Fop 1 Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 Ironically, of course, there is quite a lot of evidence (enough for reasoned debate anyway) that morality and relgion are just a product of Evolution themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4378 Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 Ironically, of course, there is quite a lot of evidence (enough for reasoned debate anyway) that morality and relgion are just a product of Evolution themselves. Absolutely - its obvious as I've said before that communities of humans couldn't have formed without basic /murder/rape/theft laws and other stuff will have developed from that. Its also obvious that a desire to explain nature before it was understood as much as it is now could easily invoke Sky God explanations - the worldwide diversity of such explanations a hint to their man-made nature. All I'm saying is its time we grew up and realised this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4378 Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 How do you differentiate between people with a genuine relationship with God, and people with Schizophrenia? I've often wondered whether an honest psychiatrist when confronted with a patient who spoke of an invisible friend who watches over them and judges them but doesn't use the word God would be diagnosed with a psychosis. Yes I am serious - but for the "virtue" of faith and its place in society I don't see any difference or justification for not giving that diagnosis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spongebob toonpants 3994 Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 (edited) Once upon a time, the bible was taken to be literal. Now, its stories are metaphorical. What will it be in the future? Consigned to the myths section along with stories of Zeus, Ra, Thor and the rest. Completely disagree - people have reasons to believe in God and to believe the Bible isn't just fairy tales. Not sure about "Zeus, Ra, Thor and the rest" though. Can you explain the differnce between your God and Thor or Zeus or the Hindu Gods? Why do you dismiss them as man-made myths yet insist yours is real? Is there more evidence? Are their holy books more dismissable? If so why? Genuine questions - I think its one of the main ones that believers don't ask of themselves. Perhaps TheInspiration feels it OK to criticise, even mock, other people's beliefs but not his own? Like I said, I don't see a great deal of difference between the goat sacrificers and christians, from an objective point of view they strike me as equally absurd. Of course it was ironic that South Park showed religious hypocrisy up for what it is not only in its excellent scripts, but also by the behaviour of Isaac Hayes. I reckon TI might be doing the same thing. Don't think I've criticised/mocked anyone's beliefs here - certainly you shouldn't be telling anyone off for that. What I said about goat sacrificers was that it's a shame that religion always has to be as equally absurd as each other - as if they are all wrong. I don't know if there's any truth in Hinduism but I respect the belief (and find the religion interesting also), however I and many others agree that there is truth in Christianity. Tbf TI, I think you do have some respect for other people's beliefs but at the end of the day, you still think you are right, and they are wrong, based purely on the place you were born (I do not believe you would be a christian if you were born and raised by a muslim family in Iran, whatever 'personal' relationship you claim to have with Jesus). You will/can never accept this point, but there are still millions of muslim versions of you out there saying pretty much the same thing, but reversed, and you can't explain that one away. Still, I respect that you do at least engage in these dialogues which a lot of religious people don't, for whatever reason. Although I also think you have Dawkins wrong. At the end of the day, you just don't like your beliefs being challenged, and he's one of the few people in public willing to do that, so you ridicule and villify him, without basis, imo. Doesn't his (my) 'belief' also deserve respect? Apologies if I am wrong, I've never heard any people talking about a personal relationship with Allah, whereas it is a frequent occurence in Christianity. Muslims aren't supposed to experience their god - there is no hinting he is a god of love for starters. And yes your belief does deserve respect. I've never ridiculed or villified atheistic beliefs. I'm more concerned with many atheists as people - attack the behaviour of Christians when they're very immoral people themselves. I respect Dawkins brilliant writing/communication skills, but as a person I don't have that much respect for him. Isnt it the same god as christians and jews anyway. I have always found it amusing that a Jew or a Muslim could spend a lifetime worshipping the same god as a christian, live a perfectly moral and "sin" free life and be condemned to eternal damnation by not being friends with jesus Edited September 9, 2007 by spongebob toonpants Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheInspiration 1 Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 Good to see my beliefs being taken seriously as always. Of course, it HAS to be schizophrenia/delusion. That's far more likely - well no, actually it isn't. It's just a refusal to look for answers, which is present in atheism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4378 Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 Good to see my beliefs being taken seriously as always. Of course, it HAS to be schizophrenia/delusion. That's far more likely - well no, actually it isn't. It's just a refusal to look for answers, which is present in atheism. Yes its is more likely Science asks and gives answers - the human brain is capable of hallucination, mood swings, psychotic tendencies and delusions - all because of an upset chemistry or cell damage - much more plausible than an invisible friend. Until there is one shred of evidence otherwise I'll stick with science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbo 175 Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 It does make me chuckle that grown adults actually believe that a man once built a boat big enough to house two of each of the worlds animals, and all of which lived within walking distance of it, during which time the carnivors were seemingly going through a Vegan period. Sorry, don't mean to mock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 Good to see my beliefs being taken seriously as always. Of course, it HAS to be schizophrenia/delusion. That's far more likely - well no, actually it isn't. It's just a refusal to look for answers, which is present in atheism. If you're referring to this: How do you differentiate between people with a genuine relationship with God, and people with Schizophrenia? You may want to read over it a couple of times, then maybe read what you said back, and try again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4378 Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 It does make me chuckle that grown adults actually believe that a man once built a boat big enough to house two of each of the worlds animals, and all of which lived within walking distance of it, during which time the carnivors were seemingly going through a Vegan period. Sorry, don't mean to mock Don't forget it was only 2 of the unclean animals (why bother) and 7 pairs of the clean. "How did the Koalas get from and to Australia" is always a classic. Creationists are also willing to suggest that the flood caused the grand canyon but leave out how that fits in with native americans. Of course the real question is how can you believe in a god who metaphorically or not would drown every human and animal on earth (including innocent babies) just because he didn't like how the hebrews had turned out. What is the metaphorical lesson? - please God or drown? - loving God my arse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbo 175 Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 It does make me chuckle that grown adults actually believe that a man once built a boat big enough to house two of each of the worlds animals, and all of which lived within walking distance of it, during which time the carnivors were seemingly going through a Vegan period. Sorry, don't mean to mock Don't forget it was only 2 of the unclean animals (why bother) and 7 pairs of the clean. "How did the Koalas get from and to Australia" is always a classic. Creationists are also willing to suggest that the flood caused the grand canyon but leave out how that fits in with native americans. Of course the real question is how can you believe in a god who metaphorically or not would drown every human and animal on earth (including innocent babies) just because he didn't like how the hebrews had turned out. What is the metaphorical lesson? - please God or drown? - loving God my arse. Kind of knocks the Christian emphasis of forgiveness doesn't it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21588 Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 I'd be interested if TI believes in Noah's ark or not, plenty of religious people do. I was watching a program on TV the other day which claimed 55% of Americans believe the bible is literally true. Frightening. Btw TI, you seem like a nice person etc, but if you look back through this thread you might notice something, you've hardly answered any questions put to you to any degree of satisfaction. This seems to be quite a common trait amonst the religious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheInspiration 1 Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 Good to see my beliefs being taken seriously as always. Of course, it HAS to be schizophrenia/delusion. That's far more likely - well no, actually it isn't. It's just a refusal to look for answers, which is present in atheism. If you're referring to this: How do you differentiate between people with a genuine relationship with God, and people with Schizophrenia? You may want to read over it a couple of times, then maybe read what you said back, and try again? I think I got what you said first time, and was effectively referring to several posts as I don't have the time to reply to several posts. If I'm totally off the mark, what's your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheInspiration 1 Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 I'd be interested if TI believes in Noah's ark or not, plenty of religious people do. I was watching a program on TV the other day which claimed 55% of Americans believe the bible is literally true. Frightening. Btw TI, you seem like a nice person etc, but if you look back through this thread you might notice something, you've hardly answered any questions put to you to any degree of satisfaction. This seems to be quite a common trait amonst the religious. In all honesty, I've barely thought about the Noah's Ark story. I don't think it really matters whether someone takes it 100% literally or not, as I don't think it's that important when determining whether Christianity (or Judaism for that matter) is true. I'm quite sure there was a massive flood - the exact story I'm not too sure about. I think I've made a decent effort in answering questions. Admittedly I accept there's questions I cannot answer, but the same goes for atheists or any anyone else really. Bare in mind I've been on my own here and normally have to deal with several posts at once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4378 Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 Dawkins writing in Free Inquiry and pretty much summing up what I think: A dismally unctuous editorial in the British newspaper the Independent recently asked for a reconciliation between science and "theology." It remarked that "People want to know as much as possible about their origins." I certainly hope they do, but what on earth makes one think that theology has anything useful to say on the subject? Science is responsible for the following knowledge about our origins. We know approximately when the universe began and why it is largely hydrogen. We know why stars form and what happens in their interiors to convert hydrogen to the other elements and hence give birth to chemistry in a world of physics. We know the fundamental principles of how a world of chemistry can become biology through the arising of self-replicating molecules. We know how the principle of self-replication gives rise, through Darwinian selection, to all life, including humans. It is science and science alone that has given us this knowledge and given it, moreover, in fascinating, over-whelming, mutually confirming detail. On every one of these questions theology has held a view that has been conclusively proved wrong. Science has eradicated smallpox, can immunize against most previously deadly viruses, can kill most previously deadly bacteria. Theology has done nothing but talk of pestilence as the wages of sin. Science can predict when a particular comet will reappear and, to the second, when the next eclipse will appear. Science has put men on the moon and hurtled reconnaissance rockets around Saturn and Jupiter. Science can tell you the age of a particular fossil and that the Turin Shroud is a medieval fake. Science knows the precise DNA instructions of several viruses and will, in the lifetime of many present readers, do the same for the human genome. What has theology ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has theology ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? I have listened to theologians, read them, debated against them. I have never heard any of them ever say anything of the smallest use, anything that was not either platitudinously obvious or downright false. If all the achievements of scientists were wiped out tomorrow, there would be no doctors but witch doctors, no transport faster than horses, no computers, no printed books, no agriculture beyond subsistence peasant farming. If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest difference? Even the bad achievements of scientists, the bombs, and sonar-guided whaling vessels work! The achievements of theologians don't do anything, don't affect anything, don't mean anything. What makes anyone think that "theology" is a subject at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4378 Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 I'm quite sure there was a massive flood - the exact story I'm not too sure about. There was a possible flood of the black sea which became the subject of a Sumerian myth (Gilgamesh) - the jews simply ripped it off (as they did the concept of Satan and other thing). As I said the point is do you want a God who would drown everyone even it is just metaphorical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 I'm quite sure there was a massive flood - the exact story I'm not too sure about. There was a possible flood of the black sea which became the subject of a Sumerian myth (Gilgamesh) - the jews simply ripped it off (as they did the concept of Satan and other thing). As I said the point is do you want a God who would drown everyone even it is just metaphorical. There's plenty of floods for flood myths to choose from really, the black sea, the formation of the north sea, the med, as well as loads land lost to sea level rises all around the world. It'd be pretty amazing if we didn't have so many really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 I think I got what you said first time, and was effectively referring to several posts as I don't have the time to reply to several posts. If I'm totally off the mark, what's your point? Really? I asked how you differentiate between the two, you think I said one is equal to the other. If I ask how you differentiate between a cat and a dog, what does that mean to you? I'll break this down, it'll be fun, because it'll probably take a week to get anywhere: Do you believe in mental illness? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheInspiration 1 Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 I think I got what you said first time, and was effectively referring to several posts as I don't have the time to reply to several posts. If I'm totally off the mark, what's your point? Really? I asked how you differentiate between the two, you think I said one is equal to the other. If I ask how you differentiate between a cat and a dog, what does that mean to you? I'll break this down, it'll be fun, because it'll probably take a week to get anywhere: Do you believe in mental illness? Well if you really want to be fussy, I supposed you could always say one is schizophrenic and the other isn't. Hope this answers your question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10855 Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 I think I got what you said first time, and was effectively referring to several posts as I don't have the time to reply to several posts. If I'm totally off the mark, what's your point? Really? I asked how you differentiate between the two, you think I said one is equal to the other. If I ask how you differentiate between a cat and a dog, what does that mean to you? I'll break this down, it'll be fun, because it'll probably take a week to get anywhere: Do you believe in mental illness? Well if you really want to be fussy, I supposed you could always say one is schizophrenic and the other isn't. Hope this answers your question. not in any way shape or fashion could that be considered an answer to anything other than "can you show me an example of a man with faith avoiding a direct question?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheInspiration 1 Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 (edited) I get a sarcastic/mocking question, so I wouldn't expect the answer to be any different. Anyway, basically speaking, do people claiming to have a personal relationship with God have any other symptons experienced by schizophrenics? That's what I'm yet to find out. Edited September 10, 2007 by TheInspiration Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10855 Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 I get a sarcastic/mocking question, so I wouldn't expect the answer to be any different. Anyway, basically speaking, do people claiming to have a personal relationship with God have any other symptons experienced by schizophrenics? it can be argued, yes. but a sharp mind could also argue the existence of God, Loch Ness or the Sasquatch. doesn't make it any more or less "true" there is sketchy "evidence" for all three and I apologise if it seems I'm mocking your belief I'm just struggling to find any comparable story where there is sufficient distinction so that the argument isn't over how you worship the God I, for what it's worth, believe there were good men, pious men who told stories and wove tales in an effort to better their fellow man. This is a great and noble thing, but it has as much to do with proving the existence of omnipotent beings as spreading Jam on your toast in the morning does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 I get a sarcastic/mocking question, so I wouldn't expect the answer to be any different. Anyway, basically speaking, do people claiming to have a personal relationship with God have any other symptons experienced by schizophrenics? That's what I'm yet to find out. Not from me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 Well if you really want to be fussy, I supposed you could always say one is schizophrenic and the other isn't. Hope this answers your question. Which one is the cat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted September 11, 2007 Share Posted September 11, 2007 (edited) Good to see my beliefs being taken seriously as always. Of course, it HAS to be schizophrenia/delusion. That's far more likely - well no, actually it isn't. It's just a refusal to look for answers, which is present in atheism. Yes its is more likely Science asks and gives answers - the human brain is capable of hallucination, mood swings, psychotic tendencies and delusions - all because of an upset chemistry or cell damage - much more plausible than an invisible friend. Until there is one shred of evidence otherwise I'll stick with science. Yet strangely in the pursuit of science the human brain is well behaved.... Science has revised many of its predictions/theories/top pics over the last decade....And it might still be wrong about the existence of a God. Edited September 11, 2007 by Parky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4378 Posted September 11, 2007 Share Posted September 11, 2007 Science has revised many of its predictions/theories/top pics over the last decade....And it might still be wrong about the existence of a God. Thats how it works by definition.... and Bollocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now