God in a Nutshell

[Fourcandles]

You don't get under my skin in the slightest.

 

I find you come across as very desperate in your attempts to justiy your "faith".

 

Your deluded beliefs are quite comical. Your beyond help. I just hope your boys are clever enough to know Dad's a bit crazy on the whole God issue. If not I really do pity them. Teaching children poisonous lies is what gets under my skin to be honest.

Whilst I am no Theist nor Deist I have generally found UK Christians to be thoughtful, kind and altruistic and i'm pretty sure Doc is one of these people.

 

A well mannered and respectful debate, sometimes even passionate, can occaissionaly spill over into rude and disrepectful which concerns me since it gives Christians entirely the wrong impression of the Humanist movement.

.

[After The Watershed]

Just to name a few:

 

Ask the Aztecs about the wars against the Portuguese and Spanish Christians. Oh, that's right, you can't they were exterminated by the Christians.

The Crusades

The wars between the Catholics and the Protestants in Europe.

World war 1 started because of a religious fanatic shot Archduke Franz Ferdinand.

The African wars between the Hutus and the Tutsi's.

The Arab-Israeli war(s) were of course, religiously motivated.

The millennia long conflicts between the Shia and the Kurds is religiously motivated.

The conflict between Israel and Lebanon (Hezbollah) is undeniably religious in nature.

The Troubles in Ireland

Rwanda 1994

Boznia-Herzegovina (and by extension Kosovo)

The Ivory Coast civil wars

Cyprus

East Timor civil war

Sri Lankan civil war

Current Iraqi civil war

Hezbollah vs. Israel

Syria vs. Israel

Kashmir civil war

Chechnya civil war

Sudan

Thirty Years War

Arguably WWII as it was religious hatred

 

Ok I still can't see any of them caused by religion. All have been caused by someone wanting to to take anothers country, wealth or deprive them of Independence or freedom. Can't be bothered going through them all but "Boznia-Herzegovina" was caused by a nations people wanting their independence. Ireland - Independence nothing to do with religion to begin with. Syria vs Israel - Land as is Palestine conflict. Even the Crusades were about the quest to get rich with religion used as an excuse not cause. As for WWII, well I don't know why you even have that in there. Nothing to do with religion and infact caused by the treatment of Germany after WWI.

You may argue anything else about religion you want but you cant say it causes war. Man's greed or quest for power does.

[southside1874]

Ok I still can't see any of them caused by religion. All have been caused by someone wanting to to take anothers country, wealth or deprive them of Independence or freedom. Can't be bothered going through them all but "Boznia-Herzegovina" was caused by a nations people wanting their independence. Ireland - Independence nothing to do with religion to begin with. Syria vs Israel - Land as is Palestine conflict. Even the Crusades were about the quest to get rich with religion used as an excuse not cause. As for WWII, well I don't know why you even have that in there. Nothing to do with religion and infact caused by the treatment of Germany after WWI.

You may argue anything else about religion you want but you cant say it causes war. Man's greed or quest for power does.

 

If its not religion that starts these wars it is certainly religion that is used to drive them and it is religion that is used to sustain them.

[2NaFish]

Even the Crusades were about the quest to get rich with religion used as an excuse not cause.

 

That is to do an injustice to the very sincere piety of those involved in the crusades. It's perhaps difficult for us as modern, largely secular interpreters to understand. I've studied the crusades as a whole, mainly focusing on the third and i've no doubt that the two protagonists were primarily driven by a sincere religious devotion - religion was very much the main cause of the crusades. Sure they could further dynastic claims by doing so but if that was all they were interested in then they could have picked far better places that jerusalem.

[southside1874]

That is to do an injustice to the very sincere piety of those involved in the crusades. It's perhaps difficult for us as modern, largely secular interpreters to understand. I've studied the crusades as a whole, mainly focusing on the third and i've no doubt that the two protagonists were primarily driven by a sincere religious devotion - religion was very much the main cause of the crusades. Sure they could further dynastic claims by doing so but if that was all they were interested in then they could have picked far better places that jerusalem.

 

I'm not too sure about that. What places other than Jerusalem could have been chosen?

[2NaFish]

I'm not too sure about that. What places other than Jerusalem could have been chosen?

 

I'm not too sure you've read what i wrote correctly - i said if all they were interested in were dynastic claims. If all they were interested in were dynastic claims then they could invaded their neighbour and taken his land.

 

Whilst its true that, given the interconnected nature of european royalty, any european noble could be said to be crusading to further dynastic claims there were always far easier and more lucrative options than crusdaing in the holy land. If we accept that then its a given that their religious convictions were what drove them. And thats simply to prove the point by process of elimination; if I wanted to i could provided positive evidence for the piety of the christians and the muslims but i can't be arsed.

[southside1874]

I'm not too sure you've read what i wrote correctly - i said if all they were interested in were dynastic claims. If all they were interested in were dynastic claims then they could invaded their neighbour and taken his land.

 

Whilst its true that, given the interconnected nature of european royalty, any european noble could be said to be crusading to further dynastic claims there were always far easier and more lucrative options than crusdaing in the holy land. If we accept that then its a given that their religious convictions were what drove them. And thats simply to prove the point by process of elimination; if I wanted to i could provided positive evidence for the piety of the christians and the muslims but i can't be arsed.

 

I don't agree with this as there was fighting between the royal households at the time of the crusade and if I am correct then the church in Rome had to give its blessing to such fighting otherwise excommunication was imposed on royal households and kingdoms. I would also say that as the Roman Church collected from the population then maybe it was the church that was greedy and required its congregation to invade other lands to bring wealth back to its congregation and into the church.

 

Its only my opinion but the Roman Church was just the Roman Empire and the Pope its emperor. They collected the money as tax and maintained rule through monotheism. They appeared to be content to sit back and watch the systematic rape of the American civilisations and theft of its wealth in the name of their church.

 

I'm sure this was all against the true teachings of Jesus Christ.

 

 

[Patrick Bateman]

I don't understand why so many Atheists have a fetish for controlling/dictating what other people believe. It makes them as bad, if not worse, than those they wish to attack and criticise.

[2NaFish]

I don't agree with this as there was fighting between the royal households at the time of the crusade and if I am correct then the church in Rome had to give its blessing to such fighting otherwise excommunication was imposed on royal households and kingdoms.

Nope.

 

I would also say that as the Roman Church collected from the population then maybe it was the church that was greedy and required its congregation to invade other lands to bring wealth back to its congregation and into the church.

 

You seem to be of the understand that the central roman church was controlling the crusades. For the majority of the crusades this isnt the case; in fact quite the opposite. Richard I landed his fleet 9 miles from rome and stayed a week - he never bothered to visit the holy father before his crusade.

 

Its only my opinion but the Roman Church was just the Roman Empire and the Pope its emperor.

 

Not quite sure what your point is, but to say that the HRE and the Pope were anything but enemies is wrong.

 

They collected the money as tax and maintained rule through monotheism. They appeared to be content to sit back and watch the systematic rape of the American civilisations and theft of its wealth in the name of their church.

 

Not sure what the americas have to do with the crusades.

I'm sure this was all against the true teachings of Jesus Christ.

 

Once, again not sure what your point is.

 

You dont really seem to be interacting with my point. So i'll state it again in its most basic form

 

The crusades were either for dynastic expansion and wealth or they were an example of genuine piety. The crusades were hugely expensive and it was far easier to further one's empire and increase one's wealth by simply attacking your neighbour - therefore - The crusades were and example of genuine piety.

[Hansel]

Oops

[Hansel]

Anything can be used for right or wrong, and religion is no exception to this. It's maybe more accurate to say, humans cause war, and religion has been used in the form of "the Devine right of kings", to exploit and pacify the masses for centuries. "The opiate of the people" as Marx said.

 

Church and state should be separate, giving people the right to chose, and buffer them from propaganda from governments/kings etc.

[southside1874]

Nope.

 

 

 

You seem to be of the understand that the central roman church was controlling the crusades. For the majority of the crusades this isnt the case; in fact quite the opposite. Richard I landed his fleet 9 miles from rome and stayed a week - he never bothered to visit the holy father before his crusade.

 

 

Not quite sure what your point is, but to say that the HRE and the Pope were anything but enemies is wrong.

 

 

Not sure what the americas have to do with the crusades.

 

 

Once, again not sure what your point is.

 

You dont really seem to be interacting with my point. So i'll state it again in its most basic form

 

The crusades were either for dynastic expansion and wealth or they were an example of genuine piety. The crusades were hugely expensive and it was far easier to further one's empire and increase one's wealth by simply attacking your neighbour - therefore - The crusades were and example of genuine piety.

 

Okay you answer "Nope" to my first point. Can you explain why Scotland was excommunicated from Rome then, at the end of the 13th and beginning of the 14th century and then explain the need for the declaration of Arbroath?

 

The simple annalogy between the American "crusade" and the desire for wealth and the Jerusalem crusade and the desire for wealth that seems to stick with me. I hope you don't feel like I'm in any way attacking your belief. I am only trying to debate and if you can offer a good answer it will dismiss my current understanding of the whole affair.

 

 

[southside1874]

You seem to be of the understand that the central roman church was controlling the crusades. For the majority of the crusades this isnt the case; in fact quite the opposite. Richard I landed his fleet 9 miles from rome and stayed a week - he never bothered to visit the holy father before his crusade.

http://www.crusades-encyclopedia.com/innocentIII.html

My thought was that it was indeed the church who rallied the troops...........................

[Ulysses]

Oops

 

Hear hear.

 

[2NaFish]

Okay you answer "Nope" to my first point. Can you explain why Scotland was excommunicated from Rome then, at the end of the 13th and beginning of the 14th century and then explain the need for the declaration of Arbroath?

 

I never studied scottish history, but Robert the Bruce was excommunicated for murder. However, even if that isnt the case, it is not true that "the church in rome had to give its blessing to wars between any royal households". It's just not true.

 

]My thought was that it was indeed the church who rallied the troops...........................

 

 

Not the central roman church though. Most of the crusades were essentially private, 'joint-stock' operations. The church didn't force anybodies hand. Naturally they were in favour of crusading though.

 

Still, my point stands absolutely. If crusaders were primarily interested in temporal gains they wouldn't have bothered going to the holy land, they would've stayed in Europe.

[Ulysses]

....the statement that religions have "NOTHING" to do with the existence of gods is outrageous.

Firstly, that's not what I said. What I said was that they have nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of gods, which is not quite the same thing. If that doesn't make sense, perhaps you should read more about Zen Buddhism, or maybe I should read less.

 

Secondly, while a kiddy-on atheist might consider the statement outrageous, a real atheist (such as myself) knows that it is in fact quite rational. Think it through for a while and you'll see what I mean. Or read some of my previous posts about the distinctions between religion, faith and gods. Jaysus knows I've posted about the subject often enough.

[Hansel]

Hear hear.

 

I see how that might look now.

I should have put double post.

[southside1874]

I never studied scottish history, but Robert the Bruce was excommunicated for murder. However, even if that isnt the case, it is not true that "the church in rome had to give its blessing to wars between any royal households". It's just not true.

 

Again I'll ask you why the need for the declaration of Arbroath?

 

 

 

Not the central roman church though. Most of the crusades were essentially private, 'joint-stock' operations. The church didn't force anybodies hand. Naturally they were in favour of crusading though.

 

Still, my point stands absolutely. If crusaders were primarily interested in temporal gains they wouldn't have bothered going to the holy land, they would've stayed in Europe.

You fail to see the point that internal wars between "christian" states gathers no real wealth as the population have already gave to the church the wealth of the land. Their is nothing to gain by one "christian" power fighting another.............for the church. I'm pretty sure that pope Urban and his lot rallied a call for the crusades and offered all who fought a path to heaven and their sins absolved. Maybe the history books I have read are different from yours but I did provide a link.

 

I'm still not sure how you can't percieve that the Roman Church was an extention of the Roman Empire and it was a way for Rome to maintain the power. Why did any disagreement of who was in line to any throne have to be settled by the Roman Church and.............its only for starters but I'll ask again..........Why the need for the Declaration of Arbroath ? Its not only Scottish history that is relevant to this.

 

 

[2NaFish]

You fail to see the point that internal wars between "christian" states gathers no real wealth as the population have already gave to the church the wealth of the land. Their is nothing to gain by one "christian" power fighting another.............for the church. I'm pretty sure that pope Urban and his lot rallied a call for the crusades and offered all who fought a path to heaven and their sins absolved. Maybe the history books I have read are different from yours but I did provide a link.

 

I would actually argue the point if i were inclined; but it neither furthers your point nor does it undermine mine - which you've never come close to addressing - so i've not spoken about it nor do i wish to. Yes, plenary indulgence was a part of the crusades, but initially (and its important to remember that earlier crusades were more popular in scope) the indulgences offered were minimal. All that your point proves is that those who took part in the crusades did it for religious reasons.

 

I'm still not sure how you can't percieve that the Roman Church was an extention of the Roman Empire and it was a way for Rome to maintain the power

 

I can't perceive it because it is utterly untrue. The history of the holy roman empire from Charlemagne's coronation on December 25th AD800 and the Roman Church was one of struggle and anagonism. Certainly in the dark ages what you say is true, but it is the exact opposite for the centuries of the crusades.

 

Why did any disagreement of who was in line to any throne have to be settled by the Roman Church.

 

Thats not true. Every single succession in English history between 871 and 1215 was disputed; every single one. Not one of them was settled by the church in rome. Eustace of Boulagne possibly carried a papal banner at hastings, but William the Conqueror bought that (it also helped that William's Archbishop of Canterbury used to teach the man who was pope in '66.

 

Why the need for the Declaration of Arbroath ? Its not only Scottish history that is relevant to this.

Not a clue. If the declaration of arbroath proves that the crusades were not a religious war then i'll be utterly amazed.

[Ulysses]

However upon reading up on it (and I have read up on it in the past day) there is most definitely a religious element to it with the Tutsi and Hutu?s. Seemingly when the Tutsi?s refused to covert to Catholicism (unlike the Hutu?s) they had land confiscated by them by the government and rewarded the Hutu?s for their conversion. This installing tensions that stem over 100 years.

 

Ah, Wikipedia - the source of all truth and wisdom.

 

The guy who wrote that also claimed that the Tutsi were originally Jewish, and claimed that this could be proved by the fact that Tutsi were racially different to Hutu. This is in spite of the fact that every anthropological study ever conducted shows that the Hutu and Tutsi were racially indistinguishable from each other. It also seems fair to point out that Rwanda was colonised by Belgium and Germany - both of which are mixed-religion countries.

 

There's another Wikipedia page that says the exact opposite, i.e. that the Germans favoured the Tutsi because they were more willing than the Hutu to convert to Catholicism. I wonder which is true. I wonder if either is true.

 

It's also worth bearing in mind that the third tribe in Rwanda (the Twa) had no history of conflict with either the Hutu or Tutsi - yet 30% of them were killed in the genocide. In one region, 5% of the population were killed even though almost 100% of the population were Hutu (there was apparently only one recorded Tutsi person living in the region).

 

If you really want to know the reason for the genocide in Rwanda, it's worth reflecting on the fact that it was (and may well still be) the most densely-populated country on the African continent, and with devastating levels of poverty. The background to the conflict is set out really well in one of the chapters of Jared Diamond's Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed.

[southside1874]

I would actually argue the point if i were inclined; but it neither furthers your point nor does it undermine mine - which you've never come close to addressing - so i've not spoken about it nor do i wish to. Yes, plenary indulgence was a part of the crusades, but initially (and its important to remember that earlier crusades were more popular in scope) the indulgences offered were minimal. All that your point proves is that those who took part in the crusades did it for religious reasons.

its about economics, its about favour and its about land.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I can't perceive it because it is utterly untrue. The history of the holy roman empire from Charlemagne's coronation on December 25th AD800 and the Roman Church was one of struggle and anagonism. Certainly in the dark ages what you say is true, but it is the exact opposite for the centuries of the crusades.

 

A simple battle for power. Did Charlemagne not have the biggest army?

 

 

 

Thats not true. Every single succession in English history between 871 and 1215 was disputed; every single one. Not one of them was settled by the church in rome. Eustace of Boulagne possibly carried a papal banner at hastings, but William the Conqueror bought that (it also helped that William's Archbishop of Canterbury used to teach the man who was pope in '66. That explains why a small region like Normandy was able to conquer England and hence the start of the book that catalogued every piece of land and livestock in that country.

 

Not a clue. If the declaration of arbroath proves that the crusades were not a religious war then i'll be utterly amazed. Who was the Declaration of Arbroath addressed to and why? If you don't move the goalposts again!!

 

 

 

[2NaFish]

i've already shown why an economically model for the crusades proves that religion was the primary driver.

 

i have no idea what your second point is about. Not a clue.

 

If you think that the reason a "small region like normandy" was able to conquer england is because of a banner that maybe existed then you know very little about history. And thats me being very polite.

 

don't care. It doesnt interact with my incredibly simple point that i've spelled out 4 or 5 times and you've never once sought to interact with.

 

 

Usually people say "don't have the time to explain this further, i'm out, etc, Well actually I have loads of time to debate this further but you have no interest in learning as your perfectly happy with your entrenched, narrow views of history - from an academic point of view they are laughable.

[southside1874]

i've already shown why an economically model for the crusades proves that religion was the primary driver.

 

It is still the same argument.........if I have to pay for an army then who shall I use it against. Why do you think we have battles with the same Middle East? Wars create money for the money lenders and after all these years of contributions..who do you think is the wealthiest? Could it possibly be the church?

 

i have no idea what your second point is about. Not a clue.

 

If you think that the reason a "small region like normandy" was able to conquer england is because of a banner that maybe existed then you know very little about history. And thats me being very polite. You don't seem to read into the symbolism of the papal banner and the clout it had behind it. You don't seem to grasp the need for the book so that the spoils of war could be shared and who with?

 

don't care. It doesnt interact with my incredibly simple point that i've spelled out 4 or 5 times and you've never once sought to interact with.

 

 

Usually people say "don't have the time to explain this further, i'm out, etc, Well actually I have loads of time to debate this further but you have no interest in learning as your perfectly happy with your entrenched, narrow views of history - from an academic point of view they are laughable.

 

I fail to see how you can bring academics into the debate when you obviously worship a god who has not become apparent. Who IMO is purely fictional and is now battling for space with this new religion of politics and the same nonsense that politicians lead us to disaster and think they are great when they lead us into another disaster. Greed has a lot to answer for and it aint my ignorance of the church that has got us here but I feel that it maybe my ignorance of the church and politics that may get me out of it

 

 

 

[i8hibsh]

Ah, Wikipedia - the source of all truth and wisdom.

 

The guy who wrote that also claimed that the Tutsi were originally Jewish, and claimed that this could be proved by the fact that Tutsi were racially different to Hutu. This is in spite of the fact that every anthropological study ever conducted shows that the Hutu and Tutsi were racially indistinguishable from each other. It also seems fair to point out that Rwanda was colonised by Belgium and Germany - both of which are mixed-religion countries.

 

There's another Wikipedia page that says the exact opposite, i.e. that the Germans favoured the Tutsi because they were more willing than the Hutu to convert to Catholicism. I wonder which is true. I wonder if either is true.

 

It's also worth bearing in mind that the third tribe in Rwanda (the Twa) had no history of conflict with either the Hutu or Tutsi - yet 30% of them were killed in the genocide. In one region, 5% of the population were killed even though almost 100% of the population were Hutu (there was apparently only one recorded Tutsi person living in the region).

 

If you really want to know the reason for the genocide in Rwanda, it's worth reflecting on the fact that it was (and may well still be) the most densely-populated country on the African continent, and with devastating levels of poverty. The background to the conflict is set out really well in one of the chapters of Jared Diamond's Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed.

 

Ulyster dude, please don't read my post as wikipedia being my only source. I read several online material.

 

Uly you are like me, you just love a 'good old' debate.

You would argue that your online name is not ' Ulysses'. Religion is in the roots of Rwandan's troubles.

 

Total side note but did anyone watch that quite fantastic documemtary on 'Bible John' last night?

 

Clearly he is Peter Toben. A good God loving man.

[Chris Benoit]

Cheap shot I8 and does your argument no good.

[Sheriff Fatman]

I can't perceive it because it is utterly untrue. The history of the holy roman empire from Charlemagne's coronation on December 25th AD800 and the Roman Church was one of struggle and anagonism. Certainly in the dark ages what you say is true, but it is the exact opposite for the centuries of the crusades.

 

You are mixing up the Holy Roman Empire and the Roman Empire, two different things.

 

It is very arguable that the Roman church was a continuation of the Roman Empire, with the Pope taking on the mantle of Emperor. The reason for the enmity between the church and the Holy Roman Empire is that Charlemagne was usurping power that the church felt was theirs.

[i8hibsh]

Cheap shot I8 and does your argument no good.

 

It was quite weak but it does show up the idea of religion. Like it or not and the God swallowers can deny it all they want but being religious makes people feel that they are nicer. An affirmation of goodness if you like. All this 'he's a good Christian', it was a 'Christiamj act', 'i'm a good catholic'. What does it all even mean?how dare people market their own personal brand as superior just because they swallow up the religious myth.

 

Peter Toben used the church to disguise his evil. He even used to cite the bible 24/7. Shame on anyone who seen this as him being nice.

[i8hibsh]

BTW there can't be too many football forums with such a fantastic and (mostly) articulate debate on it.Go JKB!there's certainly nothing dragging me into the 'Terrace' nowadays.

 

I'm not saying that non relipious people are sadistic psychopaths like Toban but it does show the bullshit it all is.

 

Myra Hindlay 'found God' before she died. As though this proclomation makes everything alright. Why would your God (as he aint mine) even give this beast the time? He welcomes serial child murderers on the premis they believe in him but he does not welcome me and wants me dead as I don't. I'm a good, honest decent man with a kind Heart.Myra Hindlay was the worst possible person.

 

'Jesus forgives all sins' or some bullshit like that.Well i'm quite happy not having child raping, serial killing apologists in my life.

 

Catholic Priests read the last rights to death row inmates in the States and say Jesus forgives them.How do they know?These fraudsters get paid by the State for this service.

 

Please see this all as utter bullshit.

[topcat]

BTW there can't be too many football forums with such a fantastic and (mostly) articulate debate on it.Go JKB!there's certainly nothing dragging me into the 'Terrace' nowadays.

 

I'm not saying that non relipious people are sadistic psychopaths like Toban but it does show the bullshit it all is.

 

Myra Hindlay 'found God' before she died. As though this proclomation makes everything alright. Why would your God (as he aint mine) even give this beast the time? He welcomes serial child murderers on the premis they believe in him but he does not welcome me and wants me dead as I don't. I'm a good, honest decent man with a kind Heart.Myra Hindlay was the worst possible person.

 

'Jesus forgives all sins' or some bullshit like that.Well i'm quite happy not having child raping, serial killing apologists in my life.

 

Catholic Priests read the last rights to death row inmates in the States and say Jesus forgives them.How do they know?These fraudsters get paid by the State for this service.

 

Please see this all as utter bullshit.

 

Are you suggesting that unrepentant child raping serial killers are preferable to apologetic ones?

[southside1874]

Are you suggesting that unrepentant child raping serial killers are preferable to apologetic ones?

 

Are you suggesting that any of these type are preferable

 

 

 

[i8hibsh]

Are you suggesting that unrepentant child raping serial killers are preferable to apologetic ones?

 

 

Yes as the most heinous of ALL crimes is to not believe in a deity*

 

 

* allegedly

[Sten Guns]

Firstly, that's not what I said. What I said was that they have nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of gods, which is not quite the same thing. If that doesn't make sense, perhaps you should read more about Zen Buddhism, or maybe I should read less.

 

Secondly, while a kiddy-on atheist might consider the statement outrageous, a real atheist (such as myself) knows that it is in fact quite rational. Think it through for a while and you'll see what I mean. Or read some of my previous posts about the distinctions between religion, faith and gods. Jaysus knows I've posted about the subject often enough.

 

I knew exactly what u were getting at..... You just could have worded it a whole lot better.

 

Anyway, your not getting a bite with your kiddy on atheist chat.

[Maple Leaf]

There have been some very good posts on this thread about God. By that, I mean the God of the Jews, Christians, and Muslims. All the other gods seem to be confined to the dustbin of history, at least as far as JKB is concerned.

 

Despite the arguments put forward here, the proof of God's existence or non-existence is always going to be elusive. To believers, His existence is as real as the device being used to read this post. To non-believers, the god concept is nothing but superstitious, Bronze Age tripe. Nevertheless, it's a fact that the majority of human adults believe in God.

 

It's also a fact that, for the last 2,000 years, we humans have been ready to torture and kill other humans in the name of God who, according to the holy scriptures, encourages us to love and tolerate one another.

 

In my view, the world would be a better place if we all believe what we wish, but behave as if there were no God to sort out our problems or make judgments about our actions. Believing is all very well, but our behaviour is what we will be remembered by.

[Rick Grimes]

I don't understand why so many Atheists have a fetish for controlling/dictating what other people believe. It makes them as bad, if not worse, than those they wish to attack and criticise.

 

 

when you have religious leaders automatically in positions of power, as we do the House of Lords, and pushing for further political influence then its a necessary evil to put forward an opposition. if all people of religion wanted was the freedom to practice their own beliefs without hurting anyone else (as I'm sure a lot do) then I'd imagine that a lot of the atheist lobby would let them just get on with it.

[Fourcandles]

There have been some very good posts on this thread about God. By that, I mean the God of the Jews, Christians, and Muslims. All the other gods seem to be confined to the dustbin of history, at least as far as JKB is concerned.

 

Despite the arguments put forward here, the proof of God's existence or non-existence is always going to be elusive. To believers, His existence is as real as the device being used to read this post. To non-believers, the god concept is nothing but superstitious, Bronze Age tripe. Nevertheless, it's a fact that the majority of human adults believe in God.

 

It's also a fact that, for the last 2,000 years, we humans have been ready to torture and kill other humans in the name of God who, according to the holy scriptures, encourages us to love and tolerate one another.

 

In my view, the world would be a better place if we all believe what we wish, but behave as if there were no God to sort out our problems or make judgments about our actions. Believing is all very well, but our behaviour is what we will be remembered by.

 

Ahh yes the Abrahimic religions.....all 3 with a wierd Abraham, Sarah and Hagar a menage a trois with 90+ year old man at the heart of it.

 

A sort of hallucinating centurion with a slave (his wifes) to have sex with when you are nearly 100.

Then he hears more voices in his head and indulges in a bit of the 'ol child trauma abuse with a machete.....

 

A great example of morality in my book.

 

 

[Ulysses]

Religion is in the roots of Rwandan's troubles.

But it isn't. You said earlier that you Googled some expression to do with "wars caused by religion" and that Rwanda featured in a lot of articles. I did likewise. I took the words that you Googled, and I Googled them. There's nothing about Rwanda in the first 5 or 6 pages of listings.

 

The only source left is your Wikipedia reference - but that refers to a notion about Catholicism in Rwanda that was proposed by one man who believed a lot of nonsense about Jews and the Tutsi race, that was agreed with by no-one else, and that flew in the face of the facts about the powers who colonised Rwanda.

 

Let me know what you think when you've read Diamond's excellent book. Don't forget, it was the most densely-populated country in Africa, it was piss-poor, and it had literally run out of arable land. It was a Malthusian catastrophe just waiting to happen. If you don't know what "Malthusian" means without Googling, you don't belong in the honours class.

[Ulysses]

not getting a bite with your kiddy on atheist chat.

 

DRAT.

[JamboInSouthsea]

What an excellent thread and one that has been highly enjoyable to read everybody's points of view and various witty comebacks.

 

There have been many good points made from the various protagonists and so here's a few points/questions of my own. I should point out that I respect everybody's rights to their own views and whilst an atheist myself I have an interest in the occult (hell, i'm a pagan) and the ancient wisdom.

 

1) I believe (have faith) that the whole monotheistic idea stems from ancient Egypt with your main man being Akhenaten (a pharaoh) who strayed from the polytheistic theories of the time to declare that there was only one true God. At that time the pharaohs were considered to be living gods or certainly related to them and so was he actually declaring himself to be GOD? Were the Jews not the original 'chosen ones' who went from there to the promised land? I know there are a few hundred years difference between historical events but then where did the jews get the original idea from?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhenaten

 

Does this not suggest to you that he was declaring himself as GOD?

 

2) The Romans (bloody Romans, what have they ever done for us?) to appease the many religions at that time took many of the beliefs, the thoughts/theories and practises; halos around heads = the sun (which previously the egyptians worshipped), Anubis = The Beast/Satan/Judgement Day and put them all together to form christianity..Constantine's wife was a christian so may well have been to keep himself in the good books plus given the troubles running within the empire it was a good way to keep everybody under control.

 

3) Why did God only ever speak to the odd individual and why only to those that lived in the middle east? Was nobody that lived in China, Japan, The Americas or Aboriginals in Australia worthy of such a visitation and the Ten Commandments or a recital of the Koran?

 

4) Even if you don't believe in God, logically you should, just in case he does and ain't in a good mood when you die.

 

5) Isn't there a passage in the bible, maybe old testament, that says that heaven is full anyway...the 144,000 are already there and ain't budging? (sorry can't remember the actual old or new testament no./paragraph).

 

6) According to Monty Python God exists by 2 falls to a submission...which I may well have posted before.

 

[i8hibsh]

Good post buddy. You mention The Ten Commandments and i'm glad you did as they are the most ridiculous pile of crap in any scripture.

 

I mean if I was creating a world and subsequently 'laying down the law' after it then you'd bet your last dollar i'd come up with Ten more meaningful rules than that (altho most of the Ten Commandments are essentially the same thing). I mean come on they are laughable.

 

But the deluded swallowed them then and still fanatically follow them today (well after cherry picking the ones they like at least).

 

And why did it take 4 billion years of the existance of the planet to install them?

 

I laugh at how ridiculous it all is.

[southside1874]

What an excellent thread and one that has been highly enjoyable to read everybody's points of view and various witty comebacks.

 

There have been many good points made from the various protagonists and so here's a few points/questions of my own. I should point out that I respect everybody's rights to their own views and whilst an atheist myself I have an interest in the occult (hell, i'm a pagan) and the ancient wisdom.

 

1) I believe (have faith) that the whole monotheistic idea stems from ancient Egypt with your main man being Akhenaten (a pharaoh) who strayed from the polytheistic theories of the time to declare that there was only one true God. At that time the pharaohs were considered to be living gods or certainly related to them and so was he actually declaring himself to be GOD? Were the Jews not the original 'chosen ones' who went from there to the promised land? I know there are a few hundred years difference between historical events but then where did the jews get the original idea from?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhenaten

 

Does this not suggest to you that he was declaring himself as GOD?

 

2) The Romans (bloody Romans, what have they ever done for us?) to appease the many religions at that time took many of the beliefs, the thoughts/theories and practises; halos around heads = the sun (which previously the egyptians worshipped), Anubis = The Beast/Satan/Judgement Day and put them all together to form christianity..Constantine's wife was a christian so may well have been to keep himself in the good books plus given the troubles running within the empire it was a good way to keep everybody under control.

 

3) Why did God only ever speak to the odd individual and why only to those that lived in the middle east? Was nobody that lived in China, Japan, The Americas or Aboriginals in Australia worthy of such a visitation and the Ten Commandments or a recital of the Koran?

 

4) Even if you don't believe in God, logically you should, just in case he does and ain't in a good mood when you die.

 

5) Isn't there a passage in the bible, maybe old testament, that says that heaven is full anyway...the 144,000 are already there and ain't budging? (sorry can't remember the actual old or new testament no./paragraph).

 

6) According to Monty Python God exists by 2 falls to a submission...which I may well have posted before.

 

 

The fact that he is credited as being the first with the idea puzzles me because of the conviction he showed. Surely he must have heard about it working to an advantage before he pushed it through?

[i8hibsh]

Do any of the God swallowers on here ever use the term 'God is testing us'?

 

If you do bow your heads in shame!

 

Do you test your own children with life threatening situations, to test their love and belief in you?

[Ron Burgundy]

Good post buddy. You mention The Ten Commandments and i'm glad you did as they are the most ridiculous pile of crap in any scripture.

 

I mean if I was creating a world and subsequently 'laying down the law' after it then you'd bet your last dollar i'd come up with Ten more meaningful rules than that (altho most of the Ten Commandments are essentially the same thing). I mean come on they are laughable.

 

But the deluded swallowed them then and still fanatically follow them today (well after cherry picking the ones they like at least).

 

And why did it take 4 billion years of the existance of the planet to install them?

 

I laugh at how ridiculous it all is.

 

 

The last line of your post.

You come across as very angry about it all,not at all humoured by it as you suggest.