The root of all evil

[Renton 18766]

It's all religion's fault. We'd be much better off with atheists. Hitler, Stalin, Mao woulf be great examples.

 

Wink or no wink, Hitler wasn't an atheist, and I'm fairly sure the others didn't commit their atrocities because of their lack of belief in God. Religious fundamentalists on the other hand..........

[The Fish 9550]

It's all religion's fault. We'd be much better off with atheists. Hitler, Stalin, Mao woulf be great examples.

 

 

you're not seriously wanting someone to list the number of murderous bastards who have massacred people in the name of religion?

[NJS 4068]

Would that be Adolf "Choir Boy, given power by Rome to appoint bishops, wrote in Mein Kampf of the Lord's work, never excommunicated but still named as a fucking atheist" Hitler.

 

As Renton said Atheism wasn't their ethos.

[TheInspiration 1]

In all honesty, I'm disgusted at some of the stuff that's caused by religion, though if you think about the number of followers it has it shouldn't be surprising. And also, there's many ways you can criticise atheists too. Dawkins must be a hypocrite if he encourages a "blasphemy challenge", as if Christians have done something personal to hurt him. As for the leaders I mentioned, true Hitler wasn't an atheist (stupidty from me), but do you think they'd have still killed so many if they were strong religious followes?

 

I think banning religion wouldn't do any good in the world imo. People forget all the wonderful things that have come from it.

 

As for Dawkins' work, well there's no doubting he's an outstanding scientist and puts forward some interesting arguments, however I've failed to find them convinving enough to sway my beliefs. I also think he misunderstands the Christian belief and faith.

[Jimbo 133]

In all honesty, I'm disgusted at some of the stuff that's caused by religion, though if you think about the number of followers it has it shouldn't be surprising. And also, there's many ways you can criticise atheists too. Dawkins must be a hypocrite if he encourages a "blasphemy challenge", as if Christians have done something personal to hurt him. As for the leaders I mentioned, true Hitler wasn't an atheist (stupidty from me), but do you think they'd have still killed so many if they were strong religious followes?

 

I think banning religion wouldn't do any good in the world imo. People forget all the wonderful things that have come from it.

 

As for Dawkins' work, well there's no doubting he's an outstanding scientist and puts forward some interesting arguments, however I've failed to find them convinving enough to sway my beliefs. I also think he misunderstands the Christian belief and faith.

 

 

Despite the fact there is no evidence supporting the claims of the bible whatsoever ?

[NJS 4068]

I also think he misunderstands the Christian belief and faith.

 

Do I need to study Fairies or Astrology in any depth to know they're nonsense?

 

Do I need a degree in classics to dismiss Zeus?

 

"Theology" fails by its definition - the study of something that does not exist. The Sky God of an inerrant bible has been proved to be a lie so they move the goalposts to "something that exists ouside of space and time" - fair enough but that fucker isn't the Abrahamic God that "ordinary" believers pray to.

[Renton 18766]

In any case, Dawkins knows far more about christianity and the Bible than the vast majority of christians do, you included TheInspiration, I bet. Read the book before you criticise it. It's clear to me that several christian reviewers didn't bother reading it, which is quite amusing.

[TheInspiration 1]

In all honesty, I'm disgusted at some of the stuff that's caused by religion, though if you think about the number of followers it has it shouldn't be surprising. And also, there's many ways you can criticise atheists too. Dawkins must be a hypocrite if he encourages a "blasphemy challenge", as if Christians have done something personal to hurt him. As for the leaders I mentioned, true Hitler wasn't an atheist (stupidty from me), but do you think they'd have still killed so many if they were strong religious followes?

 

I think banning religion wouldn't do any good in the world imo. People forget all the wonderful things that have come from it.

 

As for Dawkins' work, well there's no doubting he's an outstanding scientist and puts forward some interesting arguments, however I've failed to find them convinving enough to sway my beliefs. I also think he misunderstands the Christian belief and faith.

 

 

Despite the fact there is no evidence supporting the claims of the bible whatsoever ?

I think there's logic involved. There's a lot of historical evidence pointing to the existence of a man named Jesus. If Jesus' crucifixion was faked or if he didn't actually rise from the dead this would be proven and passed on through generations.

 

People consider the writings of the likes of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle valid, and they were were written years before Jesus was born.

 

I'm not going to believe in the Bible if it appeared completely illogical and just ridiculous. My beleif is mainly due to personal experiences.

[Jimbo 133]

In all honesty, I'm disgusted at some of the stuff that's caused by religion, though if you think about the number of followers it has it shouldn't be surprising. And also, there's many ways you can criticise atheists too. Dawkins must be a hypocrite if he encourages a "blasphemy challenge", as if Christians have done something personal to hurt him. As for the leaders I mentioned, true Hitler wasn't an atheist (stupidty from me), but do you think they'd have still killed so many if they were strong religious followes?

 

I think banning religion wouldn't do any good in the world imo. People forget all the wonderful things that have come from it.

 

As for Dawkins' work, well there's no doubting he's an outstanding scientist and puts forward some interesting arguments, however I've failed to find them convinving enough to sway my beliefs. I also think he misunderstands the Christian belief and faith.

 

 

Despite the fact there is no evidence supporting the claims of the bible whatsoever ?

I think there's logic involved. There's a lot of historical evidence pointing to the existence of a man named Jesus. If Jesus' crucifixion was faked or if he didn't actually rise from the dead this would be proven and passed on through generations.

 

People consider the writings of the likes of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle valid, and they were were written years before Jesus was born.

 

I'm not going to believe in the Bible if it appeared completely illogical and just ridiculous. My beleif is mainly due to personal experiences.

 

Walking on water

 

Water into wine

 

Earth created in six days

 

Virgin birth

 

Planet earth being only 10,000 years old

 

Creation not evolution

 

I see your point, its not in the slightest bit ilogical or ridiculous.

[The Fish 9550]

I don't think many people believe that there was a bloke called Jesus and that he had some good idea.

 

I think it's the whole son/prophet of an all powerful, all knowing God that they find difficult to believe.

[NJS 4068]

There's a lot of historical evidence pointing to the existence of a man named Jesus. If Jesus' crucifixion was faked or if he didn't actually rise from the dead this would be proven and passed on through generations.

 

There a lot less evidence than you think - most is contrived to fit the belief rather than being unquestionable.

 

I'm not 100% sure he existed but tend to err on the positive - if he did he may have said some good things (Filed under "stating the bleeding obvious") but the supernatural part of it is as far-fetched as Jason & The Argonauts or perhaps more apt the legend of Mithras.

[Papa Lazaru 0]

In any case, Dawkins knows far more about christianity and the Bible than the vast majority of christians do, you included TheInspiration, I bet. Read the book before you criticise it. It's clear to me that several christian reviewers didn't bother reading it, which is quite amusing.

 

You've got to love those people who completely hammer something they haven't read/seen/heard, not that this is exclusive to religious people!

 

I was watching the documentary about the furore over The Life of Brian on channel 4 and some of the people on their were truly laughable. Councils had banned the film from their district and when questioned on it said they hadn't seen a showing of it (even though they could have) but felt free to deny other grown adults the choice of watching it because it offended their religious sensibilities.

 

They also showed footgae of the debate between Cleese/Palin for the film and some bishop/Malcolm Muggeridge against it. And by god did the two against it coem across as the most arrogant, obnoxious, petty and childish pair of pricks possible, whilst Cleese and Palin maintained alot of dignity and class in the face of essentially abuse at times. Obviously they walked the argument because they were right, but as Cleese revealed he had a stock of quotes from Muggeridge that he could have used to destroy him and his argument but he held back as he felt sorry for the bloke!

 

I've always said that is somebody is genuinely strong in their faith, has no doubts and knows they are right then they can take any criticism or humour aimed at their religion. But if you can't take it, then it shows a distinct lack of faith and that you have alot of doubts about being right if a comedy film will cause untold havoc in your religion!

[Renton 18766]

There's a lot of historical evidence pointing to the existence of a man named Jesus. If Jesus' crucifixion was faked or if he didn't actually rise from the dead this would be proven and passed on through generations.

 

There a lot less evidence than you think - most is contrived to fit the belief rather than being unquestionable.

 

I'm not 100% sure he existed but tend to err on the positive - if he did he may have said some good things (Filed under "stating the bleeding obvious") but the supernatural part of it is as far-fetched as Jason & The Argonauts or perhaps more apt the legend of Mithras.

 

He was missed by the major historians of the time, that's for sure. Also the gospels of the New Testament contradict each other a lot, and are full of historical innacuracies. There is no evidence that the slaughter of the children instigated by Herod ever happened, for instance (if it had their should be Roman records of it).

[NJS 4068]

He was missed by the major historians of the time, that's for sure. Also the gospels of the New Testament contradict each other a lot, and are full of historical innacuracies. There is no evidence that the slaughter of the children instigated by Herod ever happened, for instance (if it had their should be Roman records of it).

 

The census, which was actually an invention to get the birth to Bethlehem as prophesised, never happened in Herod's reign.

 

More generally on morality hundreds of religions all over the world all came up with the same general principles - a clear indication that those morals are human nature rather the "god given" - the only thing really supplied by religions is the petty dogma.

 

I think the mainly Chrisian notion that the only thing that keeps people from behaving "like animals" is the fear or love of God is the most insidious, evil notion ever raised.

Edited January 6, 2007 by NJS

[Renton 18766]

There's a lot of historical evidence pointing to the existence of a man named Jesus. If Jesus' crucifixion was faked or if he didn't actually rise from the dead this would be proven and passed on through generations.

 

There a lot less evidence than you think - most is contrived to fit the belief rather than being unquestionable.

 

I'm not 100% sure he existed but tend to err on the positive - if he did he may have said some good things (Filed under "stating the bleeding obvious") but the supernatural part of it is as far-fetched as Jason & The Argonauts or perhaps more apt the legend of Mithras.

 

He was missed by the major historians of the time, that's for sure. Also the gospels of the New Testament contradict each other a lot, and are full of historical innacuracies. There is no evidence that the slaughter of the children instigated by Herod ever happened, for instance (if it had their should be Roman records of it).

 

Without getting into main discussion, there was no reason for the major historians to write about one seemingly insignificant bloke in a far flung province. It tended to be Jewish historians who chronicled bits about his life as they had an interest in the matter. The Romans were meticulous record keepers, but an awful lot was lost when the Empire fell. A lot of evidence used for the period is archaeological or in the form of inscriptions.

 

Fair enough, I tend to think there was a charismatic mentally ill man called Jesus about 2000 years ago. But the fact that the gospels were written decades or even centuries after his death, and were cherry picked from many more documents by the early popes, hardly fills me with confidence they are accurate.

[TheInspiration 1]

Alright, I haven't read the book as a whole, but I've read extracts of it and other books, and have seen his documentaries, such as the one this thread is based on. I haven't even knocked the book anyway, but that doesn't mean I'm unaware of his arguments.

 

As for belief. I know this sounds completely stupid and delusional but the reason there's so many Christians with strong faith is because of countless personal meetings with God. I can guarantee some reading this probably have their head in hands already, but if so that just underlines their arrogance. I've seen many things which could only be considred the work of God, and those that atheists just haven't seen themselves. How can people disprove speaking in tongues? In other cases, why is it so many people think it's all in their head, not God speaking to them, yet it keeps re-occuring. I've heard lots of fascinating stories regarding people I know, where people have been told to speak to people, despite initially rejecting it, and in the end save people's lives because of it. I've also seen closes friends be in what looks like a trance or being possessed, like with laughter or crying, yet the events are still really peaceful and moving to them. This happening in huge Christian camps during worship. Why would this be?

[NJS 4068]

Why would this be?

 

What you need to research is Psychiatry and Neurology - those two might not have all the answers but I do know that the effects you describe can be chemically induced in any brain - see the book of Revelation as evidence.

[Jimbo 133]

I've seen many things which could only be considred the work of God.

 

So you've decided to hide these world changing events from the world as a whole ?

 

[Renton 18766]

Alright, I haven't read the book as a whole, but I've read extracts of it and other books, and have seen his documentaries, such as the one this thread is based on. I haven't even knocked the book anyway, but that doesn't mean I'm unaware of his arguments.

 

As for belief. I know this sounds completely stupid and delusional but the reason there's so many Christians with strong faith is because of countless personal meetings with God. I can guarantee some reading this probably have their head in hands already, but if so that just underlines their arrogance. I've seen many things which could only be considred the work of God, and those that atheists just haven't seen themselves. How can people disprove speaking in tongues? In other cases, why is it so many people think it's all in their head, not God speaking to them, yet it keeps re-occuring. I've heard lots of fascinating stories regarding people I know, where people have been told to speak to people, despite initially rejecting it, and in the end save people's lives because of it. I've also seen closes friends be in what looks like a trance or being possessed, like with laughter or crying, yet the events are still really peaceful and moving to them. This happening in huge Christian camps during worship. Why would this be?

 

Why are their millions of muslims who believe in Allah? Why are you right and they wrong? If that's not supreme arrogance then I don't know what is.

[Papa Lazaru 0]

Alright, I haven't read the book as a whole, but I've read extracts of it and other books, and have seen his documentaries, such as the one this thread is based on. I haven't even knocked the book anyway, but that doesn't mean I'm unaware of his arguments.

 

As for belief. I know this sounds completely stupid and delusional but the reason there's so many Christians with strong faith is because of countless personal meetings with God. I can guarantee some reading this probably have their head in hands already, but if so that just underlines their arrogance. I've seen many things which could only be considred the work of God, and those that atheists just haven't seen themselves. How can people disprove speaking in tongues? In other cases, why is it so many people think it's all in their head, not God speaking to them, yet it keeps re-occuring. I've heard lots of fascinating stories regarding people I know, where people have been told to speak to people, despite initially rejecting it, and in the end save people's lives because of it. I've also seen closes friends be in what looks like a trance or being possessed, like with laughter or crying, yet the events are still really peaceful and moving to them. This happening in huge Christian camps during worship. Why would this be?

 

Why are their millions of muslims who believe in Allah? Why are you right and they wrong? If that's not supreme arrogance then I don't know what is.

 

Its also arrogance to completely rubbish all the ancient religions as myths and stories made up at the time then claim chritianity/judaism/islam et al are compeltely true and beyond reproach when they are equally as ludicrous/unproven with the only difference being the ancient ones were IMO interesting.

 

Theres nothing arrogant about atheism, you don't ever have to prove something doesn't exist or isn't real, that burden of proof falls entirely on the person making the claims. Thats why its called faith, you take it with no real evidence. An atheist (whether believers like it or not) remains correct until categorical prove to the contrary is produced that everyone can see and believe beyond doubt.

 

If some geek came along and stated Jedis were completely true, they existed out there in space and that he felt he'd interacted with them/seen them in a vision etc. Nobody would ever say that those of us who think he's talking bollocks have to prove it, but apprently atheists (according to some) have to prove god doesn't exist...and they do by stating he doesn't and that there is no evidence he does!

[Isegrim 9127]

I haven't read any of the books mentioned, except of parts from Russell. I am reading Paine's "Age of reason" at the moment which is quite interesting.

 

Of course there are many flaws in the bible, but just concentrating on disproving religion by pointing them out is a bit nonsensical as not even the major Christian religions do take the bible that kind of literal anymore. With that kind of accusations you might wind up a couple of religious nutters, but that's all. It's far too simple to reduce the bible in that kind of way. Christianity and the understanding of the bible have always developed and its impacts on our modern "western thinking" are far deeper than the reduction on some historical inaccuracies suggest. The goalposts have been moved right from day one.

[Renton 18766]

I haven't read any of the books mentioned, except of parts from Russell. I am reading Paine's "Age of reason" at the moment which is quite interesting.

 

Of course there are many flaws in the bible, but just concentrating on disproving religion by pointing them out is a bit nonsensical as not even the major Christian religions do take the bible that kind of literal anymore. With that kind of accusations you might wind up a couple of religious nutters, but that's all. It's far too simple to reduce the bible in that kind of way. Christianity and the understanding of the bible have always developed and its impacts on our modern "western thinking" are far deeper than the reduction on some historical inaccuracies suggest. The goalposts have been moved right from day one.

 

Nearly half of Americans believe in the Bible literally though.

[Shearergol 0]

Alright, I haven't read the book as a whole, but I've read extracts of it and other books, and have seen his documentaries, such as the one this thread is based on. I haven't even knocked the book anyway, but that doesn't mean I'm unaware of his arguments.

 

As for belief. I know this sounds completely stupid and delusional but the reason there's so many Christians with strong faith is because of countless personal meetings with God. I can guarantee some reading this probably have their head in hands already, but if so that just underlines their arrogance. I've seen many things which could only be considred the work of God, and those that atheists just haven't seen themselves. How can people disprove speaking in tongues? In other cases, why is it so many people think it's all in their head, not God speaking to them, yet it keeps re-occuring. I've heard lots of fascinating stories regarding people I know, where people have been told to speak to people, despite initially rejecting it, and in the end save people's lives because of it. I've also seen closes friends be in what looks like a trance or being possessed, like with laughter or crying, yet the events are still really peaceful and moving to them. This happening in huge Christian camps during worship. Why would this be?

 

Why are their millions of muslims who believe in Allah? Why are you right and they wrong? If that's not supreme arrogance then I don't know what is.

 

Allah and God are the same deity though. God was called Allah by the early Christians. The Islam faith believes in Jesus too, but not as God's Son, but as a prophet.

 

The difference is Renton, you're basically saying that religion is to blame for all the problems in the world - when someone has their own faith and beliefs questioned to that extent, you can surely see why they stand their ground, no? You have a (God given ) right to not believe in God; don't try and take that right away from the people who do believe.

[Papa Lazaru 0]

I haven't read any of the books mentioned, except of parts from Russell. I am reading Paine's "Age of reason" at the moment which is quite interesting.

 

Of course there are many flaws in the bible, but just concentrating on disproving religion by pointing them out is a bit nonsensical as not even the major Christian religions do take the bible that kind of literal anymore. With that kind of accusations you might wind up a couple of religious nutters, but that's all. It's far too simple to reduce the bible in that kind of way. Christianity and the understanding of the bible have always developed and its impacts on our modern "western thinking" are far deeper than the reduction on some historical inaccuracies suggest. The goalposts have been moved right from day one.

 

Nearly half of Americans believe in the Bible literally though.

 

And worst of all loads of them are in positions of serious power!

[Shearergol 0]

Alright, I haven't read the book as a whole, but I've read extracts of it and other books, and have seen his documentaries, such as the one this thread is based on. I haven't even knocked the book anyway, but that doesn't mean I'm unaware of his arguments.

 

As for belief. I know this sounds completely stupid and delusional but the reason there's so many Christians with strong faith is because of countless personal meetings with God. I can guarantee some reading this probably have their head in hands already, but if so that just underlines their arrogance. I've seen many things which could only be considred the work of God, and those that atheists just haven't seen themselves. How can people disprove speaking in tongues? In other cases, why is it so many people think it's all in their head, not God speaking to them, yet it keeps re-occuring. I've heard lots of fascinating stories regarding people I know, where people have been told to speak to people, despite initially rejecting it, and in the end save people's lives because of it. I've also seen closes friends be in what looks like a trance or being possessed, like with laughter or crying, yet the events are still really peaceful and moving to them. This happening in huge Christian camps during worship. Why would this be?

 

Why are their millions of muslims who believe in Allah? Why are you right and they wrong? If that's not supreme arrogance then I don't know what is.

 

Its also arrogance to completely rubbish all the ancient religions as myths and stories made up at the time then claim chritianity/judaism/islam et al are compeltely true and beyond reproach when they are equally as ludicrous/unproven with the only difference being the ancient ones were IMO interesting.

 

Theres nothing arrogant about atheism, you don't ever have to prove something doesn't exist or isn't real, that burden of proof falls entirely on the person making the claims. Thats why its called faith, you take it with no real evidence. An atheist (whether believers like it or not) remains correct until categorical prove to the contrary is produced that everyone can see and believe beyond doubt.

 

If some geek came along and stated Jedis were completely true, they existed out there in space and that he felt he'd interacted with them/seen them in a vision etc. Nobody would ever say that those of us who think he's talking bollocks have to prove it, but apprently atheists (according to some) have to prove god doesn't exist...and they do by stating he doesn't and that there is no evidence he does!

 

Nobody has to prove anything, IMO. I couldn't give a shit if you believe or not.