FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Jesus is our king.
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Are we allowed to mention Christianity? " Well you just did buddy | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Are we allowed to mention Christianity? Well you just did buddy " Hello Aron | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Have the west lost its touch with christianity? I remember as a kid we used to pray at dinner and then before you went to bed, whats your view, have you also noticed a change?" I believe for every drop of rain that falls a peanut grows | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I went to a Catholic school for a few years (purely because it was the closest school) and was christened. Went to church every Wednesday morning instead of assembly " Didn’t do me any good | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I went to a Catholic school for a few years (purely because it was the closest school) and was christened. Went to church every Wednesday morning instead of assembly Didn’t do me any good " We are sinners | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I grew up in a completely irreligious atmosphere in the seventies. Although we were made to do prayers and sing hymns at school, very few people had any real religious beliefs and those who did were thought to be a bit weird. That being said, all surveys show that Christianity is a declining religion in the UK. Even on the very broad census definition of adherence, Christianity went down from 71% of the population to. 59% between 2001 and 2011. More focused surveys put it below 50% and church going is now well below. 10%." I grew up the same thankfully. I really resented having to do religious education at school. I just saw it as a waste of my time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I went to a Catholic school for a few years (purely because it was the closest school) and was christened. Went to church every Wednesday morning instead of assembly Didn’t do me any good We are sinners " We really are! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I grew up in a completely irreligious atmosphere in the seventies. Although we were made to do prayers and sing hymns at school, very few people had any real religious beliefs and those who did were thought to be a bit weird. That being said, all surveys show that Christianity is a declining religion in the UK. Even on the very broad census definition of adherence, Christianity went down from 71% of the population to. 59% between 2001 and 2011. More focused surveys put it below 50% and church going is now well below. 10%. I grew up the same thankfully. I really resented having to do religious education at school. I just saw it as a waste of my time. " Looking back the prayer thing is interesting. We were made to close our eyes and bow our heads whilst the teacher recited a prayer. No one, however, felt that prayer could have any possible effect. Even at primary school kids felt it was some meaningless imposed ritual. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I used to go to Sunday school then church ever Sunday morning from the age of 5 to 14, whereas I never take my children. Didn't do me any good mind for I've lost my halo in a gutter somewhere " you need to go confess!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I don’t mean to be offensive, but any organised religion doesn’t have a place in the modern world. They are so flawed and also completely contradictory. I don’t understand how anyone would believe them. " Organised religion has a place in the modern world. Millions of people still follow the three main organised religions and actually live their lives according to the teachings. Most world leaders claim to follow the religion of their country. Individuals choose not to follow religion but we're a long way from being secular. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I don’t mean to be offensive, but any organised religion doesn’t have a place in the modern world. They are so flawed and also completely contradictory. I don’t understand how anyone would believe them. Organised religion has a place in the modern world. Millions of people still follow the three main organised religions and actually live their lives according to the teachings. Most world leaders claim to follow the religion of their country. Individuals choose not to follow religion but we're a long way from being secular." The UK is mainly a secular country in that it's only a small minority who seriously follow the teachings of a religion. Most people who say they adhere to a religion treat it like supporting a football team, as a badge of identity and affiliation rather than paying any attention to its doctrines. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I don’t mean to be offensive, but any organised religion doesn’t have a place in the modern world. They are so flawed and also completely contradictory. I don’t understand how anyone would believe them. Organised religion has a place in the modern world. Millions of people still follow the three main organised religions and actually live their lives according to the teachings. Most world leaders claim to follow the religion of their country. Individuals choose not to follow religion but we're a long way from being secular." Just because it exists doesn’t mean that it should. Which is what I meant about it not having a place today. I don’t see how it’s a good thing that people follow a made up oppressive system of rules from 1000’s of years ago - all based on a false threat that you’ll suffer if you don’t do as they say. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I went to a Catholic school for a few years (purely because it was the closest school) and was christened. Went to church every Wednesday morning instead of assembly Didn’t do me any good We are sinners We really are! " We wouldn't want it any other way | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Nope. There's still plenty of Christians in the world. Just because you and I don't pray any more, doesn't mean it's lost." The question was is it declining in the West. If he means Western Europe, it clearly is. All surveys show that. Just to take one example, Ireland used to be probably the most Catholic country in the world. The people there recently voted for gay marriage and then abortion against the strong opposition of the Catholic Church. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Religion - the most enduring "fake news" in the history of the human race" It was just to get people in line when civilisation didn’t exist | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Having studied the bible, i think its hard to believe in a book full of hypocrisy. Google stephen fry on god and he pretty much nails it on the head. " That's great isn't it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Having studied the bible, i think its hard to believe in a book full of hypocrisy. Google stephen fry on god and he pretty much nails it on the head. " Or read 'God is not great (How religion poisons everything)' by Christopher Hitchens. It's a laugh a minute. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Nope. There's still plenty of Christians in the world. Just because you and I don't pray any more, doesn't mean it's lost. The question was is it declining in the West. If he means Western Europe, it clearly is. All surveys show that. Just to take one example, Ireland used to be probably the most Catholic country in the world. The people there recently voted for gay marriage and then abortion against the strong opposition of the Catholic Church. " I recently looked at the stats for Christian births in my area and they were quite high. I'm assuming they were mostly African women giving birth then, and European Christianity is waning. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"People scoffing at Christianity on here what are yous doing on the 25 of December ????? Exactly case closed columbo " Treating Dec 25 as just another day. And your point is? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Nope. There's still plenty of Christians in the world. Just because you and I don't pray any more, doesn't mean it's lost. The question was is it declining in the West. If he means Western Europe, it clearly is. All surveys show that. Just to take one example, Ireland used to be probably the most Catholic country in the world. The people there recently voted for gay marriage and then abortion against the strong opposition of the Catholic Church. " They are still Catholics though aren't they? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"People scoffing at Christianity on here what are yous doing on the 25 of December ????? Exactly case closed columbo " I usually work away or on that day. I’ve no desire to celebrate when I can be sat on a beach drinking cocktails like it’s any other day. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Nope. There's still plenty of Christians in the world. Just because you and I don't pray any more, doesn't mean it's lost. The question was is it declining in the West. If he means Western Europe, it clearly is. All surveys show that. Just to take one example, Ireland used to be probably the most Catholic country in the world. The people there recently voted for gay marriage and then abortion against the strong opposition of the Catholic Church. They are still Catholics though aren't they?" There are far more who are not than there used to be. Hence the decline. In any event, even if you call yourself a Catholic and the Catholic Church says that abortion and gay marriage are sins and you vote for them anyway, I would suggest you are not a Catholic in any meaningful sense. If I say I am a staunch Conservative but always vote Labour, I think you would be questioning my adherence to conservatism. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Anyone who thinks religion is a good idea should watch Borgia (on Netflix) - it shows what it's really about: control, power, money and hypocrisy! " While I won’t argue that religion has been used for this, so have many other things eg. politics, business, monarchy etc. In short, some humans will use any means possible to exert power. That doesn’t mean that all those things are inherently bad. In fact good religion, points this out and warns against it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Nope. There's still plenty of Christians in the world. Just because you and I don't pray any more, doesn't mean it's lost. The question was is it declining in the West. If he means Western Europe, it clearly is. All surveys show that. Just to take one example, Ireland used to be probably the most Catholic country in the world. The people there recently voted for gay marriage and then abortion against the strong opposition of the Catholic Church. " And amen to that | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Religion - the most enduring "fake news" in the history of the human race It was just to get people in line when civilisation didn’t exist " This is exactly how I feel, they needed something to keep people in line, be a good person and you shall be rewarded, if you are bad Satan has your soul forever, Satan is the ultimate boogeyman | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"People scoffing at Christianity on here what are yous doing on the 25 of December ????? Exactly case closed columbo " That’s only because commercialism has taken over Christmas, children don’t know what it represents, it’s just a time to get the lates Xbox game | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I don’t mean to be offensive, but any organised religion doesn’t have a place in the modern world. They are so flawed and also completely contradictory. I don’t understand how anyone would believe them. Organised religion has a place in the modern world. Millions of people still follow the three main organised religions and actually live their lives according to the teachings. Most world leaders claim to follow the religion of their country. Individuals choose not to follow religion but we're a long way from being secular. Just because it exists doesn’t mean that it should. Which is what I meant about it not having a place today. I don’t see how it’s a good thing that people follow a made up oppressive system of rules from 1000’s of years ago - all based on a false threat that you’ll suffer if you don’t do as they say. " Religion has a good side too. My parents belong to a church which does a lot of charity work. They also visit my mum regularly now she's housebound and make sure my dad has transport to church. There's a community that goes along with religion. I think if religion was banned we'd invent a set of daft rules to take its place | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Following this thread with interest. Im m a lapsed catholic, completely fallen if truth be told. I'm irish and living in a country where the change is happening faster then anyone could believe. Its the churches own fault. In my lifetime ive seen abuse scandal after abuse scandal. Babies stolen and sold to desperate families in england or America. Laundries that were concentration camps...they even took your name. Babies buried in septic tanks. Goldenbridge .. ferns .. i could go on. Im angry with the church for allowing this to happen to innocents.. im angry they've never said sorry. Im angry they tarnished me a slut because i voted to repeal... i must confess if i want to attend mass again. Im angry as a woman my sisters that came before me were so horribly violated. Im ashamed our country allowed it. Men did this to us all ...men not god. I pray myself my own way. Ill never attend mass again. " People will always abuse their power over others, even the people that are supposed to be saving your souls. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Following this thread with interest. Im m a lapsed catholic, completely fallen if truth be told. I'm irish and living in a country where the change is happening faster then anyone could believe. Its the churches own fault. In my lifetime ive seen abuse scandal after abuse scandal. Babies stolen and sold to desperate families in england or America. Laundries that were concentration camps...they even took your name. Babies buried in septic tanks. Goldenbridge .. ferns .. i could go on. Im angry with the church for allowing this to happen to innocents.. im angry they've never said sorry. Im angry they tarnished me a slut because i voted to repeal... i must confess if i want to attend mass again. Im angry as a woman my sisters that came before me were so horribly violated. Im ashamed our country allowed it. Men did this to us all ...men not god. I pray myself my own way. Ill never attend mass again. People will always abuse their power over others, even the people that are supposed to be saving your souls. " But the point is if you set yourself up as an organisation with a direct line to God people are going to be far more pissed off when you fall from grace than with people who make no such claim. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Following this thread with interest. Im m a lapsed catholic, completely fallen if truth be told. I'm irish and living in a country where the change is happening faster then anyone could believe. Its the churches own fault. In my lifetime ive seen abuse scandal after abuse scandal. Babies stolen and sold to desperate families in england or America. Laundries that were concentration camps...they even took your name. Babies buried in septic tanks. Goldenbridge .. ferns .. i could go on. Im angry with the church for allowing this to happen to innocents.. im angry they've never said sorry. Im angry they tarnished me a slut because i voted to repeal... i must confess if i want to attend mass again. Im angry as a woman my sisters that came before me were so horribly violated. Im ashamed our country allowed it. Men did this to us all ...men not god. I pray myself my own way. Ill never attend mass again. People will always abuse their power over others, even the people that are supposed to be saving your souls. " Humans are weak and what happened in ireland proves it. A collar doesn't change that | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Following this thread with interest. Im m a lapsed catholic, completely fallen if truth be told. I'm irish and living in a country where the change is happening faster then anyone could believe. Its the churches own fault. In my lifetime ive seen abuse scandal after abuse scandal. Babies stolen and sold to desperate families in england or America. Laundries that were concentration camps...they even took your name. Babies buried in septic tanks. Goldenbridge .. ferns .. i could go on. Im angry with the church for allowing this to happen to innocents.. im angry they've never said sorry. Im angry they tarnished me a slut because i voted to repeal... i must confess if i want to attend mass again. Im angry as a woman my sisters that came before me were so horribly violated. Im ashamed our country allowed it. Men did this to us all ...men not god. I pray myself my own way. Ill never attend mass again. People will always abuse their power over others, even the people that are supposed to be saving your souls. Humans are weak and what happened in ireland proves it. A collar doesn't change that " No, it just makes the hypocrisy a hundred times worse. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I don’t mean to be offensive, but any organised religion doesn’t have a place in the modern world. They are so flawed and also completely contradictory. I don’t understand how anyone would believe them. Organised religion has a place in the modern world. Millions of people still follow the three main organised religions and actually live their lives according to the teachings. Most world leaders claim to follow the religion of their country. Individuals choose not to follow religion but we're a long way from being secular. Just because it exists doesn’t mean that it should. Which is what I meant about it not having a place today. I don’t see how it’s a good thing that people follow a made up oppressive system of rules from 1000’s of years ago - all based on a false threat that you’ll suffer if you don’t do as they say. Religion has a good side too. My parents belong to a church which does a lot of charity work. They also visit my mum regularly now she's housebound and make sure my dad has transport to church. There's a community that goes along with religion. I think if religion was banned we'd invent a set of daft rules to take its place" Do you think that those people who do good works in the name of god would still do those good works without him? If so, what is the need for god in all of that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Following this thread with interest. Im m a lapsed catholic, completely fallen if truth be told. I'm irish and living in a country where the change is happening faster then anyone could believe. Its the churches own fault. In my lifetime ive seen abuse scandal after abuse scandal. Babies stolen and sold to desperate families in england or America. Laundries that were concentration camps...they even took your name. Babies buried in septic tanks. Goldenbridge .. ferns .. i could go on. Im angry with the church for allowing this to happen to innocents.. im angry they've never said sorry. Im angry they tarnished me a slut because i voted to repeal... i must confess if i want to attend mass again. Im angry as a woman my sisters that came before me were so horribly violated. Im ashamed our country allowed it. Men did this to us all ...men not god. I pray myself my own way. Ill never attend mass again. People will always abuse their power over others, even the people that are supposed to be saving your souls. Humans are weak and what happened in ireland proves it. A collar doesn't change that No, it just makes the hypocrisy a hundred times worse. " Yes it does and so does the continued denial. Men of god thst wont say sorry | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I'm with Jordan Peterson on this. I think there is a wonderful aspect to the faiths which we're losing as a society as their influence wains. When the faiths were popular people would gather once a week for about an hour to contemplate, no matter how badly, living ethically and higher causes and purposes. You've got to admit that's better than never contemplating such things at all. Similarly, I like to say thanks before I eat. It only seems respectful and it gets me to think for a moment about all the lives, animal or human, that have gone into my meal. Secular people would gripe that they could do such a thing too. But the point is that they generally don't. It's a shame that we're losing such things. Also, people like Kinky make a big deal of prayer not doing anything. I disagree. I think there's something very beautiful and comforting in a very real medicinal sense about sharing your deepest feelings with the universe and spending a moment reflecting on others suffering. Again a secular person would complain that they could do the same. But I'm sure they often don't make that moment regularly unlike religious people do. In this sense a wider point could be made that religion is all about thinking of others (well it should be imo). Whilst modern secular life without it often fails to think of others altogether. And we shouldn't forget that whilst prayer may not procure tangible results, meditation and other activities like yoga genuinely can procure religious experiences in a repeatable and testable way for yourself that are clearly shared by a vast amount of others who have done the same activities. Through these activities it is eminently possible for pretty much anyone, even a non believer, to verify for themselves the oneness and interconnectedness of everything and the existence of a god. The faiths have many problems. But, though I don't subscribe to any faith myself, I don't believe in throwing the baby out with the bathwater. " Prayer has no effect if you believe it's a supplication to a God who will cause things to work in your favour because of your prayer. I believe you agree with that. I don't disagree that some form of meditation or contemplation can have psychological benefits for some people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I don’t mean to be offensive, but any organised religion doesn’t have a place in the modern world. They are so flawed and also completely contradictory. I don’t understand how anyone would believe them. Organised religion has a place in the modern world. Millions of people still follow the three main organised religions and actually live their lives according to the teachings. Most world leaders claim to follow the religion of their country. Individuals choose not to follow religion but we're a long way from being secular. Just because it exists doesn’t mean that it should. Which is what I meant about it not having a place today. I don’t see how it’s a good thing that people follow a made up oppressive system of rules from 1000’s of years ago - all based on a false threat that you’ll suffer if you don’t do as they say. Religion has a good side too. My parents belong to a church which does a lot of charity work. They also visit my mum regularly now she's housebound and make sure my dad has transport to church. There's a community that goes along with religion. I think if religion was banned we'd invent a set of daft rules to take its place Do you think that those people who do good works in the name of god would still do those good works without him? If so, what is the need for god in all of that?" I'm not arguing for or against God or religion. I have my own spirituality in which I'm secure. If other people choose a different one it's up to them. People will do good things and bad things and almost always attribute those things to outside influences. If we didn't have religion something else would take its place. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I don’t mean to be offensive, but any organised religion doesn’t have a place in the modern world. They are so flawed and also completely contradictory. I don’t understand how anyone would believe them. Organised religion has a place in the modern world. Millions of people still follow the three main organised religions and actually live their lives according to the teachings. Most world leaders claim to follow the religion of their country. Individuals choose not to follow religion but we're a long way from being secular. Just because it exists doesn’t mean that it should. Which is what I meant about it not having a place today. I don’t see how it’s a good thing that people follow a made up oppressive system of rules from 1000’s of years ago - all based on a false threat that you’ll suffer if you don’t do as they say. Religion has a good side too. My parents belong to a church which does a lot of charity work. They also visit my mum regularly now she's housebound and make sure my dad has transport to church. There's a community that goes along with religion. I think if religion was banned we'd invent a set of daft rules to take its place Do you think that those people who do good works in the name of god would still do those good works without him? If so, what is the need for god in all of that? Similarly, is it even possible that gods chosen people would have made it through their forty year trek through the desert if they had been under the impression that murder,adultery,lying and stealing were all perfectly ok?. They didn't need Moses to bring them the rules carved in tablets of stone to understand human solidarity and we don't need to be told to take care of each other. " There's obviously a social benefit in telling ignorant people that if they don't behave in a socially useful way they will offend a supernatural being who will punish them. The difficulty is when people cease to be ignorant, they can pick holes in that theory and you then have to find some other way to social cohesion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"It’s not taught in schools anymore to avoid offending other religions. Sad but true" Not sad and not true. Kids are now taught about all religions and very many state schools are run by Christian churches. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"It’s not taught in schools anymore to avoid offending other religions. Sad but true" Its still compulsory im most primary and catholic run secondary schools. The push now is a separation of church and state. I hope it happens. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"It’s not taught in schools anymore to avoid offending other religions. Sad but true" Untrue. At my kids school they have been taught about all religions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I'm with Jordan Peterson on this. I think there is a wonderful aspect to the faiths which we're losing as a society as their influence wains. When the faiths were popular people would gather once a week for about an hour to contemplate, no matter how badly, living ethically and higher causes and purposes. You've got to admit that's better than never contemplating such things at all. Similarly, I like to say thanks before I eat. It only seems respectful and it gets me to think for a moment about all the lives, animal or human, that have gone into my meal. Secular people would gripe that they could do such a thing too. But the point is that they generally don't. It's a shame that we're losing such things. Also, people like Kinky make a big deal of prayer not doing anything. I disagree. I think there's something very beautiful and comforting in a very real medicinal sense about sharing your deepest feelings with the universe and spending a moment reflecting on others suffering. Again a secular person would complain that they could do the same. But I'm sure they often don't make that moment regularly unlike religious people do. In this sense a wider point could be made that religion is all about thinking of others (well it should be imo). Whilst modern secular life without it often fails to think of others altogether. And we shouldn't forget that whilst prayer may not procure tangible results, meditation and other activities like yoga genuinely can procure religious experiences in a repeatable and testable way for yourself that are clearly shared by a vast amount of others who have done the same activities. Through these activities it is eminently possible for pretty much anyone, even a non believer, to verify for themselves the oneness and interconnectedness of everything and the existence of a god. The faiths have many problems. But, though I don't subscribe to any faith myself, I don't believe in throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Prayer has no effect if you believe it's a supplication to a God who will cause things to work in your favour because of your prayer. I believe you agree with that. I don't disagree that some form of meditation or contemplation can have psychological benefits for some people. " I think your view on prayer is that it's the same as talking into a dead phone. There's no one there, no one listening, no reply, just you getting stuff off your chest... and that this alone may have a therapeutic effect. That's not my experience of it. I definitely feel there's a compassionate listening ear and quite often get replies. So for me it's much more akin to a two way conversation than a soliloquy. I know you'll insist there's no tangible difference between the two; that both get the same results of no intervention. But there is a critical difference... the presence of a listener and their very insightful replies which help offer an often very noble and graceful guidance. You don't get that from a dead phone | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Have the west lost its touch with christianity? I remember as a kid we used to pray at dinner and then before you went to bed, whats your view, have you also noticed a change?" Belief in the great sky pixie and all his little helpers is reducing in free thinking, educated countries. Thank God! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I'm with Jordan Peterson on this. I think there is a wonderful aspect to the faiths which we're losing as a society as their influence wains. When the faiths were popular people would gather once a week for about an hour to contemplate, no matter how badly, living ethically and higher causes and purposes. You've got to admit that's better than never contemplating such things at all. Similarly, I like to say thanks before I eat. It only seems respectful and it gets me to think for a moment about all the lives, animal or human, that have gone into my meal. Secular people would gripe that they could do such a thing too. But the point is that they generally don't. It's a shame that we're losing such things. Also, people like Kinky make a big deal of prayer not doing anything. I disagree. I think there's something very beautiful and comforting in a very real medicinal sense about sharing your deepest feelings with the universe and spending a moment reflecting on others suffering. Again a secular person would complain that they could do the same. But I'm sure they often don't make that moment regularly unlike religious people do. In this sense a wider point could be made that religion is all about thinking of others (well it should be imo). Whilst modern secular life without it often fails to think of others altogether. And we shouldn't forget that whilst prayer may not procure tangible results, meditation and other activities like yoga genuinely can procure religious experiences in a repeatable and testable way for yourself that are clearly shared by a vast amount of others who have done the same activities. Through these activities it is eminently possible for pretty much anyone, even a non believer, to verify for themselves the oneness and interconnectedness of everything and the existence of a god. The faiths have many problems. But, though I don't subscribe to any faith myself, I don't believe in throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Prayer has no effect if you believe it's a supplication to a God who will cause things to work in your favour because of your prayer. I believe you agree with that. I don't disagree that some form of meditation or contemplation can have psychological benefits for some people. I think your view on prayer is that it's the same as talking into a dead phone. There's no one there, no one listening, no reply, just you getting stuff off your chest... and that this alone may have a therapeutic effect. That's not my experience of it. I definitely feel there's a compassionate listening ear and quite often get replies. So for me it's much more akin to a two way conversation than a soliloquy. I know you'll insist there's no tangible difference between the two; that both get the same results of no intervention. But there is a critical difference... the presence of a listener and their very insightful replies which help offer an often very noble and graceful guidance. You don't get that from a dead phone " You think there's someone replying to you, but the only evidence there is is your subjective feeling . Obviously that's not evidence for anything except the existence of your subjective feeling. Logically, it's the same as me saying that an invisible pink elephant listens to my prayers. My feeling thus is no evidence that such a being does listen. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I'm with Jordan Peterson on this. I think there is a wonderful aspect to the faiths which we're losing as a society as their influence wains. When the faiths were popular people would gather once a week for about an hour to contemplate, no matter how badly, living ethically and higher causes and purposes. You've got to admit that's better than never contemplating such things at all. Similarly, I like to say thanks before I eat. It only seems respectful and it gets me to think for a moment about all the lives, animal or human, that have gone into my meal. Secular people would gripe that they could do such a thing too. But the point is that they generally don't. It's a shame that we're losing such things. Also, people like Kinky make a big deal of prayer not doing anything. I disagree. I think there's something very beautiful and comforting in a very real medicinal sense about sharing your deepest feelings with the universe and spending a moment reflecting on others suffering. Again a secular person would complain that they could do the same. But I'm sure they often don't make that moment regularly unlike religious people do. In this sense a wider point could be made that religion is all about thinking of others (well it should be imo). Whilst modern secular life without it often fails to think of others altogether. And we shouldn't forget that whilst prayer may not procure tangible results, meditation and other activities like yoga genuinely can procure religious experiences in a repeatable and testable way for yourself that are clearly shared by a vast amount of others who have done the same activities. Through these activities it is eminently possible for pretty much anyone, even a non believer, to verify for themselves the oneness and interconnectedness of everything and the existence of a god. The faiths have many problems. But, though I don't subscribe to any faith myself, I don't believe in throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Prayer has no effect if you believe it's a supplication to a God who will cause things to work in your favour because of your prayer. I believe you agree with that. I don't disagree that some form of meditation or contemplation can have psychological benefits for some people. I think your view on prayer is that it's the same as talking into a dead phone. There's no one there, no one listening, no reply, just you getting stuff off your chest... and that this alone may have a therapeutic effect. That's not my experience of it. I definitely feel there's a compassionate listening ear and quite often get replies. So for me it's much more akin to a two way conversation than a soliloquy. I know you'll insist there's no tangible difference between the two; that both get the same results of no intervention. But there is a critical difference... the presence of a listener and their very insightful replies which help offer an often very noble and graceful guidance. You don't get that from a dead phone You think there's someone replying to you, but the only evidence there is is your subjective feeling . Obviously that's not evidence for anything except the existence of your subjective feeling. Logically, it's the same as me saying that an invisible pink elephant listens to my prayers. My feeling thus is no evidence that such a being does listen. " You atheists Always reaching into your toolbox for your cookie cutter arguments even when they don't apply. Where in what I wrote was any effort made to try and argue that because I get replies you should believe in god? Of course it's not a frigging argument for a god. But, whether it is or it isn't, I still get replies. So your view of it doesn't fit with my experience of it that's all. Just explaining how we differ. Not trying to convert you lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I'm with Jordan Peterson on this. I think there is a wonderful aspect to the faiths which we're losing as a society as their influence wains. When the faiths were popular people would gather once a week for about an hour to contemplate, no matter how badly, living ethically and higher causes and purposes. You've got to admit that's better than never contemplating such things at all. Similarly, I like to say thanks before I eat. It only seems respectful and it gets me to think for a moment about all the lives, animal or human, that have gone into my meal. Secular people would gripe that they could do such a thing too. But the point is that they generally don't. It's a shame that we're losing such things. Also, people like Kinky make a big deal of prayer not doing anything. I disagree. I think there's something very beautiful and comforting in a very real medicinal sense about sharing your deepest feelings with the universe and spending a moment reflecting on others suffering. Again a secular person would complain that they could do the same. But I'm sure they often don't make that moment regularly unlike religious people do. In this sense a wider point could be made that religion is all about thinking of others (well it should be imo). Whilst modern secular life without it often fails to think of others altogether. And we shouldn't forget that whilst prayer may not procure tangible results, meditation and other activities like yoga genuinely can procure religious experiences in a repeatable and testable way for yourself that are clearly shared by a vast amount of others who have done the same activities. Through these activities it is eminently possible for pretty much anyone, even a non believer, to verify for themselves the oneness and interconnectedness of everything and the existence of a god. The faiths have many problems. But, though I don't subscribe to any faith myself, I don't believe in throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Prayer has no effect if you believe it's a supplication to a God who will cause things to work in your favour because of your prayer. I believe you agree with that. I don't disagree that some form of meditation or contemplation can have psychological benefits for some people. I think your view on prayer is that it's the same as talking into a dead phone. There's no one there, no one listening, no reply, just you getting stuff off your chest... and that this alone may have a therapeutic effect. That's not my experience of it. I definitely feel there's a compassionate listening ear and quite often get replies. So for me it's much more akin to a two way conversation than a soliloquy. I know you'll insist there's no tangible difference between the two; that both get the same results of no intervention. But there is a critical difference... the presence of a listener and their very insightful replies which help offer an often very noble and graceful guidance. You don't get that from a dead phone You think there's someone replying to you, but the only evidence there is is your subjective feeling . Obviously that's not evidence for anything except the existence of your subjective feeling. Logically, it's the same as me saying that an invisible pink elephant listens to my prayers. My feeling thus is no evidence that such a being does listen. You atheists Always reaching into your toolbox for your cookie cutter arguments even when they don't apply. Where in what I wrote was any effort made to try and argue that because I get replies you should believe in god? Of course it's not a frigging argument for a god. But, whether it is or it isn't, I still get replies. So your view of it doesn't fit with my experience of it that's all. Just explaining how we differ. Not trying to convert you lol " I never mentioned God. I addressed your argument that there was something external responding to your prayers. My point is that you contemplating something and getting what you perceive to be replies from some external being that gives you guidance, is actually no different from me contemplating something getting ideas that I perceive as coming from my own brain and being guided by said ideas. I find it difficult to understand the positing of some external being for which you have no evidence other than the feeling in your head. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"It’s not taught in schools anymore to avoid offending other religions. Sad but true Untrue. At my kids school they have been taught about all religions." unfortunately it’s true at my daughter’s school, she went to the same primary school that I did where grace was said every lunchtime and a prayer ended every assembly, she didn’t know what I was talking about when I asked her about it. She’s now at the same high school that I went to and is taught every religion apart from Christianity | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"It’s not taught in schools anymore to avoid offending other religions. Sad but true Untrue. At my kids school they have been taught about all religions. unfortunately it’s true at my daughter’s school, she went to the same primary school that I did where grace was said every lunchtime and a prayer ended every assembly, she didn’t know what I was talking about when I asked her about it. She’s now at the same high school that I went to and is taught every religion apart from Christianity " Your daughters school is breaking the law then. You should complain. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"People scoffing at Christianity on here what are yous doing on the 25 of December ????? Exactly case closed columbo That’s only because commercialism has taken over Christmas, children don’t know what it represents, it’s just a time to get the lates Xbox game " i wasn’t on about commercialism I was taking aim at the comments on here saying it’s a load of nonsense but the same hypocrites will have a tree up on the 25th to Celebrate something they don’t believe in i did re at school and also as a member of the B.B. when o was a kid was taught about it and I can take it or leave it and I would not have a go at some one who does believe in it perhaps it’s something they find comfort in | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"People scoffing at Christianity on here what are yous doing on the 25 of December ????? Exactly case closed columbo " Which is actually the date of a pagan festival adopted by the church. Scholars seem to put the actual birth of Jesus sometime in our Spring. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"People scoffing at Christianity on here what are yous doing on the 25 of December ????? Exactly case closed columbo That’s only because commercialism has taken over Christmas, children don’t know what it represents, it’s just a time to get the lates Xbox game i wasn’t on about commercialism I was taking aim at the comments on here saying it’s a load of nonsense but the same hypocrites will have a tree up on the 25th to Celebrate something they don’t believe in i did re at school and also as a member of the B.B. when o was a kid was taught about it and I can take it or leave it and I would not have a go at some one who does believe in it perhaps it’s something they find comfort in " There are atheists on this forum who don't do anything on that day. Don't make assumptions | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I'm with Jordan Peterson on this. I think there is a wonderful aspect to the faiths which we're losing as a society as their influence wains. When the faiths were popular people would gather once a week for about an hour to contemplate, no matter how badly, living ethically and higher causes and purposes. You've got to admit that's better than never contemplating such things at all. Similarly, I like to say thanks before I eat. It only seems respectful and it gets me to think for a moment about all the lives, animal or human, that have gone into my meal. Secular people would gripe that they could do such a thing too. But the point is that they generally don't. It's a shame that we're losing such things. Also, people like Kinky make a big deal of prayer not doing anything. I disagree. I think there's something very beautiful and comforting in a very real medicinal sense about sharing your deepest feelings with the universe and spending a moment reflecting on others suffering. Again a secular person would complain that they could do the same. But I'm sure they often don't make that moment regularly unlike religious people do. In this sense a wider point could be made that religion is all about thinking of others (well it should be imo). Whilst modern secular life without it often fails to think of others altogether. And we shouldn't forget that whilst prayer may not procure tangible results, meditation and other activities like yoga genuinely can procure religious experiences in a repeatable and testable way for yourself that are clearly shared by a vast amount of others who have done the same activities. Through these activities it is eminently possible for pretty much anyone, even a non believer, to verify for themselves the oneness and interconnectedness of everything and the existence of a god. The faiths have many problems. But, though I don't subscribe to any faith myself, I don't believe in throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Prayer has no effect if you believe it's a supplication to a God who will cause things to work in your favour because of your prayer. I believe you agree with that. I don't disagree that some form of meditation or contemplation can have psychological benefits for some people. I think your view on prayer is that it's the same as talking into a dead phone. There's no one there, no one listening, no reply, just you getting stuff off your chest... and that this alone may have a therapeutic effect. That's not my experience of it. I definitely feel there's a compassionate listening ear and quite often get replies. So for me it's much more akin to a two way conversation than a soliloquy. I know you'll insist there's no tangible difference between the two; that both get the same results of no intervention. But there is a critical difference... the presence of a listener and their very insightful replies which help offer an often very noble and graceful guidance. You don't get that from a dead phone You think there's someone replying to you, but the only evidence there is is your subjective feeling . Obviously that's not evidence for anything except the existence of your subjective feeling. Logically, it's the same as me saying that an invisible pink elephant listens to my prayers. My feeling thus is no evidence that such a being does listen. You atheists Always reaching into your toolbox for your cookie cutter arguments even when they don't apply. Where in what I wrote was any effort made to try and argue that because I get replies you should believe in god? Of course it's not a frigging argument for a god. But, whether it is or it isn't, I still get replies. So your view of it doesn't fit with my experience of it that's all. Just explaining how we differ. Not trying to convert you lol I never mentioned God. I addressed your argument that there was something external responding to your prayers. My point is that you contemplating something and getting what you perceive to be replies from some external being that gives you guidance, is actually no different from me contemplating something getting ideas that I perceive as coming from my own brain and being guided by said ideas. I find it difficult to understand the positing of some external being for which you have no evidence other than the feeling in your head. " The experience is that there's a being listening and a very separate mind from our own answering. I'm quite happy for scientists to explore why this weird experience of an external being occurs... is it some kind of weird illusion of magnetism? is it a bizarre psychological state in which we imagine ourselves to be someone separate from us? But if you're going to argue that I don't experience what appears to be a separate being from me that returns to me genuinely insightful replies that wouldn't have occurred to me... then you're simply not describing the same experience that's all. You're describing some kind of scenario where you sit alone talking into the air and having your own ideas based on just sitting there. That's contemplation. That's not prayer or anything where there's a conversation. People who imagine a god talks to them when all they've been doing is sitting contemplating are being silly. The experience is much more unique and sensory than that. There is the distinct sense of another being, a distinctly separate voice from the one your thoughts usually take, different intonation, different language, and different wisdom. All of that is core to the experience. If you want to question the experience that's the experience you have to question... not mere contemplation | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Nope. There's still plenty of Christians in the world. Just because you and I don't pray any more, doesn't mean it's lost. The question was is it declining in the West. If he means Western Europe, it clearly is. All surveys show that. Just to take one example, Ireland used to be probably the most Catholic country in the world. The people there recently voted for gay marriage and then abortion against the strong opposition of the Catholic Church. They are still Catholics though aren't they? There are far more who are not than there used to be. Hence the decline. In any event, even if you call yourself a Catholic and the Catholic Church says that abortion and gay marriage are sins and you vote for them anyway, I would suggest you are not a Catholic in any meaningful sense. If I say I am a staunch Conservative but always vote Labour, I think you would be questioning my adherence to conservatism. " Do religious people have to follow their leaders blindly and never question them? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
" I was taking aim at the comments on here saying it’s a load of nonsense but the same hypocrites will have a tree up on the 25th to Celebrate something they don’t believe )" No more hypocritcal than Christians who assigned 25th December to be the date of Christ’s birth (it's not mentioned in the bible) about 300 years after the time of Jesus basically to encourage followers of a variety of pagan gods (such as Mithra) that celebrated that day to convert to Christianity. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
" I was taking aim at the comments on here saying it’s a load of nonsense but the same hypocrites will have a tree up on the 25th to Celebrate something they don’t believe ) No more hypocritcal than Christians who assigned 25th December to be the date of Christ’s birth (it's not mentioned in the bible) about 300 years after the time of Jesus basically to encourage followers of a variety of pagan gods (such as Mithra) that celebrated that day to convert to Christianity. " answer me one question do you put up a tree ?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
" I was taking aim at the comments on here saying it’s a load of nonsense but the same hypocrites will have a tree up on the 25th to Celebrate something they don’t believe ) No more hypocritcal than Christians who assigned 25th December to be the date of Christ’s birth (it's not mentioned in the bible) about 300 years after the time of Jesus basically to encourage followers of a variety of pagan gods (such as Mithra) that celebrated that day to convert to Christianity. answer me one question do you put up a tree ??" No tree or decorations of any sort here | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"People scoffing at Christianity on here what are yous doing on the 25 of December ????? Exactly case closed columbo That’s only because commercialism has taken over Christmas, children don’t know what it represents, it’s just a time to get the lates Xbox game i wasn’t on about commercialism I was taking aim at the comments on here saying it’s a load of nonsense but the same hypocrites will have a tree up on the 25th to Celebrate something they don’t believe in i did re at school and also as a member of the B.B. when o was a kid was taught about it and I can take it or leave it and I would not have a go at some one who does believe in it perhaps it’s something they find comfort in There are atheists on this forum who don't do anything on that day. Don't make assumptions" im not on about them I’m taking aim at the ones who don’t believe in it but still celebrate it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
" I was taking aim at the comments on here saying it’s a load of nonsense but the same hypocrites will have a tree up on the 25th to Celebrate something they don’t believe ) No more hypocritcal than Christians who assigned 25th December to be the date of Christ’s birth (it's not mentioned in the bible) about 300 years after the time of Jesus basically to encourage followers of a variety of pagan gods (such as Mithra) that celebrated that day to convert to Christianity. answer me one question do you put up a tree ?? No tree or decorations of any sort here" bet it was fun for kids growing up | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"1) Either (a) life was created by an intelligent entity or (b) it was not. 2) Either (a) the god of the Hebrews is real or (b) the god of the Hebrews was invented like thousands of other gods. Firstly, you should notice that these two statements are wholly independent. For example, if (1a) is true, it does not mean (2a) is true. (1a) could be true and (2b) could be true. So, if you want to believe both (1a) AND (2a) are true, you need separate evidence to support each proposition. Secondly, you cannot say (1a) is true only because you can't conceive of a natural process by which life could arise in the absence of an intelligent entity. For example, you may not be able to conceive of a way in which a 350-tonne machine could travel at 36,000 ft for 4,000 miles at 560 mph carrying 400 humans but that does not mean it is impossible. Your inability to conceive how something happens only tells us about your limitations--it tells us nothing about the limitations of nature. I suggest the facts are these: believers cannot show that (1a) is true and nor can they show that (2a) is true, yet Christians believe them both with absolute certainty. I cannot show that (1a) and (2a) are true so I do not believe either of them. My position is 100% rational; the believers is 100% non-rational. " The opposite of faith isn’t doubt. The opposite of faith is certainly. Once you know something to be true you don’t need faith. Most religions (apart from their extreme fundamentalist wings) hold a balance of knowing and not knowing, seeing and not seeing. There is a humility in this approach that I find appealing. As someone with a scientific background that is also the scientific approach. We create models of the universe, we test them and even some of our best ones we know don’t work all of the time. The classical model of physics and general relativity work really well for most of the universe above the atomic level. But they completely break down at the sub atomic level. Does that mean we should throw them out? No! There is good science and bad science, there is good religion and bad religion (of all faiths). We don’t know everything, but we do know some things. The rest is up for debate and discovery. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"People scoffing at Christianity on here what are yous doing on the 25 of December ????? Exactly case closed columbo That’s only because commercialism has taken over Christmas, children don’t know what it represents, it’s just a time to get the lates Xbox game i wasn’t on about commercialism I was taking aim at the comments on here saying it’s a load of nonsense but the same hypocrites will have a tree up on the 25th to Celebrate something they don’t believe in i did re at school and also as a member of the B.B. when o was a kid was taught about it and I can take it or leave it and I would not have a go at some one who does believe in it perhaps it’s something they find comfort in There are atheists on this forum who don't do anything on that day. Don't make assumptionsim not on about them I’m taking aim at the ones who don’t believe in it but still celebrate it " You are assuming people celebrate it without knowing whether they do or don't | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"People scoffing at Christianity on here what are yous doing on the 25 of December ????? Exactly case closed columbo " Drinking alcohol, spending time with family and friends, it’s a day off work, nothing to do with Christianity, if they gave all of us four days off for a Hindu festival, I would do the same, it wouldn’t make me Hindu, it would mean I like enjoying time with the people I love! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
" I was taking aim at the comments on here saying it’s a load of nonsense but the same hypocrites will have a tree up on the 25th to Celebrate something they don’t believe ) No more hypocritcal than Christians who assigned 25th December to be the date of Christ’s birth (it's not mentioned in the bible) about 300 years after the time of Jesus basically to encourage followers of a variety of pagan gods (such as Mithra) that celebrated that day to convert to Christianity. answer me one question do you put up a tree ?? No tree or decorations of any sort herebet it was fun for kids growing up " So the fun in a child's life can be measured by what happens 1 day a year? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"People scoffing at Christianity on here what are yous doing on the 25 of December ????? Exactly case closed columbo That’s only because commercialism has taken over Christmas, children don’t know what it represents, it’s just a time to get the lates Xbox game i wasn’t on about commercialism I was taking aim at the comments on here saying it’s a load of nonsense but the same hypocrites will have a tree up on the 25th to Celebrate something they don’t believe in i did re at school and also as a member of the B.B. when o was a kid was taught about it and I can take it or leave it and I would not have a go at some one who does believe in it perhaps it’s something they find comfort in There are atheists on this forum who don't do anything on that day. Don't make assumptions" Also,atheists who have no desire or intention to take away anyone's beliefs. Let people play with whatever toys they wish to,I say but don't try to insist that I should play with those toys too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
" That’s only because commercialism has taken over Christmas, children don’t know what it represents, it’s just a time to get the lates Xbox game i wasn’t on about commercialism I was taking aim at the comments on here saying it’s a load of nonsense but the same hypocrites will have a tree up on the 25th to Celebrate something they don’t believe in i did re at school and also as a member of the B.B. when o was a kid was taught about it and I can take it or leave it and I would not have a go at some one who does believe in it perhaps it’s something they find comfort in " The tradition of cutting down a tree and bringing it indoors at the darkest time of the year comes from the Vikings and the Saxons, and has nothing whatsoever to do with christianity. All these religious festivals essentially are built on traditions of earlier cultures. It is the same with Easter, the Egyptian goddess of sex and fertility. I'm all for celebrating with eggs, though perhaps not bunny rabbits. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I was taking aim at the comments on here saying it’s a load of nonsense but the same hypocrites will have a tree up on the 25th to Celebrate something they don’t believe in " Presumably, according to your logic, Catholics are hypocritical for celebrating bonfire night then? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I was taking aim at the comments on here saying it’s a load of nonsense but the same hypocrites will have a tree up on the 25th to Celebrate something they don’t believe in Presumably, according to your logic, Catholics are hypocritical for celebrating bonfire night then?" im not catholic and I used to to celebrate bonfire night and when kids where growing up I’d buy fireworks I also took them Out on Halloween night logic has fuck all to do with it blame my parents because that’s how I was brought up and how they were brought up as was 99%of the kids I grew up with so shove your logic you miserable fuckers | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I was taking aim at the comments on here saying it’s a load of nonsense but the same hypocrites will have a tree up on the 25th to Celebrate something they don’t believe in Presumably, according to your logic, Catholics are hypocritical for celebrating bonfire night then?im not catholic and I used to to celebrate bonfire night and when kids where growing up I’d buy fireworks I also took them Out on Halloween night logic has fuck all to do with it blame my parents because that’s how I was brought up and how they were brought up as was 99%of the kids I grew up with so shove your logic you miserable fuckers " Bit harsh? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"It’s not taught in schools anymore to avoid offending other religions. Sad but true" It's compulsory but parents can withdraw their children from all or part of the lessons. My son has chosen it for a GCSE option. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"The opposite of faith isn’t doubt. The opposite of faith is certainly. Once you know something to be true you don’t need faith. Most religions (apart from their extreme fundamentalist wings) hold a balance of knowing and not knowing, seeing and not seeing. There is a humility in this approach that I find appealing. As someone with a scientific background that is also the scientific approach. We create models of the universe, we test them and even some of our best ones we know don’t work all of the time. The classical model of physics and general relativity work really well for most of the universe above the atomic level. But they completely break down at the sub atomic level. Does that mean we should throw them out? No! There is good science and bad science, there is good religion and bad religion (of all faiths). We don’t know everything, but we do know some things. The rest is up for debate and discovery. " I like your view on this Vine I think humility is really important on both sides. The difficulty comes when you have an experience you can't deny. Like experiencing tiramisu. It's difficult to entertain tiramisu doesn't exist when you've just gobbled up a whole bowl of it But I do think it's important for even people who are certain to come to the debate with humility and at least entertain the possibility that tiramisu doesn't exist. Or else there can be no discussion. That's where I see myself | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Secondly, you cannot say (1a) is true only because you can't conceive of a natural process by which life could arise in the absence of an intelligent entity. For example, you may not be able to conceive of a way in which a 350-tonne machine could travel at 36,000 ft for 4,000 miles at 560 mph carrying 400 humans but that does not mean it is impossible. Your inability to conceive how something happens only tells us about your limitations--it tells us nothing about the limitations of nature." Why the implicit bias though? Since we don't know if a god exists or not you can't assume "natural processes" occur "absent of an intelligent entity". That's the actual argument itself. That's what you're looking to convince us. You can't assume your conclusion as a premise. You must show how you got there. You can't frame an argument against a god under the assumption that one doesn't exist. That's just as corrupt as basing an argument for god on the assumption that one does exist. We work from a neutral state of not knowing to a conclusion in either direction. Given that, nature cannot be a witness either to a god nor against one. It was either created by one, in which case it needs one and so can't be cited as a witness to its non existence. Or it wasn't, in which case the opposite is true. How will we ever tell if nature is the product of "an intelligent entity"? By the close study of the workings of nature revealing to us either a profound intelligence at work or a simple chaos unfolding in the most ridiculously lucky way | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I grew up in a completely irreligious atmosphere in the seventies. Although we were made to do prayers and sing hymns at school, very few people had any real religious beliefs and those who did were thought to be a bit weird. That being said, all surveys show that Christianity is a declining religion in the UK. Even on the very broad census definition of adherence, Christianity went down from 71% of the population to. 59% between 2001 and 2011. More focused surveys put it below 50% and church going is now well below. 10%." Yes. I reckon catholicism is the strongest faith as seen in poland, spain and few other countries, they celebrate it more there. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Christians should thank themselves VERY lucky if their only problem is their 2000 year dominion over half the globe is over. Imagine if Christians faced actual persecution like Jews and Muslims. " They did. And do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I'm with Jordan Peterson on this. I think there is a wonderful aspect to the faiths which we're losing as a society as their influence wains. When the faiths were popular people would gather once a week for about an hour to contemplate, no matter how badly, living ethically and higher causes and purposes. You've got to admit that's better than never contemplating such things at all. Similarly, I like to say thanks before I eat. It only seems respectful and it gets me to think for a moment about all the lives, animal or human, that have gone into my meal. Secular people would gripe that they could do such a thing too. But the point is that they generally don't. It's a shame that we're losing such things. Also, people like Kinky make a big deal of prayer not doing anything. I disagree. I think there's something very beautiful and comforting in a very real medicinal sense about sharing your deepest feelings with the universe and spending a moment reflecting on others suffering. Again a secular person would complain that they could do the same. But I'm sure they often don't make that moment regularly unlike religious people do. In this sense a wider point could be made that religion is all about thinking of others (well it should be imo). Whilst modern secular life without it often fails to think of others altogether. And we shouldn't forget that whilst prayer may not procure tangible results, meditation and other activities like yoga genuinely can procure religious experiences in a repeatable and testable way for yourself that are clearly shared by a vast amount of others who have done the same activities. Through these activities it is eminently possible for pretty much anyone, even a non believer, to verify for themselves the oneness and interconnectedness of everything and the existence of a god. The faiths have many problems. But, though I don't subscribe to any faith myself, I don't believe in throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Prayer has no effect if you believe it's a supplication to a God who will cause things to work in your favour because of your prayer. I believe you agree with that. I don't disagree that some form of meditation or contemplation can have psychological benefits for some people. I think your view on prayer is that it's the same as talking into a dead phone. There's no one there, no one listening, no reply, just you getting stuff off your chest... and that this alone may have a therapeutic effect. That's not my experience of it. I definitely feel there's a compassionate listening ear and quite often get replies. So for me it's much more akin to a two way conversation than a soliloquy. I know you'll insist there's no tangible difference between the two; that both get the same results of no intervention. But there is a critical difference... the presence of a listener and their very insightful replies which help offer an often very noble and graceful guidance. You don't get that from a dead phone You think there's someone replying to you, but the only evidence there is is your subjective feeling . Obviously that's not evidence for anything except the existence of your subjective feeling. Logically, it's the same as me saying that an invisible pink elephant listens to my prayers. My feeling thus is no evidence that such a being does listen. You atheists Always reaching into your toolbox for your cookie cutter arguments even when they don't apply. Where in what I wrote was any effort made to try and argue that because I get replies you should believe in god? Of course it's not a frigging argument for a god. But, whether it is or it isn't, I still get replies. So your view of it doesn't fit with my experience of it that's all. Just explaining how we differ. Not trying to convert you lol I never mentioned God. I addressed your argument that there was something external responding to your prayers. My point is that you contemplating something and getting what you perceive to be replies from some external being that gives you guidance, is actually no different from me contemplating something getting ideas that I perceive as coming from my own brain and being guided by said ideas. I find it difficult to understand the positing of some external being for which you have no evidence other than the feeling in your head. The experience is that there's a being listening and a very separate mind from our own answering. I'm quite happy for scientists to explore why this weird experience of an external being occurs... is it some kind of weird illusion of magnetism? is it a bizarre psychological state in which we imagine ourselves to be someone separate from us? But if you're going to argue that I don't experience what appears to be a separate being from me that returns to me genuinely insightful replies that wouldn't have occurred to me... then you're simply not describing the same experience that's all. You're describing some kind of scenario where you sit alone talking into the air and having your own ideas based on just sitting there. That's contemplation. That's not prayer or anything where there's a conversation. People who imagine a god talks to them when all they've been doing is sitting contemplating are being silly. The experience is much more unique and sensory than that. There is the distinct sense of another being, a distinctly separate voice from the one your thoughts usually take, different intonation, different language, and different wisdom. All of that is core to the experience. If you want to question the experience that's the experience you have to question... not mere contemplation " I don't question that you have the experience. I just say that hearing voices in your head is no evidence that they exist otherwise than in your head. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I don't question that you have the experience. I just say that hearing voices in your head is no evidence that they exist otherwise than in your head. " We both know it isn't evidence to you, at least not evidence you'd accept. But if it's the nature of the experience that the voice isn't coming from the usual location in my head, that it appears not to be coming from myself at all, and if there's no convincing rational argument as to why that impression is mistaken, then it certainly can operate as evidence to me. If you want to convince me otherwise you'll need to convince me I'm mistaken in taking this as evidence. Thats not as simple as just telling me it isn't admissible as evidence *to you*. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I don't question that you have the experience. I just say that hearing voices in your head is no evidence that they exist otherwise than in your head. We both know it isn't evidence to you, at least not evidence you'd accept. But if it's the nature of the experience that the voice isn't coming from the usual location in my head, that it appears not to be coming from myself at all, and if there's no convincing rational argument as to why that impression is mistaken, then it certainly can operate as evidence to me. If you want to convince me otherwise you'll need to convince me I'm mistaken in taking this as evidence. Thats not as simple as just telling me it isn't admissible as evidence *to you*." I am currently sat on a park bench. I can see another Park bench opposite me. At least I think I can. It's possible the image of the park bench is just an idea in my head. However, if I stop every person who goes past if there is a park bench there, I am pretty certain they will all say there is. I can then rest pretty certain that there is overwhelming evidence that the park bench is not an image in my head and exists external to me. On the other hand, the voices you describe are not accessible to any other person and the only evidence they exist is your description of them. The evidence therefore suggests they exist only in your head. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"as the previous writer said, Christians face persecution in many countries. I go to church regularly but also I go to cap d'agde on hols which is not exactly religious. There is a lot wrong with christianity but as a force for good should be recognised" Genuine question, and potentially an admission of my own ignorance on the matter but what are they doing that is unique to or driven by christianity that makes them a force for good | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
".......”On the other hand, the voices you describe are not accessible to any other person and the only evidence they exist is your description of them. The evidence therefore suggests they exist only in your head......” So things that haven’t been seen by more than one person and only described only exist in people’s heads? " Probably. Could you give us a "for instance"? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"as the previous writer said, Christians face persecution in many countries. I go to church regularly but also I go to cap d'agde on hols which is not exactly religious. There is a lot wrong with christianity but as a force for good should be recognised Genuine question, and potentially an admission of my own ignorance on the matter but what are they doing that is unique to or driven by christianity that makes them a force for good" Is the salvation army an example of this? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
".......”On the other hand, the voices you describe are not accessible to any other person and the only evidence they exist is your description of them. The evidence therefore suggests they exist only in your head......” So things that haven’t been seen by more than one person and only described only exist in people’s heads? " By definition, if something is only, in principle, accessible as an idea in one persons head, then it only exists in that persons head. The operative words are "in principle". One person may be the only person to have seen a new born baby but in principle anyone else can see it and confirm it's external existence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
".......”On the other hand, the voices you describe are not accessible to any other person and the only evidence they exist is your description of them. The evidence therefore suggests they exist only in your head......” So things that haven’t been seen by more than one person and only described only exist in people’s heads? By definition, if something is only, in principle, accessible as an idea in one persons head, then it only exists in that persons head. The operative words are "in principle". One person may be the only person to have seen a new born baby but in principle anyone else can see it and confirm it's external existence. " It's not an identifiable characteristic of the god experience that only one person has ever had it. It is a widely experienced phenomenon and people all over the world attest to the basic nature of the experience i.e that an external being with profound insight can communicate directly with their mind. As such, it is similar to the state of being in love. People who've never experienced it can doubt such a state exists. But it's clear it does. The task then is to ask if the god experience state relates to anything external or not. Suggesting that because no two people have the same message and so it isn't real is like suggesting because no two people get the same message over a phone network the phone network doesn't exist. Instead, the holy grail of atheists is surely to be able to replicate the experience at will using chemicals and thereby try to explain it as brain feedback or something. Denying the experience occurs or that it isn't a commonly shared experience, just as the experience of love is, is a non starter. So no... the god experience is not "in principle" limited solely to one person's mind. It is entirely possible that several people may attest to exactly the same experience. That's where such commonly held beliefs as everything being interconnected comes from. None of the above is an argument for a god. It's merely a description of the riddle atheists need to properly address. It's clear we're in the realm of talking plug sockets. So don't worry. I know exactly how mad I sound. But there's something so deeply positive about this experience compared to that of talking plug sockets that, until I meet a truly convincing argument as to why I and those like me should dismiss it, I'll keep returning to it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
".......”On the other hand, the voices you describe are not accessible to any other person and the only evidence they exist is your description of them. The evidence therefore suggests they exist only in your head......” So things that haven’t been seen by more than one person and only described only exist in people’s heads? By definition, if something is only, in principle, accessible as an idea in one persons head, then it only exists in that persons head. The operative words are "in principle". One person may be the only person to have seen a new born baby but in principle anyone else can see it and confirm it's external existence. " If half the people on a bus have headphones on and listening to spotify and the other half don't. Indeed, there's absolutely no external evidence to those people that spotify even exists... Does spotify exist? The answer clearly depends on whether someone on the bus can take another person's headphones out, plug them into their ears, and then also listen to spotify. If, instead, all they hear is static then there's a powerful argument that, since the experience isn't replicable, it's some kind of mass hallucination. So the issue here is is the god experience replicable | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Christians should thank themselves VERY lucky if their only problem is their 2000 year dominion over half the globe is over. Imagine if Christians faced actual persecution like Jews and Muslims. They did. And do. " HAHAHA | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
".......”On the other hand, the voices you describe are not accessible to any other person and the only evidence they exist is your description of them. The evidence therefore suggests they exist only in your head......” So things that haven’t been seen by more than one person and only described only exist in people’s heads? By definition, if something is only, in principle, accessible as an idea in one persons head, then it only exists in that persons head. The operative words are "in principle". One person may be the only person to have seen a new born baby but in principle anyone else can see it and confirm it's external existence. It's not an identifiable characteristic of the god experience that only one person has ever had it. It is a widely experienced phenomenon and people all over the world attest to the basic nature of the experience i.e that an external being with profound insight can communicate directly with their mind. As such, it is similar to the state of being in love. People who've never experienced it can doubt such a state exists. But it's clear it does. The task then is to ask if the god experience state relates to anything external or not. Suggesting that because no two people have the same message and so it isn't real is like suggesting because no two people get the same message over a phone network the phone network doesn't exist. Instead, the holy grail of atheists is surely to be able to replicate the experience at will using chemicals and thereby try to explain it as brain feedback or something. Denying the experience occurs or that it isn't a commonly shared experience, just as the experience of love is, is a non starter. So no... the god experience is not "in principle" limited solely to one person's mind. It is entirely possible that several people may attest to exactly the same experience. That's where such commonly held beliefs as everything being interconnected comes from. None of the above is an argument for a god. It's merely a description of the riddle atheists need to properly address. It's clear we're in the realm of talking plug sockets. So don't worry. I know exactly how mad I sound. But there's something so deeply positive about this experience compared to that of talking plug sockets that, until I meet a truly convincing argument as to why I and those like me should dismiss it, I'll keep returning to it " You're still not getting the distinction between subjective and objective existence. Love exists only subjectively, as a feeling in people's minds. Love clearly exists in that sense, but doesn't exist outside peoples minds. As a abstract non material concept, it clearly can't exist in any other way. If there were no human minds there would be no love, hate, anger, jealousy etc etc. If you want to say the concept of God exists in the same way, as an idea in human minds that can't exists outside of human minds, I'd agree with you. The difficulty arises if you assert God exists objectively outside human minds and would exist even if there were no human minds to think about him. If you say that, I am going to want the same sort of empirical evidence as I would want for anything else said to exist objectively. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Have the west lost its touch with christianity? I remember as a kid we used to pray at dinner and then before you went to bed, whats your view, have you also noticed a change?" I do hope so. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Have the west lost its touch with christianity? I remember as a kid we used to pray at dinner and then before you went to bed, whats your view, have you also noticed a change?" I am not religious - more spiritual and respectful of all beliefs. I am grateful for the food we have and I say a prayer before I go to bed and every time I am on a flight. I find it helps me relax and breathe clearly which helps me to sleep/be calm. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Christians should thank themselves VERY lucky if their only problem is their 2000 year dominion over half the globe is over. Imagine if Christians faced actual persecution like Jews and Muslims. They did. And do. HAHAHA " https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/981611/christian-persecution-christianity-nigeria | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Christians should thank themselves VERY lucky if their only problem is their 2000 year dominion over half the globe is over. Imagine if Christians faced actual persecution like Jews and Muslims. They did. And do. HAHAHA https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/981611/christian-persecution-christianity-nigeria " Peanuts really. Harsh as fuck but the figures and history are plain for all to see. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Christians should thank themselves VERY lucky if their only problem is their 2000 year dominion over half the globe is over. Imagine if Christians faced actual persecution like Jews and Muslims. They did. And do. HAHAHA https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/981611/christian-persecution-christianity-nigeria Peanuts really. Harsh as fuck but the figures and history are plain for all to see. " Right o. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Christians should thank themselves VERY lucky if their only problem is their 2000 year dominion over half the globe is over. Imagine if Christians faced actual persecution like Jews and Muslims. They did. And do. HAHAHA https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/981611/christian-persecution-christianity-nigeria Peanuts really. Harsh as fuck but the figures and history are plain for all to see. Right o. " You want to go through 2000 years of history and tot up the numbers? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"6000 Nigerian Christians murdered this year so far. But they're black so it's not seen as a problem. Hang your head in shame. " Fuck does this have to do with race now...? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"6000 Nigerian Christians murdered this year so far. But they're black so it's not seen as a problem. Hang your head in shame. " Fuck does this have to do with race now...? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"If anyone chooses to live their life according to a bunch of fairy tales, cool. Just not for me. Already have my spot reserved in hell. " This Was force fed enough religion as a kid to last me a lifetime and also make me realise as I got older that it was just a doctrine used to control the masses in my opinion - but do appreciate it's a great crutch for some and would never knock anyone that has belief. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Have the west lost its touch with christianity? I remember as a kid we used to pray at dinner and then before you went to bed, whats your view, have you also noticed a change?" I had a mate called Jesus. He sure was king in our gang. Having said that when I went down on all fours at the golden Alter of pussy belonging to a sexy young lady last week I said my prayers. 'Thank-you God for what I'm about to receive'. They were answered and my God what a blow job in return. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
" Was force fed enough religion as a kid to last me a lifetime and also make me realise as I got older that it was just a doctrine used to control the masses in my opinion - but do appreciate it's a great crutch for some and would never knock anyone that has belief." I went to Catholic schools from age 7 which was the first exposure I had apart from nativity plays at school. We simply didn't go to church until my mother reconciled with my grandmother then we ended up doing Catholic ritee whilst going to Methodist church at other times with my father. I never felt it was force fed on me though, any more than I feel the people I brazenly but have to ignore infrequently on the streets every few months are ramming it down my throat as people mostly claim. In fact our priest said at the time in the early 2000s when I last went that it's the best time of his priesthood, because he was now instructed to guide when asked rather than tell people what to do. The only person I've ever met who used religion for control was my mother. I've met scores of priests and monks who I spent a great deal of time with in summers and just never felt that way. I guess I'm lucky not to be one of the minority who had horrendous electoral experiences. I made my own decision that I am agnostic, but my only regret is that whilst other school children were learning, we were practicing hymns and other things of zero educational value. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
".......”On the other hand, the voices you describe are not accessible to any other person and the only evidence they exist is your description of them. The evidence therefore suggests they exist only in your head......” So things that haven’t been seen by more than one person and only described only exist in people’s heads? By definition, if something is only, in principle, accessible as an idea in one persons head, then it only exists in that persons head. The operative words are "in principle". One person may be the only person to have seen a new born baby but in principle anyone else can see it and confirm it's external existence. It's not an identifiable characteristic of the god experience that only one person has ever had it. It is a widely experienced phenomenon and people all over the world attest to the basic nature of the experience i.e that an external being with profound insight can communicate directly with their mind. As such, it is similar to the state of being in love. People who've never experienced it can doubt such a state exists. But it's clear it does. The task then is to ask if the god experience state relates to anything external or not. Suggesting that because no two people have the same message and so it isn't real is like suggesting because no two people get the same message over a phone network the phone network doesn't exist. Instead, the holy grail of atheists is surely to be able to replicate the experience at will using chemicals and thereby try to explain it as brain feedback or something. Denying the experience occurs or that it isn't a commonly shared experience, just as the experience of love is, is a non starter. So no... the god experience is not "in principle" limited solely to one person's mind. It is entirely possible that several people may attest to exactly the same experience. That's where such commonly held beliefs as everything being interconnected comes from. None of the above is an argument for a god. It's merely a description of the riddle atheists need to properly address. It's clear we're in the realm of talking plug sockets. So don't worry. I know exactly how mad I sound. But there's something so deeply positive about this experience compared to that of talking plug sockets that, until I meet a truly convincing argument as to why I and those like me should dismiss it, I'll keep returning to it You're still not getting the distinction between subjective and objective existence. Love exists only subjectively, as a feeling in people's minds. Love clearly exists in that sense, but doesn't exist outside peoples minds. As a abstract non material concept, it clearly can't exist in any other way. If there were no human minds there would be no love, hate, anger, jealousy etc etc. If you want to say the concept of God exists in the same way, as an idea in human minds that can't exists outside of human minds, I'd agree with you. The difficulty arises if you assert God exists objectively outside human minds and would exist even if there were no human minds to think about him. If you say that, I am going to want the same sort of empirical evidence as I would want for anything else said to exist objectively." Love is demonstrable. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
".......”On the other hand, the voices you describe are not accessible to any other person and the only evidence they exist is your description of them. The evidence therefore suggests they exist only in your head......” So things that haven’t been seen by more than one person and only described only exist in people’s heads? By definition, if something is only, in principle, accessible as an idea in one persons head, then it only exists in that persons head. The operative words are "in principle". One person may be the only person to have seen a new born baby but in principle anyone else can see it and confirm it's external existence. It's not an identifiable characteristic of the god experience that only one person has ever had it. It is a widely experienced phenomenon and people all over the world attest to the basic nature of the experience i.e that an external being with profound insight can communicate directly with their mind. As such, it is similar to the state of being in love. People who've never experienced it can doubt such a state exists. But it's clear it does. The task then is to ask if the god experience state relates to anything external or not. Suggesting that because no two people have the same message and so it isn't real is like suggesting because no two people get the same message over a phone network the phone network doesn't exist. Instead, the holy grail of atheists is surely to be able to replicate the experience at will using chemicals and thereby try to explain it as brain feedback or something. Denying the experience occurs or that it isn't a commonly shared experience, just as the experience of love is, is a non starter. So no... the god experience is not "in principle" limited solely to one person's mind. It is entirely possible that several people may attest to exactly the same experience. That's where such commonly held beliefs as everything being interconnected comes from. None of the above is an argument for a god. It's merely a description of the riddle atheists need to properly address. It's clear we're in the realm of talking plug sockets. So don't worry. I know exactly how mad I sound. But there's something so deeply positive about this experience compared to that of talking plug sockets that, until I meet a truly convincing argument as to why I and those like me should dismiss it, I'll keep returning to it You're still not getting the distinction between subjective and objective existence. Love exists only subjectively, as a feeling in people's minds. Love clearly exists in that sense, but doesn't exist outside peoples minds. As a abstract non material concept, it clearly can't exist in any other way. If there were no human minds there would be no love, hate, anger, jealousy etc etc. If you want to say the concept of God exists in the same way, as an idea in human minds that can't exists outside of human minds, I'd agree with you. The difficulty arises if you assert God exists objectively outside human minds and would exist even if there were no human minds to think about him. If you say that, I am going to want the same sort of empirical evidence as I would want for anything else said to exist objectively. Love is demonstrable." Precisely Frisky And so is god. Kinky is getting muddled in what I'm saying. The experience of love is a real thing. Scientific types may put it down to certain chemical imbalances. But it's real. Similarly so is the experience of god. So both clearly exist *as experiences*. If an individual doubts the existence of those experiences they can go and have them for themselves *regardless of whether they believe they exist or not*. As such, both are eminently empirically verifiable by anyone who wants to put the effort in to seek them out. It is an entirely secondary question whether love exists physically out in the physical universe and if god does too. I have yet to find a compelling argument that god doesn't exist and that I should therefore dismiss my experience as worthless. So until I do you'll have to excuse me for having the good sense to stick rigidly to the empirical evidence that's come to me. But anyway... perhaps that's enough fabicide for one week | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
".......”On the other hand, the voices you describe are not accessible to any other person and the only evidence they exist is your description of them. The evidence therefore suggests they exist only in your head......” So things that haven’t been seen by more than one person and only described only exist in people’s heads? By definition, if something is only, in principle, accessible as an idea in one persons head, then it only exists in that persons head. The operative words are "in principle". One person may be the only person to have seen a new born baby but in principle anyone else can see it and confirm it's external existence. It's not an identifiable characteristic of the god experience that only one person has ever had it. It is a widely experienced phenomenon and people all over the world attest to the basic nature of the experience i.e that an external being with profound insight can communicate directly with their mind. As such, it is similar to the state of being in love. People who've never experienced it can doubt such a state exists. But it's clear it does. The task then is to ask if the god experience state relates to anything external or not. Suggesting that because no two people have the same message and so it isn't real is like suggesting because no two people get the same message over a phone network the phone network doesn't exist. Instead, the holy grail of atheists is surely to be able to replicate the experience at will using chemicals and thereby try to explain it as brain feedback or something. Denying the experience occurs or that it isn't a commonly shared experience, just as the experience of love is, is a non starter. So no... the god experience is not "in principle" limited solely to one person's mind. It is entirely possible that several people may attest to exactly the same experience. That's where such commonly held beliefs as everything being interconnected comes from. None of the above is an argument for a god. It's merely a description of the riddle atheists need to properly address. It's clear we're in the realm of talking plug sockets. So don't worry. I know exactly how mad I sound. But there's something so deeply positive about this experience compared to that of talking plug sockets that, until I meet a truly convincing argument as to why I and those like me should dismiss it, I'll keep returning to it You're still not getting the distinction between subjective and objective existence. Love exists only subjectively, as a feeling in people's minds. Love clearly exists in that sense, but doesn't exist outside peoples minds. As a abstract non material concept, it clearly can't exist in any other way. If there were no human minds there would be no love, hate, anger, jealousy etc etc. If you want to say the concept of God exists in the same way, as an idea in human minds that can't exists outside of human minds, I'd agree with you. The difficulty arises if you assert God exists objectively outside human minds and would exist even if there were no human minds to think about him. If you say that, I am going to want the same sort of empirical evidence as I would want for anything else said to exist objectively. Love is demonstrable. Precisely Frisky And so is god. Kinky is getting muddled in what I'm saying. The experience of love is a real thing. Scientific types may put it down to certain chemical imbalances. But it's real. Similarly so is the experience of god. So both clearly exist *as experiences*. If an individual doubts the existence of those experiences they can go and have them for themselves *regardless of whether they believe they exist or not*. As such, both are eminently empirically verifiable by anyone who wants to put the effort in to seek them out. It is an entirely secondary question whether love exists physically out in the physical universe and if god does too. I have yet to find a compelling argument that god doesn't exist and that I should therefore dismiss my experience as worthless. So until I do you'll have to excuse me for having the good sense to stick rigidly to the empirical evidence that's come to me. But anyway... perhaps that's enough fabicide for one week " If I tell you I have a strong feeling that there is an invisible pink elephant living in my garden would you believe me unless you could positively show otherwise? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I used to go to Sunday school then church ever Sunday morning from the age of 5 to 14, whereas I never take my children. Didn't do me any good mind for I've lost my halo in a gutter somewhere " I’d worship your temple | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
". Love is demonstrable. Precisely Frisky And so is god. Kinky is getting muddled in what I'm saying. The experience of love is a real thing. Scientific types may put it down to certain chemical imbalances. But it's real. " I think that kind of misses the point - love is demonstrable, there is cause and effect that can be observed, documented, recorded, is repeatable, predictable, etc etc. It may also be documented as chemical changes in the brain etc, but that does not negate it's reality as an emotion, nor the observable outworkings of it. I have no comment to make on 'God' on a sex site, but I would say the above is also true of the spiritual - there is cause and effect that can be observed, documented, recorded, is repeatable, predictable, etc etc. Those who have not seen that evidence have merely not sought it out. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Religion although I see it as a human construct to keep the masses in line ,does offer comfort and hope to many. In that way it's a good thing. Sadly it's all too often used as a weapon for whoevers chosen deities teachings differ. And an excuse to subjugate and demonise those that don't agree. " Unfortunately there is no categorical evidence to disprove the existence of god.. which mean people cling to ideas that there must be something.... Just like fairy’s, goblins, dragons and other mythical creatures.... lack of full evidence to disprove the existence does not automatically imply existence... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
". Love is demonstrable. Precisely Frisky And so is god. Kinky is getting muddled in what I'm saying. The experience of love is a real thing. Scientific types may put it down to certain chemical imbalances. But it's real. I think that kind of misses the point - love is demonstrable, there is cause and effect that can be observed, documented, recorded, is repeatable, predictable, etc etc. It may also be documented as chemical changes in the brain etc, but that does not negate it's reality as an emotion, nor the observable outworkings of it. I have no comment to make on 'God' on a sex site, but I would say the above is also true of the spiritual - there is cause and effect that can be observed, documented, recorded, is repeatable, predictable, etc etc. Those who have not seen that evidence have merely not sought it out. " My point is about abstract concepts and the view that, by definition, abstract concepts are made by humans and can't exist other than in human minds. "love" is an abstract concept. You can point to things external to the human mind as evidence of the existence of the concept, in that people behave in a certain way when they feel love, but the thing itself is a feeling inside the human mind. As I said, I don't think anyone would disagree that if no human beings existed love wouldn't exist. If people want to say that. "God" or "spirituality" or anything else is like "love", a concept found in the minds of lots of people and which influences their behaviour, I agree with that. Where I disagree is where people say. "God" exists outside and independent of human minds and would exist even if there were no human minds to think of the concept. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
". Love is demonstrable. Precisely Frisky And so is god. Kinky is getting muddled in what I'm saying. The experience of love is a real thing. Scientific types may put it down to certain chemical imbalances. But it's real. I think that kind of misses the point - love is demonstrable, there is cause and effect that can be observed, documented, recorded, is repeatable, predictable, etc etc. It may also be documented as chemical changes in the brain etc, but that does not negate it's reality as an emotion, nor the observable outworkings of it. I have no comment to make on 'God' on a sex site, but I would say the above is also true of the spiritual - there is cause and effect that can be observed, documented, recorded, is repeatable, predictable, etc etc. Those who have not seen that evidence have merely not sought it out. My point is about abstract concepts and the view that, by definition, abstract concepts are made by humans and can't exist other than in human minds. "love" is an abstract concept. You can point to things external to the human mind as evidence of the existence of the concept, in that people behave in a certain way when they feel love, but the thing itself is a feeling inside the human mind. As I said, I don't think anyone would disagree that if no human beings existed love wouldn't exist. If people want to say that. "God" or "spirituality" or anything else is like "love", a concept found in the minds of lots of people and which influences their behaviour, I agree with that. Where I disagree is where people say. "God" exists outside and independent of human minds and would exist even if there were no human minds to think of the concept. " I am not talking about God, I am talking about the spiritual. And so yes, it exists totally independantly - that's the point you don't get. The spiritual is not an abstract concept. If Christianity is right then love is not either, but I haven't thought about that enough to debate it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
". Love is demonstrable. Precisely Frisky And so is god. Kinky is getting muddled in what I'm saying. The experience of love is a real thing. Scientific types may put it down to certain chemical imbalances. But it's real. I think that kind of misses the point - love is demonstrable, there is cause and effect that can be observed, documented, recorded, is repeatable, predictable, etc etc. It may also be documented as chemical changes in the brain etc, but that does not negate it's reality as an emotion, nor the observable outworkings of it. I have no comment to make on 'God' on a sex site, but I would say the above is also true of the spiritual - there is cause and effect that can be observed, documented, recorded, is repeatable, predictable, etc etc. Those who have not seen that evidence have merely not sought it out. My point is about abstract concepts and the view that, by definition, abstract concepts are made by humans and can't exist other than in human minds. "love" is an abstract concept. You can point to things external to the human mind as evidence of the existence of the concept, in that people behave in a certain way when they feel love, but the thing itself is a feeling inside the human mind. As I said, I don't think anyone would disagree that if no human beings existed love wouldn't exist. If people want to say that. "God" or "spirituality" or anything else is like "love", a concept found in the minds of lots of people and which influences their behaviour, I agree with that. Where I disagree is where people say. "God" exists outside and independent of human minds and would exist even if there were no human minds to think of the concept. I am not talking about God, I am talking about the spiritual. And so yes, it exists totally independantly - that's the point you don't get. The spiritual is not an abstract concept. If Christianity is right then love is not either, but I haven't thought about that enough to debate it." So when dinosaurs roamed the earth and there were no minds to conceive of spirituality, where did it exist? You're right. I genuinely can't understand how one can meaningfully talk of abstract concepts existing outside of human minds. I am willing to be enlightened though... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
". Love is demonstrable. Precisely Frisky And so is god. Kinky is getting muddled in what I'm saying. The experience of love is a real thing. Scientific types may put it down to certain chemical imbalances. But it's real. I think that kind of misses the point - love is demonstrable, there is cause and effect that can be observed, documented, recorded, is repeatable, predictable, etc etc. It may also be documented as chemical changes in the brain etc, but that does not negate it's reality as an emotion, nor the observable outworkings of it. I have no comment to make on 'God' on a sex site, but I would say the above is also true of the spiritual - there is cause and effect that can be observed, documented, recorded, is repeatable, predictable, etc etc. Those who have not seen that evidence have merely not sought it out. My point is about abstract concepts and the view that, by definition, abstract concepts are made by humans and can't exist other than in human minds. "love" is an abstract concept. You can point to things external to the human mind as evidence of the existence of the concept, in that people behave in a certain way when they feel love, but the thing itself is a feeling inside the human mind. As I said, I don't think anyone would disagree that if no human beings existed love wouldn't exist. If people want to say that. "God" or "spirituality" or anything else is like "love", a concept found in the minds of lots of people and which influences their behaviour, I agree with that. Where I disagree is where people say. "God" exists outside and independent of human minds and would exist even if there were no human minds to think of the concept. I am not talking about God, I am talking about the spiritual. And so yes, it exists totally independantly - that's the point you don't get. The spiritual is not an abstract concept. If Christianity is right then love is not either, but I haven't thought about that enough to debate it. So when dinosaurs roamed the earth and there were no minds to conceive of spirituality, where did it exist? " Same place as physics or chemistry or quantum mechanics!! Surely you can grasp the concept of reality existing outside the human mind?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
". Love is demonstrable. Precisely Frisky And so is god. Kinky is getting muddled in what I'm saying. The experience of love is a real thing. Scientific types may put it down to certain chemical imbalances. But it's real. I think that kind of misses the point - love is demonstrable, there is cause and effect that can be observed, documented, recorded, is repeatable, predictable, etc etc. It may also be documented as chemical changes in the brain etc, but that does not negate it's reality as an emotion, nor the observable outworkings of it. I have no comment to make on 'God' on a sex site, but I would say the above is also true of the spiritual - there is cause and effect that can be observed, documented, recorded, is repeatable, predictable, etc etc. Those who have not seen that evidence have merely not sought it out. My point is about abstract concepts and the view that, by definition, abstract concepts are made by humans and can't exist other than in human minds. "love" is an abstract concept. You can point to things external to the human mind as evidence of the existence of the concept, in that people behave in a certain way when they feel love, but the thing itself is a feeling inside the human mind. As I said, I don't think anyone would disagree that if no human beings existed love wouldn't exist. If people want to say that. "God" or "spirituality" or anything else is like "love", a concept found in the minds of lots of people and which influences their behaviour, I agree with that. Where I disagree is where people say. "God" exists outside and independent of human minds and would exist even if there were no human minds to think of the concept. I am not talking about God, I am talking about the spiritual. And so yes, it exists totally independantly - that's the point you don't get. The spiritual is not an abstract concept. If Christianity is right then love is not either, but I haven't thought about that enough to debate it. So when dinosaurs roamed the earth and there were no minds to conceive of spirituality, where did it exist? Same place as physics or chemistry or quantum mechanics!! Surely you can grasp the concept of reality existing outside the human mind??" That's an interesting epistemological debate as to whether scientific theories exist outside human minds. I would say they don't. Whilst the phenomena observed by, say the theory of relativity, obviously existed before Einstein thought up the theory, the theory itself didn't, and whilst one can point to the operation of the theory in external reality, the theory itself exists only in human minds. I think what you are saying is that spirituality is a valid way of explaining external reality in the same way as, say, the theory of relativity. I don't happen to think it is, but even if it is, it is still a theory about the way the world works dependent for its existence on the existence of human minds. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
". I think what you are saying is that spirituality is a valid way of explaining external reality in the same way as, say, the theory of relativity. " Nope, I am saying it is reality whether you describe it or not, period. I see why you are struggling now, your own opinion is not even allowing you to consider any other paradigm - I am sorry but that is true dogma! My only advice, as previously stated, would be for you to equate the edge of the spiritual realm with Quantum Physics, start from there. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
". I think what you are saying is that spirituality is a valid way of explaining external reality in the same way as, say, the theory of relativity. Nope, I am saying it is reality whether you describe it or not, period. I see why you are struggling now, your own opinion is not even allowing you to consider any other paradigm - I am sorry but that is true dogma! My only advice, as previously stated, would be for you to equate the edge of the spiritual realm with Quantum Physics, start from there." So, you are saying something called a spirit is as as much external physical reality as, say, some tiny microbe invisible to the naked eye? If that's the case, it should be as open to observation to anyone just as that microbe might be to anyone using the correct equipment. Please therefore explain to me how I can observe this spirit. And accusing me of being dogmatic or not on the spiritual wavelength or whatever is selling the pass. If this thing is only observable to people with the right mind set then by definition it only exists in some people's minds. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |