Durkheim, "is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden—beliefs and practices which unite into a single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them."

If you have faith in certain beliefs - and those beliefs align with a certain religion - how are you not implicitly 'involved' in that religion?

[anonymous-user]

///ajd said:

Not sure I follow.

"A religion," writes Durkheim, "is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden—beliefs and practices which unite into a single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them."

If you have faith in certain beliefs - and those beliefs align with a certain religion - how are you not implicitly 'involved' in that religion?

The quote itself tells you you are mistaken! Keep reading it.

[///ajd]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I don't see where he particularly draws a distinction between a set of beliefs (which I perhaps incorrectly equate to faith) and religion.

[///ajd]

Are you able to clarify VK?

[Jinx]

///ajd said:

Is there really a difference between faith and religion? I'm not sure I follow there is a distinction.

If you have faith that Jesus was real and the son of God etc., then you have (whether you want to admit it or not) signed up to a religion.

Why is the distinction important to you?

Do you have to follow chickens if you believe in eggs?

[IainT]

Jinx said:

Do you have to follow chickens if you believe in eggs?

Your rather clumsy conflation of uses of 'belief' do not make your point valid unless I'm missing a subtle jest.

1. I believe in eggs. - Knowledge based belief supported by actual existence of eggs.
2. I believe in god. - Faith based belief supported by assertion that god exists.

English language has words with a duality of meaning that most of us manage to navigate with some success.

[Jinx]

IainT said:

Your rather clumsy conflation of uses of 'belief' do not make your point valid unless I'm missing a subtle jest.

1. I believe in eggs. - Knowledge based belief supported by actual existence of eggs.
2. I believe in god. - Faith based belief supported by assertion that god exists.

English language has words with a duality of meaning that most of us manage to navigate with some success.

Faith is the egg - Religion is the Chicken or Snake or Fish or any of the other creatures that have grown from the egg.....
You don't have to follow chickens if you believe in the egg.

[mattmurdock]

Jinx said:

Faith is the egg - Religion is the Chicken or Snake or Fish or any of the other creatures that have grown from the egg.....
You don't have to follow chickens if you believe in the egg.

In true 'chicken and egg' fashion though, you end up in a circular argument. You only believe in the egg because the Chicken or the Snake or the Fish told you there was an egg. No-one else has ever seen the egg. If you don't believe the Chicken or the Snake or the Fish, why do you believe they are telling you the truth about the egg?

[Einion Yrth]

mattmurdock said:

Jinx said:

Faith is the egg - Religion is the Chicken or Snake or Fish or any of the other creatures that have grown from the egg.....
You don't have to follow chickens if you believe in the egg.

In true 'chicken and egg' fashion though, you end up in a circular argument. You only believe in the egg because the Chicken or the Snake or the Fish told you there was an egg. No-one else has ever seen the egg. If you don't believe the Chicken or the Snake or the Fish, why do you believe they are telling you the truth about the egg?

I think I may have been happier with the jumpers.