"There is no heaven; it's a fairy story"

[Gow3r]

CommanderJameson said:

TheHeretic said:

carmonk said:

I could quickly come up with a scientific test to distinguish wine and blood, and maybe a cut-down triage-type version is used in emergency rooms around the country on a Friday night.

Foiled again... The Encyclopedia Brittanica states that the RC church has already thought of that simple issue.

"In Roman Catholicism and some other Christian churches the doctrine, which was first called transubstantiation in the 12th century, aims at safeguarding the literal truth of Christ’s Presence while emphasizing the fact that there is no change in the empirical appearances of the bread and wine."

If gullibility were an Olympic sport, catholics would be gold medallists every time.

I am a christian and the doctrine of transubstantiation is one of the most retarded things I have ever come across. Also there is NO biblical justification for it, likewise the worship of the pope or Mary, but it does not stop them though

[NobleGuy]

MiseryStreak said:

That's not to even mention the spread of HIV in countries where contraception isn't widely available. Is 5% of Sub-Saharan Africans living with HIV (many from birth) a good thing?

If you're so against over-population (which I would tend to agree with), then perhaps it's not the end of the world...?

Although in this case perhaps it's another example of science having a negative impact - HIV sufferers now live a relatively long time which can only help to increase the spread.

It's a cold viewpoint and I wouldn't want to be one of them, but...

[mattnunn]

Gow3r said:

CommanderJameson said:

TheHeretic said:

carmonk said:

I could quickly come up with a scientific test to distinguish wine and blood, and maybe a cut-down triage-type version is used in emergency rooms around the country on a Friday night.

Foiled again... The Encyclopedia Brittanica states that the RC church has already thought of that simple issue.

"In Roman Catholicism and some other Christian churches the doctrine, which was first called transubstantiation in the 12th century, aims at safeguarding the literal truth of Christ’s Presence while emphasizing the fact that there is no change in the empirical appearances of the bread and wine."

If gullibility were an Olympic sport, catholics would be gold medallists every time.

I am a christian and the doctrine of transubstantiation is one of the most retarded things I have ever come across. Also there is NO biblical justification for it, likewise the worship of the pope or Mary, but it does not stop them though

Uh Oh... I can hear a tin whistle...

See what you've started now, darned atheists?

Take cover.

[TheHeretic]

NobleGuy said:

If you're so against over-population (which I would tend to agree with), then perhaps it's not the end of the world...?

Although in this case perhaps it's another example of science having a negative impact - HIV sufferers now live a relatively long time which can only help to increase the spread.

It's a cold viewpoint and I wouldn't want to be one of them, but...

So do you consider any healthcare at all to be detrimental to society?

[Gow3r]

mattnunn said:

Uh Oh... I can hear a tin whistle...

See what you've started now, darned atheists?

Take cover.

Was just making a point before we are all tarred with the same brush, I dont think I need to add anything to the above.

[TheHeretic]

mattnunn said:

Uh Oh... I can hear a tin whistle...

See what you've started now, darned atheists?

Take cover.

Warning! Warning! Content free zone!

Matt, do you really consider the civilisation 'lecture' series to accurately address the issues? Have you heard it?

[mattnunn]

TheHeretic said:

mattnunn said:

Uh Oh... I can hear a tin whistle...

See what you've started now, darned atheists?

Take cover.

Warning! Warning! Content free zone!

Matt, do you really consider the civilisation 'lecture' series to accurately address the issues? Have you heard it?

Indeed. Facts don't need to be humourless and dull. As it happens.

What's important is that we do the thinking, not reach any specific answer.

When you consider what he's saying about the importance of the written word in the creation of western civilization you can see why the abrahamic religions, then maths and science became centre pieces, as a method of retaining and formalizing "knowledge".

[NobleGuy]

TheHeretic said:

NobleGuy said:

If you're so against over-population (which I would tend to agree with), then perhaps it's not the end of the world...?

Although in this case perhaps it's another example of science having a negative impact - HIV sufferers now live a relatively long time which can only help to increase the spread.

It's a cold viewpoint and I wouldn't want to be one of them, but...

So do you consider any healthcare at all to be detrimental to society?

It's a tough one. Basically no, but it seems to me that sometimes pushing the boundaries of what's possible may only serve to do us as a species more harm than good in the long run.

Where do I draw the line? I honestly don't know, and if it were one of my little ones with a condition I'm sure I'd be the first to jump up and down and hope the docs could do something.

[TheHeretic]

mattnunn said:

Indeed. Facts don't need to be humourless and dull. As it happens.

What's important is that we do the thinking, not reach any specific answer.

When you consider what he's saying about the importance of the written word in the creation of western civilization you can see why the abrahamic religions, then maths and science became centre pieces, as a method of retaining and formalizing "knowledge".

As I said, I have already listened to the civilisation series. The importance of writing is not lost on me, nor anyone else I would imagine, however, what it has to do with the topics in this thread I'm not sure. Writing is in no way a result of Abrahamic religion, so why you mention that particular religion above others is a mystery.

[Jabbah]

NobleGuy said:

It's a tough one. Basically no, but it seems to me that sometimes pushing the boundaries of what's possible may only serve to do us as a species more harm than good in the long run.

Where do I draw the line? I honestly don't know, and if it were one of my little ones with a condition I'm sure I'd be the first to jump up and down and hope the docs could do something.

Are you of the opinion then that a society where population steadily increase due to families needing to have as many children as possible in the hope that a few of them survive but most die due to disease and malnutrition is preferable to a mature society where people live long and healthy lives and the population is stable through medical advancements, low mortality rates, education and freedom of choice?

[mattnunn]

TheHeretic said:

Writing is in no way a result of Abrahamic religion.

Vice Versa.

[IainT]

ChrisGB said:

OK Iain, how come there is anything rather than nothing? My answer would be that whatever the answer, it is not available to science, because if it were, we would just ask "How come?" about it. I can see no logical reason not to assume an answer "beyond", "outside", "-non", which is what we call God.

Show me the logical fallacy.

If it's not available for us to experience (that's all science is really - the study of the world we inhabit) then it cannot interact with reality otherwise we would be able to test and measure it.

ChrisGB said:

You seem to write in a civil way on the whole so why the aggression here? I said a gap in imagination. I understand the weirdness of "non-natural" to an atheist, "non-natural" is incomprehensible but plausible to me. I don't think the difference is in our willingness to accept arguments, but in our worldview, which is a product to an extent of our imagining the world a certain way.

Your assertion was essentially if only us Atheists had the imagination we would see the truth as though we're somehow deficient, tell me how that's not insulting? I'm not overly insulted though as I see the deficiency in the gullibility of the faithful. Now I know I have a very rich imagination and can and so contemplate realities outside our own, it's probably shown in my reading tastes. I fully comprehend what you're suggesting but will point out that imagining something, wishing something or having been brought up to believe something does not make it so.

You want to assert, without evidence, the spiritual is real? Fine. I'll assert, based on the lack of evidence, that it is not.

ChrisGB said:

The God of Christianity can and does interact with reality. Take the Mass, every day in every city, bread and wine become body and blood. That is a direct divine intervention. You cannot "test" it scientifically, so your scenarios above are inadequate. You will take inability to test as evidence of absence? Take care with that.

They physically change? That would be testable. At what point in the physical process of ingesting them do they change? How does the blood and meat taste? Alternatively you're told this happens and cannot question your church, it's a mortal sin isn't it? Therefore it must happen.

Alternatively it's an entirely figurative, symbolic act of devotion with no alteration of reality.

I really cannot believe you're citing transubstantiation as prof of god acting physically in the world.

ChrisGB said:

Theism is rational. If it weren't, show me the illogic in how I deal with the how come question. I think you have to show that it is a question that cannot be asked to show that theism is irrational. Bertrand Russell's way to do that was to say: You can't ask that. Full stop.

I think the issue with the 'how come' question is that it confounds both science and theism because it's predicated on our experience and understanding of space-time. If you can ask the question "how come something rather than nothing?" of the physical view it can be asked of the Theist view. The Theists answer, your answer, is that god is a special case that the question does not apply to with no evidence to back that assertion up other than a belief that god exists therefore must be eternal.

ChrisGB said:

Happy to repeat my reasons for belief. Will you back up your prior claim: the Theist view is so full of holes at to be dismissed with close to complete certainty.

I find it interesting how you clearly don't accept couple of points I make about why, for me, I find Theism wholly untenable... I'm certainly not going to spend hours going through the many points where it's only held together by a willingness to ignore contradictions and things that are blatantly 'evil'. There's plenty of information out there in various forms ranging from the 'hostile to religion' dismantling to the purely scholastic views of the text, it's origins and authors.

ChrisGB said:

I really can't see how you have done that. All you have said is that theism does not have evidence the way scientific method backs up scientific method, which to me is to state the obvious but say nothing useful about theism.

No, the lack of evidence is crucial, to me that's the kicker but Theism doesn't work when truly examined. Even without it's own internal failures to make sense how do you know Ra or Odin aren't the one true god? The only reason you're Christian is because you're not a follower of Islam or Buddha by some utterly randome set of events, birth most likely.

ChrisGB said:

Is there nothing in your life that you have based on argument, thought, reasoning rather than strictly scientific research? How did you decide on the one person to spend the rest of your life with? What sort of scientifically repeatable experiment gave you certainty there? There is no trust, conviction, faith even in such a decision and promise? Is it all purely and narrowly "scientific"? Tomorrow though!

I lead a full and rich life full of emotion. Sometimes positive and sometimes negative. Science tells me a huge amount about the mechanisms that these work out through and it's utterly staggering that we have evolved from a set of simple chemicals to such a complicated and interesting set of beings.

Of course the point you're trying to make is that I'm happy to live parts of my life with out recourse to science but you either ignore or don't understand that the physiological aspects of, for example, attraction are well understood.

I see no need to add a spiritual dimension to life to experience the important things - love, trust, etc.

[TheHeretic]

mattnunn said:

Vice Versa.

Indeed... So your point is? Writing was the only way to store vast amounts of knowledge. Without writing,me would still be a 'word by mouth' civilisation, and would be incredibly limited. Whilst the Abrahamic religion did create lots and lots of books, they were hand made, and kept away from the normal run of the mill folks who could probably have used information gathered from elsewhere. Instead, they were in Latin, hidden in libraries they had no access to. When the bible was translated into the common mans English, (in the UK anyway), well, we all know what happened then.

[IainT]

Gow3r said:

I am a christian and the doctrine of transubstantiation is one of the most retarded things I have ever come across. Also there is NO biblical justification for it, likewise the worship of the pope or Mary, but it does not stop them though

Wars have been fought over less!

When I was a Christian, getting on for 20 years ago, this was one of the foibles that our Catholic cousins were regarded as being a bit special for. Then again I was part of the trendy 'house church' movement that deemed itself to be particularly special in its grasp on truth.

[NobleGuy]

Jabbah said:

NobleGuy said:

It's a tough one. Basically no, but it seems to me that sometimes pushing the boundaries of what's possible may only serve to do us as a species more harm than good in the long run.

Where do I draw the line? I honestly don't know, and if it were one of my little ones with a condition I'm sure I'd be the first to jump up and down and hope the docs could do something.

Are you of the opinion then that a society where population steadily increase due to families needing to have as many children as possible in the hope that a few of them survive but most die due to disease and malnutrition is preferable to a mature society where people live long and healthy lives and the population is stable through medical advancements, low mortality rates, education and freedom of choice?

It doesn't matter, because that's not the reality and it never will be...

[fluffnik]

IainT said:

While I've never been part of the catholic church (an organisation that is one of the clearest examples of a work of man and not the divine) I was, for a number of years a very active Christian and spent a year at a missionary training school and a further few years carrying out stealth indoctrination of young people. The sad thing is I didn't even realise it at the time. I've read and fully immersed myself within the bible. Meditated, prayed and fasted.

Jings!

How many of us here are converts in either direction?

I've never had any religious faith, indeed even at a very early age I found religion incredible.

[Jabbah]

NobleGuy said:

It doesn't matter, because that's not the reality and it never will be...

Like trying to nail jelly to a wall

I wasn't asking what you thought was reality or what would be. I was asking what you thought would be a more preferable society. More simply, which is better, a society with population limited by disease and suffering or one where population is self limited by medical advances and choice?

I don't see why you think it would never be reality either. Birth rate in England and Wales is under 2 yet in Africa its between 5 and 7.

[mattnunn]

IainT said:

ChrisGB said:

OK Iain, how come there is anything rather than nothing? My answer would be that whatever the answer, it is not available to science, because if it were, we would just ask "How come?" about it. I can see no logical reason not to assume an answer "beyond", "outside", "-non", which is what we call God.

Show me the logical fallacy.

If it's not available for us to experience (that's all science is really - the study of the world we inhabit) then it cannot interact with reality otherwise we would be able to test and measure it.

And you see, religion, science and philosophy...

You're going to need to give it thought.

Assume, such as a scientist would do, that the universe and humanity are seperate, the fact humans inhabit this planet is purely happenstance, a freak of probability that can be reverse engineered, the aim one day to show, how a formalised set of simple rules can describe the event of our existence.

Conversly you could assume, above all certainty, that the universe was created, perhaps for us, perhaps not, to give life and energy and existence a place to be, a home for reality.

Alternately you could say, that the universe is but a construct of your mind, reality has no form other than that experiences in the mind, existence preceeds essence, or as a clever man once said "man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world – and defines himself afterwards"

You'll have to mull all three before getting close to holding an opinion worthy of note.

A point, a point, my intellect for a point...

[TheHeretic]

Assume all you want. The universe and humanity are not separate. If the premise is false, then so is the conclusion.

[mattnunn]

TheHeretic said:

Assume all you want. The universe and humanity are not separate. If the premise is false, then so is the conclusion.

They're not seperate? You mean to say they're necessary for each other? It's easy to say the universe could exist without humans - but to say humans could exist without the universe is tricky, I conceed. But science gave us the multiverse via Everret, it was welcomed (perhaps not at first), siezed upon, a great piece of wisdom indeed. Knowledge. If we exist in this universe and there are others, we could exist in them too or instead.