Muamba

[NJS 4411]

NJS - you mention 'evil' as in talking about 'evil people'. People aren't born evil, nor are there good or evil forces. Only groups of people with different moral codes who believe they are right. Was the bloke who bombed Hirishima evil? Why did Hitler do what he did? I suspect it's because he (wrongly) believed what he was doing was right due to his past life experiences. Calling people inherently evil is a massive cop out and we need to work hard to learn why people do bad things and tackle the root causes (i.e. the degradation of society due to the media and excessive liberalism) rather than pray to a god that doesn't exist that he will help sinners see the light.

 

My experience? I spent 6 months in a country under sharia law, and it was a living hell hole devoid of any morals.

 

Where did I mention inherent evil - I thing that was Sloop John.

 

I don't believe in "evil" as an entity but people who could be described as such are usually the result of nature and nuture - psychopaths who exhibit no empathy are usually found to have miswired brain chemistry.

 

"the degradation of society due to the media and excessive liberalism" - you do realise that taking the UK or even Europe as an example, society is easily the safest and most tolerant its ever been - violent crime and murder rates are tiny compared with even a hundred years ago. I would agree however that the last 30 years has turned society a bit more nasty attitude wise - but that's down to conservative values (as practiced by Thatcher and Blair) rather than "liberalism" whatever that means.

 

You also won't find me defending Sharia - I abhor all religions equally.

[NJS 4411]

Of course Christianity didn't invent 'moral behaviour' in the sense that people should live by a set of rules...this is evident in all threads of society before the supposed death of Christ. But to say what we perceive as 'moral behaviour' nowadays existed, en masse, before the beginning of the Christian revolution is simply historically inaccurate. Christianity solidified and institutionilised nearly all the parameters of morality which exist today and whilst it is clear that society has shaken off the darker aspects of the culture that church brought to society (for instance no sex before marriage) it is also true that we have retained all the ideas which now suited and bettered society: orphanages, hospitals, the idea of social progress, the absolute virtue of being a human being, altruism as the most profound of all actions etc.

 

The rise of Christianity happened in parallel with technological and societal progress - I don't accept that Chrristianity was the cause - other civilisations over the same period also developed morally.

 

I find your dichotomy between science and religion totally bizarre. What we mean today by 'science', that is, the study and analysis of the material world - its methods, principles, controls, its desire to unite theory to discovery, its trust in a unified set of physical laws - came into existence, for whatever reasons, and for better or for worse, only within Christendom, and under the watchful eyes of Christians. Copernicus, for instance, was matriculated at a number of Christian universities and was heir to a long tradition of scholastic mathematical and astronomy which stemmed from the 13th Century. This knowledge became the foundation of his refutation of the Aristotelian view of the cosmos and would have a profound effect on fellow Christians such as Kepler, Newton and Galileo. This is one example out of thousands.

 

Ever heard of the Greek philosophers - the Islamic scholars who invented algebra or all of the the inventions from China and the far east - Christianity was only ever happy with science when it didn't conflict - when it did it was declared as heresy. Lovely mention of Galileo of course.

 

I don't believe there is a God. I'm just not arrogant enough to presume that my position is totally right. A sane position is to constantly question ones own thoughts: to read things that are in opposition to your beliefs or ideas and constantly consider the firmness of the intellectual ground you are standing on. I've read Hitchens, Dennett, Gray, Nietzsche, Dawkins, Schopenhauer as well as Chesterton, Bentley Hart, Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Pascal, Augustine, Solovyov in an attempt to get a rounded view, to see both sides equally and what is most apparent to me is that atheists (historical materialists, positivists, fundamental Darwinists etc.), even moreso than Christians, are never willing to challenge their assumptions outside of material fact but still end up recycling anti-theistic philosophical arguments that grew irrelevant in the mid-19th century, whilst at the same time, patronising those who oppose them - you're 'vengeful sky fairy' comment for example...or the Bill Maher film which chose not to engage with religion on any sane level.

 

You can't engage with religion on a sane level - its fudamentally insane by nature. You can line all up all the pseduo intellectual bollocks you like but until I see some actual evidence for any kind of God or show me any argument that goes against the nano-second reasoning that it takes to realise that's its all man made I'm happy where I am.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

My experience? I spent 6 months in a country under sharia law, and it was a living hell hole devoid of any morals.

 

Without intending to lead this discussion into farcical territory, I should point out that I have spent over 20 years living in a country under sharia law, it's called ENGLAND. And yet still, the cowardly so-called namby pamby left-leaning do-gooder types have the gall to suggest that MY real-life experiences are nothing compared to THEIR experiences of sipping lemonade with a group of lesbians every wednesday at a so-called book club. The simple fact remains that YOU have not answered MYsimple question.

 

 

Edited March 21, 2012 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt

[Inglez 0]

Didn't realise this thread was for Muamba looking at the past few pages...

[JawD 99]

I could never say there is a God, but I have a firm belief that while we say we are close to understanding the universe and creation I'd say we are barely started. Most things are theories that are there to be challenged. Thats how we progress by making the challenges and learning more, striving forward. I am certainly not atheist. I dont know what I am, I dont know why I need to be pigeon holed. Im certainly not so arrogant as to assume I know everything and that my position is steadfast as immovable. I do think Jesus was a bloke, but my own rationale struggles with any "son of God" concept. I cant stand the Church, as an organisation full of pomp and ceremony, full of its own self importance as it struggles to exist you would think it would adapt and want more people to be welcome yet its own actions and stances separates it further. Yet, I have a respect for Christianity for what it is meant to stand for but as I have a respect for other religions. Christianity in its basic message just talks sense. Things like reconciliation and forgiveness all make sense when you actually think about them, so its message is good. But there doesnt have to be a God behind all of that to make it right. More likely it was just a convenient way to control the masses centuries ago when the populace was less educated.

 

But, it has its place. It guides people through their most troubled times and who are we to want to take that away from someone? Our own arrogance saying they are just weak and unable to cope without some fictional support mechanism. For me, its very personal and so long as its not shoved in my face I really could care what someone believed. Each to their own, so long as they dont try to preach it to me.

[SloopJohn 0]

The rise of Christianity happened in parallel with technological and societal progress - I don't accept that Chrristianity was the cause - other civilisations over the same period also developed morally.

 

But not scientifically? I never said it was for better but you must admit that Christianity was one of the causes? It goes against all historical logic to deny it.

 

Ever heard of the Greek philosophers - the Islamic scholars who invented algebra or all of the the inventions from China and the far east - Christianity was only ever happy with science when it didn't conflict - when it did it was declared as heresy. Lovely mention of Galileo of course.

 

Of course I've heard of all those people. In fact I mentioned Aristotle in last my post didn't I? It is worth mentioning though that nearly all the texts you cite were preserved by Islam and then by the Catholic Church and wouldn't exist if wasn't for these two particular religions.

 

Well Galileo was interesting case: he was unfortunate enough to coincide within a time of great institutional crisis within the Catholic Church. His appeal to the Vatican that scripture not ought be interpreted literally would've been regarded as fair half a century before (as Augustine and Aquinas were both in favour of a multi-layered interpretation of the Bible) but in response to a growing Lutheran critique, the Catholic Church attempted to set it's stall out by attacking anyone who questioned their doctrine and one of the ways to solidify their message was to take a singular stance on Biblical interpretation.

 

That being said Galileo, in the weeks leading up to his trial, still had strong support within the church, if I recall correctly, Campanella, an influential Dominican, wrote a letter to the Vatican in his defense whilst Foscarini, a Carmelite, supported Galileo in his refutation of a Copernican interpretation of the universe in relation to scripture. and of course, one of his best friends would go on to be Pope Urban VIII.

 

Galileo wasn't exactly a saint either. He spent huge amounts of time belittling his colleagues in astronomy, such as Joseph Kepler and Horatio Grassi and refused to credit astronomers who had come to the same conclusions he had. Indeed the Catholic Church only forbid Galileo teaching Copernicanism initially because Galileo had no sole objective proof for its existence (you may find that ironic!). It is also worth noting that the Copernican model would go on to be proved only a hypothesis, and a defective one at that, and there was never enough sufficient evidence, mathematical or otherwise, to support its claims. Galileo was no doubt one of the most gifted astronomers of his age, if not the most gifted up to that point in human history, his actions were questionable...particular his relentless criticism of Urban VIII, a man who treated him with honor and ludicrous indulgence, and his propagation of a theory of the universe that at it's very core, was utterly flawed.

 

That being said, what happened to Galileo was dreadful and in no way am I advocating his treatment but if you look through the history of the church throughout this period, it was more an exception than a general rule considering the extreme Ecclesiastical patronage that was available to scientists of the time and that most of these scientists were Jesuits.

 

You can't engage with religion on a sane level - its fudamentally insane by nature. You can line all up all the pseduo intellectual bollocks you like but until I see some actual evidence for any kind of God or show me any argument that goes against the nano-second reasoning that it takes to realise that's its all man made I'm happy where I am.

 

Christianity does not deny that everything is man made. However I see your point and its fair one, but I must admit to dismiss Pascal, Kant, Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky as pseudo intellectual bollocks doesn't exactly help your cause - these are all authors who can be found in any western canon.

[NJS 4411]

The quote function is still erratic for me so excuse the medieval layout:

 

"But not scientifically? I never said it was for better but you must admit that Christianity was one of the causes? It goes against all historical logic to deny it."

 

I don't deny the churches set up universities and were involved in education (with an ulterior motive as ever but that's by the by) but the men you mentioned weren't in science at the behest of the church - they were just keen minds in their own right. I know people like Newton are held up as "good Christians" but that just has to be seen in the context of a time when just about everyone was so I don't hold much stall by it - as well as the fact he dabbled in the "heretic" alchemy.

 

I think the diversity berwtten religion and science is a more modern thing as apart from astronomy there wasn't much "conflict" until Darwin. I think now that we know so much (but I realise just scratching the surface) about the universe its harder to find any kind of common ground. As I've said on here before in the context of a 6000 year old Earth, christianity "makes sense" with less actual questions to be answered than when you start accepting the truth and our specie's place in it.

 

On philospohy I admit to a being a practical bloke - I don't mind intelligent thought if its from a "reality" based viewpoint but as soon as it it strays into theology then I tend to call bullshit.

[NJS 4411]

Getting back to the start of the topic, I just remembered I read this earlier so thought I'd pinch it - one for Luke and Cath:

 

There was a glitch in the computer system at the pearly gates and so a long queue had formed for people to be checked and welcomed into heaven. The queue was moving slowly when a bloke with a white coat and stethoscope round his neck walked to the front "excuse me, excuse me. Thank you sir". And walked right in. At the front was a nurse who muttered "Typical bloody doctor". St Peter looked up and said "no maam. That's God. He just thinks he's a doctor"

[ChezGiven 0]

SJ, I have no idea what point you are trying to make about Christianity and science but it's a load of shite. Astronomy in the medieval Christian church is ridiculously behind the advanced astronomy of the ancients. The role the church plays in science in that period is a function of its role in society. Sciences advances despite the church, not because of it. It doesnt even catch up to where it was 1000s of years before Galileo.

[JonGoodwyn 1]

Aye, the Greeks knew their shit when it came to technology, science and astronomy. Just one example is the Antikythera mechanism, which is pretty mental - much more advanced technology & understanding of astronomy than anyone else had until well into the 1500's. The Babylonian calendar was meant to be even better than the Greek's - and far better than the Churches for a long long time.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

The Greeks were also way ahead of their time in terms of douche technology, due to their proclivity for anal sex. They would clear the passageway with the staff of Zeus before festivities began. As we all know, the catholic church have undertaken a huge effort in the last century to catch up with the Greek's knowledge when it comes to bumming young boys.

[SloopJohn 0]

The quote function is still erratic for me so excuse the medieval layout:

 

"But not scientifically? I never said it was for better but you must admit that Christianity was one of the causes? It goes against all historical logic to deny it."

 

I don't deny the churches set up universities and were involved in education (with an ulterior motive as ever but that's by the by) but the men you mentioned weren't in science at the behest of the church - they were just keen minds in their own right. I know people like Newton are held up as "good Christians" but that just has to be seen in the context of a time when just about everyone was so I don't hold much stall by it - as well as the fact he dabbled in the "heretic" alchemy.

 

Well Urban VIII was a Pope, so I'm not sure how he doesn't count as being at the behest of the church.

 

Of course everyone nearly everyone was a Christian back then - but let me ask you this - if these minds are as erudite as you make out - surely they were thinking, rational types who were also comfortable with dismissing a theory if they didn't agree with it. So to say 'oh they just accepted Christianity because it was the status quo' about a mind such as Newtons, a mind that is the origin of the theory of gravity, is a little odd. Voltaire was comfortable dismissing religion, and he predates Newton and was (well, relatively) a contemporary of Pascals...

 

If you've ever met a religious person, which I'm assuming you have, you'll know the emphasis they put on how their faith affects all aspects of their lives...this is an axiom of any recorded religious thought of the past two thousand years...so I think it's only fair to say that this aspect of said scientists lives had an impact on their work, whether it is for good or for bad is another matter. It certainly didn't stop Newton dabbling in a touch of alchemy though

 

I think the diversity berwtten religion and science is a more modern thing as apart from astronomy there wasn't much "conflict" until Darwin. I think now that we know so much (but I realise just scratching the surface) about the universe its harder to find any kind of common ground. As I've said on here before in the context of a 6000 year old Earth, christianity "makes sense" with less actual questions to be answered than when you start accepting the truth and our specie's place in it.

 

On philospohy I admit to a being a practical bloke - I don't mind intelligent thought if its from a "reality" based viewpoint but as soon as it it strays into theology then I tend to call bullshit.

 

Well the origins of the idea of discrepancy between religion and science is literalism which is still a relatively new phenomenon in the church, and literally interpreting the Bible has always been a method of conservatism for the church (witness the rise of Creationism in the 20th Century in the face of Materialism). If Darwin's theory of evolution had been stumbled upon in the 14th Century, it would've of most likely been accepted by the church as it was commonplace within scholastic traditions to not interpret Genesis on a literal level (Augustine interpret Genesis literally but it's so far removed from the bizarre tract of Creationism that its barely worth mentioning) and thus there would've been no friction.

 

Christianity, at least in what we know of it's initial un-institutionalised apolitical pre-Nicaean form, was never concerned with answering questions of how the world came to be but rather of why the world came to be and how one should act in this life. It was a pragmatic religion above all and a revolutionary one at that..

[SloopJohn 0]

SJ, I have no idea what point you are trying to make about Christianity and science but it's a load of shite. Astronomy in the medieval Christian church is ridiculously behind the advanced astronomy of the ancients. The role the church plays in science in that period is a function of its role in society. Sciences advances despite the church, not because of it. It doesnt even catch up to where it was 1000s of years before Galileo.

 

Astronomy in the medieval church was largely founded on, and in opposition to, the Aristotelian model, which was the most influential astronomical theory to emerge into Roman culture...whether it was the most correct, in relation to our knowledge nowadays, I'm not qualified to comment on.

 

However in contrary to what you claim regarding science, thousands of years before Galileo, the sciences, as we understand the term, were actually in a terrible shape. I'm going to whip out a quote here from David C. Lindberg, who is one of the most celebrated historians of the past decade:

 

"It is agreed by most historians of ancient science that creative Greek science was on the wane, perhaps as early as 200 B.C., certainly by 200 A.D. Science had never been pursued by very many people; it now attracted even fewer. And its character shifted away from original thought toward commentary and abridgement. Creative natural science was particularly scarce in the Roman world, where scholarly interests leaned in the direction of ethics and metaphysics; such natural science as Rome possessed was largely confined to fragments preserved in handbooks and encyclopedias"

 

He also notes that there is little evidence to support the claim that:

 

"the advent of Christianity did anything to diminish the support given to scientific activity or the number of people involved in it"

 

In fact, there is a lot of evidence to suggest the opposite. The 6th Century Christian theorist, and critic of Aristotelian astronomy, John Philoponus had a profound effect on Galileo (amongst other things he theorised that space was a vacuum, that light moves and the eye receives it due to the rules of optical geography) and his research was directly governed by his faith. He believed the entire universe was a creature of God, and thus everything in existence was part of natural order governed by discernible rational laws. Unlike a pagan thinker, who would've been unable to deny the divinity of the night sky, Philoponus was able to cast off metaphysical dogma and thus question the scientific assumptions of his time..

 

Indeed his thought was taken up by Islamic scholars such as Bajja and later, scholastic thinkers such as Oresme and Buridan and if it wasn't for the Islamic invasion of Alexandria in the 7th Century, a lot of Kepler and Galileo's theories about the universe may have been arrived at a lot earlier...

[toonotl 3116]

*messages from inside the bubble

 

That you can mention Galileo without a hint of irony is bemusing.

 

On your apparent disbelief in god. You're obviously confused. Perhaps you were raised xtian or have been around it alot. I can't really relate to that. But you're obviously an intelligent guy. Stop playing the apoligist its ok to reengage your reasonable mind and realise that religion is horseshit. Wholesale. It's simple functional. Initially it was useful as a mechanism to explain the mysterious. But over time science has taken that mantel so religion is left with its archaic ability to control the gullible. There's no need to defend something that is so clearly a fairytale for, in the words Nietzsche, 'women and weak-minded men'. Sorry lasses and CT.

 

Its a shame that a hebrew casus belli against various baal worshiping gentile infidels needed to be so long winded. The first half of the old testament could have been condensed to, 'yippee ki yay motherfuckers'. It would have saved you a lot of consternation and burnt midnight oil. As well as millions of lives but thats something else.

 

On your problem with the same old atheist arguments against religion and my patronising tone. Firstly, their are only so many apoligist arguments and they are all exercises in the reidiculous. They involve the suspension of logic, deductive reasoning, leaps of faith and simple down and dirty stupidity. The reason the same anti-theist arguments persist is because the opposition to them is mute. If you have a problem with that perhaps you should consider the validity of your side's argument in the first instance.

 

On my patronising tone. I apoligise but I struggle to treat this argument very seriously. I think I'm doing quite well personally. How long would you spend arguing with me if I insisted there was a flying spaghetti monster in the ether who cares about you deeply?

Edited March 22, 2012 by toonotl

[SloopJohn 0]

That you can mention Galileo without a hint of irony is bemusing.

 

Did you read my other post about Galileo?

 

On your apparent disbelief in god. You're obviously confused. Perhaps you were raised xtian or have been around it alot. I can't really relate to that. But you're obviously an intelligent guy. Stop playing the apoligist its ok to reengage your reasonable mind and realise that religion is horseshit. Wholesale. It's simple functional. Initially it was useful as a mechanism to explain the mysterious. But over time science has taken that mantel so religion is left with its archaic ability to control the gullible. There's no need to defend something that is so clearly a fairytale for, in the words Nietzsche, 'women and weak-minded men'. Sorry lasses and CT.

 

Its a shame that a hebrew casus belli against various baal worshiping gentile infidels needed to be so long winded. The first half of the old testament could have been condensed to, 'yippee ki yay motherfuckers'. It would have saved you a lot of consternation and burnt midnight oil. As well as millions of lives but thats something else.

 

Firstly I'd like to point out that I'm not here to defend Christianity the religion, I'm here to defend it's role in history - new atheism has totally re-written modern history to it's own ends - Hitchen's book is a case in point - it is so full of historical errors it is impossible to keep track of them all. I'm not looking to convert anyone, hell no, I'm just fascinated that no one cares about getting the historical facts straight and don't care when individuals, like Dawkins, like Hitchens, like Dennett, like Harris, twist facts to their own means against all academic opinion...

 

I don't want to get drawn into an argument about how many people died or whether the Old Testament was ever meant to be a historical account (which clearly, if you read my posts, I don't believe it is). Of course millions died in you read the Old Testament literally, but also millions have died in the name of social progress. So who's right?

 

Nietzsche was a brilliant thinker but from your posts I doubt you'd agree with him about much - if he said that about Christianity then you must be worried about what his assessment of humanism must've been.

 

On your problem with the same old atheist arguments against religion and my patronising tone. Firstly, their are only so many apoligist arguments and they are all exercises in the reidiculous. They involve the suspension of logic, deductive reasoning, leaps of faith and simple down and dirty stupidity. The reason the same anti-theist arguments persist is because the opposition to them is mute. If you have a problem with that perhaps you should consider the validity of your side's argument in the first instance.

 

On my patronising tone. I apoligise but I struggle to treat this argument very seriously. I think I'm doing quite well personally. How long would you spend arguing with me if I insisted there was a flying spaghetti monster in the ether who cares about you deeply?

 

I think you'll find, as equally, atheism requires the suspension of logic, deductive reasoning, leaps of faith and dirty stupiditiy (sic) - there are philosophical and historical mistakes in Dawkin's book that an undergraduate would be embarrassed to make. This is not to say, however, that there aren't fantastic arguments against Christianity and that a lot of them hold weight (Nietzsche and Feuerbach are the two obvious geniuses on the side of atheism) but for instance, Russell's teapot and Dawkins spaghetti monster are two examples of popular atheistic ideas that rest on uneasy ground philosophically.

 

I'd also think you'd find that if you did a little bit of research, you'd find apologist arguments, in a lot of ways, quite valid, but I doubt you want to do that - why should a liberal be open minded?

[trophyshy 7084]

Thanks to the contributors to this thread, very interesting conversation.

 

Sloop your encyclopaedic knowledge of the protagonists in this journey is impressive (and slightly bewildering), that much has to be acknowledged.

 

Is this a personal interest or work/study related? Tell me to mind my own business if I'm twisting your free will.

 

Seemingly nowt wrong with Muamba after 78 minutes of being dead. That's as close to miraculous as it gets tbf.

[ChezGiven 0]

Your Lindberg quote doesnt refute the point i made and whether the Greeks were on the wane or not at that time is irrelevant to whether Hinduism is a heliocentric religion, or whether the ancient Egyptians were heliocentric in their astronomy. Sumerian and then Babylonian astronomers are the fathers of Hellenistic astronomy. We know little of their planetary theory but their world view was not geocentric. Hipparchus (whose work we know about only through Ptolemy, a geocentric) is credited as discovering 'precession'. Yet precessional architecture is everywhere in Egpyt, whose ancient culture is linked to the Sumerian, Nubian and pre-Babylonian cultures. Who all have advanced astronomy and theories that are largely ignored by the western christian world view.

 

I still cant discern what actual point about science and christianity you are making either?

[SloopJohn 0]

Your Lindberg quote doesnt refute the point i made and whether the Greeks were on the wane or not at that time is irrelevant to whether Hinduism is a heliocentric religion, or whether the ancient Egyptians were heliocentric in their astronomy. Sumerian and then Babylonian astronomers are the fathers of Hellenistic astronomy. We know little of their planetary theory but their world view was not geocentric. Hipparchus (whose work we know about only through Ptolemy, a geocentric) is credited as discovering 'precession'. Yet precessional architecture is everywhere in Egpyt, whose ancient culture is linked to the Sumerian, Nubian and pre-Babylonian cultures. Who all have advanced astronomy and theories that are largely ignored by the western christian world view.

 

The point I was making was that Christianity was heir to a Aristotelian, geocentric cosmological tradition that they had no choice over inheriting - it was as much of fault of paganism and as it was of Christianity that these other traditions were ignored.

 

Might I add that is perhaps fair to say that the lack of real scientific advances in the post-Byzantine period, between the 8th and 13th Centuries, is down to Islam inheriting a deeply flawed late Hellenistic tradition which whilst improved upon in some measure, particularly in the field of optics and astronomical calculation of the calendar, didn't advance beyond Aristotelian science or Ptolemaic astronomy.

 

To say that Christianity ignored these traditions on purpose is simply not true and their astrological tradition was simply a continuation of what had come before...

 

I still cant discern what actual point about science and christianity you are making either?

 

There is this myth in modern culture, propagated by historians such as Draper and Freeman, that once upon a time there was a flowering of Hellenistic culture; a culture that cherished reason, lauded clear thinking, pursued science and high philosophy. Then, as if out of nowhere, the dark shadow of an ignorant Christendom descended upon these poor souls, trapping them in a cage of irrational metaphysical dogma that stalled the progress of Hellenistic culture and extinguished the raging conflagration of pagan thought. 500 years passed, and thanks to Islam, Christianity, and more specifically, Copernicus, discovered heliocentrism, as if by magic, and reason began its indisputable, triumphant march through the murky mists of faith, leading us towards the bright lights of modernity which we have arrived at today.

 

This is of course, a total myth and goes against all historical evidence of the last two thousand years...

 

that's my point

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

Religion is utter bollocks.

[PaddockLad 17683]

Religion is utter bollocks.

 

wait till sloopjohn reads that....reckon he's a bit of a "trendy vicar"....like the bloke from Rev, or Simon Mayo etc etc...

[SloopJohn 0]

Religion is utter bollocks.

 

wait till sloopjohn reads that....reckon he's a bit of a "trendy vicar"....like the bloke from Rev, or Simon Mayo etc etc...

 

[SloopJohn 0]

Thanks to the contributors to this thread, very interesting conversation.

 

Sloop your encyclopaedic knowledge of the protagonists in this journey is impressive (and slightly bewildering), that much has to be acknowledged.

 

Is this a personal interest or work/study related? Tell me to mind my own business if I'm twisting your free will.

 

Seemingly nowt wrong with Muamba after 78 minutes of being dead. That's as close to miraculous as it gets tbf.

 

Well I studied Eastern philosophy a bit in my MA so that got my interested, plus one of my best friends did a PhD in Ethics at Oxford and is a pretty strong Christian so he was always challenging me, particularly during my more nihilistic years

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

I've not been following the discussion in its entirety. SJ you said you don't believe in a god, or am I mistaken? What's the crux of the discussion here, whether religion in its various forms has been a force for good/human progression, or not? Or just arguing over whether or not Christianity stultified the sciences etc?

[Kid Dynamite 7181]

Back to the main topic. This poses an interesting question to the current resuscitation guidelines. When I worked in A&E cardiac arrests usually got 20-30minutes CPR and 3 shocks before being called as a death, give or take.

 

Here we have a bloke whose heart has stopped for 78minutes and has been given 12 separate shocks and it looks like he is going to make a very good recovery with minimal to no brain damage

[toonarmy108 0]

People are entitled to send whatever well wishes they want be it prayer or simply keeping someone else in their thoughts.

 

Religion to me has always been something that should be personal rather than forced on atheism, the same is true of atheist wumming too which is becoming quite a popular past time nowadays.

I agree with you there militant athesists really do get on my nerves, it seems like all they want is attention, and in a way have become a religon themselves massive hypocrites i have to say. I think people should stop critizing others religons and their belif in god. People need to look for reasons to LOVE not hate.