Finally, proof there is no God.
Discussion
anonymous said:
[redacted]
It almost seems as though you think the "majority of religious PHers favour doing good to benefit themselves and others in this life" is a trait that you would not expect in the non-religious, or at least less prevalent.In other words the suggestion is being religious makes it more likely that someone would "favour doing good to benefit themselves and others".
This appears to be a variation on the idea that religion is somehow needed to make you moral and a good person.
Such an idea is total nonsense, and an offensive slight to those who are not religious. It is no different to various offensive racist stereotypes.
I suspect this prejudice was installed at an early stage when you were being fitted with the red jumper; indeed this maybe a reason you feel proud to wear and talk about your red jumper - it makes you feel a better person than those without a jumper who are not in the shop.
pointedstarman said:
The reference to leaving me alone was not really a reference to JW's knocking on the door or religeous types acosting me in the street - these I can ignore or tell to go away. I refer more to the likes of, for example, the Pope or ABofC trying to tell me how to live my life and/or influencing political decisions - why do they have the right to have the slightest bit of a say over me or my life either directly or indirectly?
Also, for example, how many laws passed under the umbrella of anti terrorism are the result of religion?
As for this thread, people can choose to ignore it or any of its posts if they wish, it's hardly making a big difference to anyone's life.
Not to mention the tax breaks, the lobbying, the lords spiritual, the considerations, and, especially, the faith (what's wrong with religious?) schools. Also, for example, how many laws passed under the umbrella of anti terrorism are the result of religion?
As for this thread, people can choose to ignore it or any of its posts if they wish, it's hardly making a big difference to anyone's life.
I contribute a monthly sum to the Salvation Army. This is not because I respect their beliefs and their dogma. In fact I think it is repressive, ill advised and likely to cause problems for those who adhere to the rule book. However, I've seen them working with the down and outs in London especially, as well as in Brighton. I started the regular contributions when a manic depressive was ruled as unlikely to hurt herself or another, despite us finding her with her hands around the throat of a woman. We took her to her local vicar who, after genuflecting, decided to try and explain to us why he could not be arsed to help. I told him I hadn't got time to listen to his confession for not doing anything.
We then found a Sally Ann chappie collecting at the railway station. We explained our problem, and the woman's. He apologised profusely for not being able to help her long term, but took her away in his van.
I've got nothing against those who believe in religions, but I do have reservations about those of religions who want to change us, to inflict their beliefs on us, who want to criminalise gays, deprecate women and control people's private lives. Those who help others I respect, and will assist if I can, but not because of any religious beliefs but despite them.
I think everyone, be they atheists, anti-theists, agnostics or any other state of belief should criticise those who wish to control us, enforce their beliefs on us and, more importantly, children.
It is, I think, important. Had they done more in the past perhaps the evils we see today where religion is divisive would be less of a problem.
I discussed creationism with JWs who called at my door and it was funny. They kept saying things that were not true. When I pointed this out, they said that the scientists, the discoveries and the interpretations were all wrong, biased in fact, against religions. Everyone, but them, was telling lies, and there was a massive conspiracy against christianity and other religions. If only, eh?
Darwin, it seems, was evil incarnate.
///ajd said:
It almost seems as though you think the "majority of religious PHers favour doing good to benefit themselves and others in this life" is a trait that you would not expect in the non-religious, or at least less prevalent.
In other words the suggestion is being religious makes it more likely that someone would "favour doing good to benefit themselves and others".
This appears to be a variation on the idea that religion is somehow needed to make you moral and a good person.
Such an idea is total nonsense, and an offensive slight to those who are not religious. It is no different to various offensive racist stereotypes.
I suspect this prejudice was installed at an early stage when you were being fitted with the red jumper; indeed this maybe a reason you feel proud to wear and talk about your red jumper - it makes you feel a better person than those without a jumper who are not in the shop.
Ajd, you are becoming extremely boring now. Why, why, why do you constantly arrive at conclusions that do not reflect what I am saying? What is wrong with you? In other words the suggestion is being religious makes it more likely that someone would "favour doing good to benefit themselves and others".
This appears to be a variation on the idea that religion is somehow needed to make you moral and a good person.
Such an idea is total nonsense, and an offensive slight to those who are not religious. It is no different to various offensive racist stereotypes.
I suspect this prejudice was installed at an early stage when you were being fitted with the red jumper; indeed this maybe a reason you feel proud to wear and talk about your red jumper - it makes you feel a better person than those without a jumper who are not in the shop.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
VK - it was you that brought the poll up. If I jumped to the wrong conclusions, you can set the record straight with the following:What was the point of the poll?
What were you trying to establish?
Would you expect a difference between the answers for religious and non-religious people?
Did you really expect anyone to answer the poll in anything other than a positive sense?
ks you know.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Sorry, that could have been articulated better.You are no different to the bloke standing outside saying "there are no jumpers" if you cannot accept his viewpoint.
In your analogy: red jumpers, blue jumpers, and no jumpers. If you cannot accept that someone might not want a jumper (eg there is no God) then you are no different to the atheist. You are also not open minded.
gumshoe said:
Sorry, that could have been articulated better.
You are no different to the bloke standing outside saying "there are no jumpers" if you cannot accept his viewpoint.
In your analogy: red jumpers, blue jumpers, and no jumpers. If you cannot accept that someone might not want a jumper (eg there is no God) then you are no different to the atheist. You are also not open minded.
1. Jumper is Jesus, not God.You are no different to the bloke standing outside saying "there are no jumpers" if you cannot accept his viewpoint.
In your analogy: red jumpers, blue jumpers, and no jumpers. If you cannot accept that someone might not want a jumper (eg there is no God) then you are no different to the atheist. You are also not open minded.
2. I didn't say I don't accept that others might not believe in God.
3. Are you in any way related to AJd?
///ajd said:
VK - it was you that brought the poll up. If I jumped to the wrong conclusions, you can set the record straight with the following:
What was the point of the poll?
What were you trying to establish?
Would you expect a difference between the answers for religious and non-religious people?
Did you really expect anyone to answer the poll in anything other than a positive sense?
You seem very fearful of the innocent viewpoints of religious people, as if the outcome of a perfectly reasonable question (that didn't involve you) troubles you so!What was the point of the poll?
What were you trying to establish?
Would you expect a difference between the answers for religious and non-religious people?
Did you really expect anyone to answer the poll in anything other than a positive sense?
You are the Spanish Inquisition and I claim that five pounds.
///ajd said:
It almost seems as though you think the "majority of religious PHers favour doing good to benefit themselves and others in this life" is a trait that you would not expect in the non-religious, or at least less prevalent.
In other words the suggestion is being religious makes it more likely that someone would "favour doing good to benefit themselves and others".
This appears to be a variation on the idea that religion is somehow needed to make you moral and a good person.
Such an idea is total nonsense, and an offensive slight to those who are not religious. It is no different to various offensive racist stereotypes.
I suspect this prejudice was installed at an early stage when you were being fitted with the red jumper; indeed this maybe a reason you feel proud to wear and talk about your red jumper - it makes you feel a better person than those without a jumper who are not in the shop.
I'd rather the person who did good deeds for no forecasted benefit than one who did it with expectations...In other words the suggestion is being religious makes it more likely that someone would "favour doing good to benefit themselves and others".
This appears to be a variation on the idea that religion is somehow needed to make you moral and a good person.
Such an idea is total nonsense, and an offensive slight to those who are not religious. It is no different to various offensive racist stereotypes.
I suspect this prejudice was installed at an early stage when you were being fitted with the red jumper; indeed this maybe a reason you feel proud to wear and talk about your red jumper - it makes you feel a better person than those without a jumper who are not in the shop.
ash73 said:
The only historical evidence for Jesus that I'm aware of (other than Christian teachings) is a Roman record of someone with that name being executed at about the right time (AD30) and age.
Have you a link to that? Be good to read, as everything I've read says there is *no* evidence, apart from the bible.Bibbs said:
ash73 said:
The only historical evidence for Jesus that I'm aware of (other than Christian teachings) is a Roman record of someone with that name being executed at about the right time (AD30) and age.
Have you a link to that? Be good to read, as everything I've read says there is *no* evidence, apart from the bible.though they do reference other sources
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#...
I seem to remember reading that there is more evidence for Jesus (as the person mentioned in the gospels existing, not that he is the son of God etc) than Cleopatra
JustAnotherLogin said:
Bibbs said:
ash73 said:
The only historical evidence for Jesus that I'm aware of (other than Christian teachings) is a Roman record of someone with that name being executed at about the right time (AD30) and age.
Have you a link to that? Be good to read, as everything I've read says there is *no* evidence, apart from the bible.though they do reference other sources
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#...
I seem to remember reading that there is more evidence for Jesus (as the person mentioned in the gospels existing, not that he is the son of God etc) than Cleopatra
http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
Which says about Tacitus :-
Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts.
Just as Tacitus mentions a Christus, so does he also mention Hercules many times in his Annals. And most importantly, just as we have no artifacts, writings or eyewitnesses about Hercules, we also have nothing about Jesus. All information about Hercules and Jesus comes from stories, beliefs, and hearsay. Should we then believe in a historical Hercules, simply because ancient historians mention him and that we have stories and beliefs about him? Of course not, and the same must apply to Jesus if we wish to hold any consistency to historicity.
Edited by Bibbs on Tuesday 17th March 01:38
anonymous said:
[redacted]
If I was fearful of your views, why would I ask you to express them? A bit of a logic fail there.Look, I'm not interested in an argument, more a debate and understanding the reason for your views, even though I don't share them. I'm trying to understand your perspective.
If you can answer the questions above, you may dispel the view that you have currently created on here, that you feel religion itself makes you a better person, more likely to do good.
gumshoe said:
1) In the trinity, Jesus is the same as God anyway.
2) I didn't ask that. I asked if you accepted there might not be a God.
3) No
2. Perhaps put the impetus back on yourself to find ANY instance of my stating that there must be a God or whether I don't accept that there may not be a God. You'll be surprised. Perhaps it's better for you to argue or discuss what people have actually stated, rather than what you think they think, same goes for ajd.2) I didn't ask that. I asked if you accepted there might not be a God.
3) No
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 17th March 08:26
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff