God in a Nutshell

[Mr Romanov Saviour of HMFC]

Just going back to the claims that non believers are more intelligent than religious people for a second, that little theory is blown out of the water by simply reading Stens and The Doctors posts.

 

Religious people should be mocked.

 

[Patrick Bateman]

Mod delete

 

I regard anyone who tries to instruct me as to how the universe works as hugely irritating. Why do you care what others think? Why are you so determined to stick the knife into people who, in all likelihood, have done you no harm whatsoever? Their attitude doesn't exactly further their cause, which is, in many ways, a mirror image of the 'authoritarian' religions they want to dismiss. In any case, it's equally annoying.

[i8hibsh]

Patrick it's not as simple as that. It's not a case of some people having a different football team or taste in women. It's a case of people being brainwashed by an unnecessary evil that causes mass murder, rape and torture. It's something that thrives on fear and prays on the vulnerable.

 

It also gets tax exempt status and has convinced the world it is so righteous and sensitive that it gets special dispensation for almost everything and no-one can speak out against it.

[Sten Guns]

I want to know why the sky fairy brigade on here don't follow Islam?

[BigC]

Just going back to the claims that non believers are more intelligent than religious people for a second, that little theory is blown out of the water by simply reading Stens and The Doctors posts.

 

Religious people should be mocked.

 

 

Whilst I'm quite happy to agree that The Doc is a smart cookie, studies have backed up this claim time after time...

 

Here is one of the latest ones: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289611000912

 

As I mentioned in a previous post, mocking all religious people is poor form, but many individual religious people, especially those in the public domain are fair game.

 

Let's take people like Benny Hin or Peter Popoff. Well known and proven charlatans who con money out of innocent people. They MUST be mocked, criticised and exposed.

[Amjam]

A 1561 version of the bible has "blessed are the place makers" in Matthew v 9. Clearly a misprint. There's another version of the bible known as the "wicked bible" because it misses out the word "not" from the ten commandments (oops!). Another bible is known as the "treacle" bible because it uses the word "treacle" rather than "balm" because treacle used to mean balm as well as molasses. There are countless other examples of misprints, mistranslations and other errors.

The point being that the "word of God" as handed down from the bible is wholly unreliable.

[ToYouToMe]

A 1561 version of the bible has "blessed are the place makers" in Matthew v 9. Clearly a misprint. There's another version of the bible known as the "wicked bible" because it misses out the word "not" from the ten commandments (oops!). Another bible is known as the "treacle" bible because it uses the word "treacle" rather than "balm" because treacle used to mean balm as well as molasses. There are countless other examples of misprints, mistranslations and other errors.

The point being that the "word of God" as handed down from the bible is wholly unreliable.

 

 

Well if you knew anything about biblical studies you would know that is nonsense, because there are original manuscripts of the biblical texts to which translators are accountable.

 

It was not made up as people went along over the ages. Surely not even the most ardent atheist, with a measure of knowledge on the subject, would present this as a serious argument? There are in fact thousands of surviving early manuscripts of bible texts, thousands more than secular manuscripts of the same era such as Pliny or Tacitus. You might choose not to believe what they say, but to argue that the bible today is somehow an accident of time is completely untrue.

[Amjam]

Well if you knew anything about biblical studies you would know that is nonsense, because there are original manuscripts of the biblical texts to which translators are accountable.

 

It was not made up as people went along over the ages. Surely not even the most ardent atheist, with a measure of knowledge on the subject, would present this as a serious argument? There are in fact thousands of surviving early manuscripts of bible texts, thousands more than secular manuscripts of the same era such as Pliny or Tacitus. You might choose not to believe what they say, but to argue that the bible today is somehow an accident of time is completely untrue.

 

My point being that I find it difficult to accept that the Bible is the word of God when it has so many inconsistencies built in from the very beginning.

 

The various version of the bible getting knocked out in the 16th and 17th centuries were done to promote either a broadly catholic or broadly protestant point of view. And back then that was as much politics as anything else.

 

I'd suggest you watch this if you're interested in bible studies.

 

Link.

[ToYouToMe]

My point being that I find it difficult to accept that the Bible is the word of God when it has so many inconsistencies built in from the very beginning.

 

The various version of the bible getting knocked out in the 16th and 17th centuries were done to promote either a broadly catholic or broadly protestant point of view. And back then that was as much politics as anything else.

 

I'd suggest you watch this if you're interested in bible studies.

 

Link.

 

 

Thanks for that, I have watched it before and it is interesting. But I offer a link to a response to the book the lecture was based on:

 

http://www.gregboyd.org/qa/bible/how-do-you-respond-to-ehrmans-book-misquoting-jesus/

 

Point 4 is essentially the point i was making in response to your post.

[Sheiky Baby]

Well if you knew anything about biblical studies you would know that is nonsense, because there are original manuscripts of the biblical texts to which translators are accountable.

 

It was not made up as people went along over the ages. Surely not even the most ardent atheist, with a measure of knowledge on the subject, would present this as a serious argument? There are in fact thousands of surviving early manuscripts of bible texts, thousands more than secular manuscripts of the same era such as Pliny or Tacitus. You might choose not to believe what they say, but to argue that the bible today is somehow an accident of time is completely untrue.

 

If it's the word of God it would not have been translated in such a terrible way.

 

Hope this helps

[Amjam]

Thanks for that, I have watched it before and it is interesting. But I offer a link to a response to the book the lecture was based on:

 

http://www.gregboyd.org/qa/bible/how-do-you-respond-to-ehrmans-book-misquoting-jesus/

 

Point 4 is essentially the point i was making in response to your post.

 

Fair enough.

 

But, today, most Christians will take their teachings from what is a flawed document. I'm trying to say: how can it be treated as the word of God? And so many Christian will point to passages in the bible and condemn people, or help people, or burn them, or lift them up or push them down all in the name of this mistranslated, multi-interpreted book.

[ToYouToMe]

If it's the word of God it would not have been translated in such a terrible way.

 

Hope this helps

 

 

Why not? It is in the hands of fallible humans. Christians do not claim that God physically wrote it.

[ToYouToMe]

Fair enough.

 

But, today, most Christians will take their teachings from what is a flawed document. I'm trying to say: how can it be treated as the word of God? And so many Christian will point to passages in the bible and condemn people, or help people, or burn them, or lift them up or push them down all in the name of this mistranslated, multi-interpreted book.

 

 

But that is why Christians wrestle with the scriptures all the time. We don't claim to always get it right, we have varied views on certain passages, but all Christians will ultimately say that it is from God whether word for word or in its general message.

[Amjam]

But that is why Christians wrestle with the scriptures all the time. We don't claim to always get it right, we have varied views on certain passages, but all Christians will ultimately say that it is from God whether word for word or in its general message.

 

If only that were true, unfortunately there plenty of Christians who will argue that it is literally the word of God and should be treated as such.

 

The fact that he doesn't exist makes all this moot of course.

[Sheiky Baby]

Why not? It is in the hands of fallible humans. Christians do not claim that God physically wrote it.

 

Of course humans wrote it but if it's the word of God it wouldn't be incorrect. The whole religion is based on what's in the bible. There's thousands of versions of this same book all with different contents.

 

If this is the supposed code which Christians follow and God created everything, the book would be correct as simple as that.

[2NaFish]

Well if you knew anything about biblical studies you would know that is nonsense, because there are original manuscripts of the biblical texts to which translators are accountable.

 

 

Original manuscripts? Certainly not for the NT, and even though i dont know this for a fact, i'd say its also the case for the OT too.. What you've put down there is highly misleading.

[Fourcandles]

Original manuscripts? Certainly not for the NT, and even though i dont know this for a fact, i'd say its also the case for the OT too.. What you've put down there is highly misleading.

 

There are still ?original? documents.

 

But this proves absolutely nothing.

 

? Does it prove that (rather than the real world explanation that a Nazarene woman told a fib about natural pregnancy) that in fact there was a flying sperm insemination from a supernatural being?

? Does it prove that numerous people came back to life following natural death?

? Does it prove that a likely bipolar and certainly eccentric preacher gathered a following that told whoppers after he died to continue their doctrine was in fact the son of a sky god?

 

Many people are comfortable with the idea of these things and therefore willingly deny the constancy of the laws of Physics Chemistry and Biology - with no proof whatsoever to back up the case for a suspension of the natural laws.

To me the bible should be seen in the context of the people?s mindset and preconceptions of the bronze age times they lived in.

.

[GazzaBroon]

There are a few inconsistancies and contradictions in the Bible but that doesn't take you away from the base fundamentials of it's preachings. Wether you believe in God or not it is a guide to the rights and wrongs, Good versus Evil within mankind.

 

The problem nowadays is that kids have grown up without being taught these morals as their parents have lost their way somehow with the dilution of guidance when they were growing up. Respect and tolerance were taught in the Bible and were practiced for many years keeping families and communities together. The church was a place that used to be the Hub of many communities and since the decline in Religeous teachings, the modern day is a free for all for self interest.

 

To ridicule and abuse believers is as ignorant and intolerant as the Bible bashers who refuse to believe other than their own faith. God is all powerful and comes in many forms. I haven't personally met him, I have spoken to him in times of need, he I believe has answered back in his own way. Do I believe in one God, NO. I believe in faith and if that is in God or a shrine or a symbol then faith is what it is. God is the sun and without it the Earth and all on it would die.

 

A lot of people believe that what is happening on the planet today is God's warning to us that we have to change our ways. Tsunami's, Hurricane's, floods, Earthquakes, Landslides etc are all created by man's need for resources in return God has given us the warning shot's that we are taking too much for granted.

 

I believe if everyone cared for peace and shared their wealth evenly, there would be harmony across the world. The average person only needs so much wealth to live comfortably, but greed and self interest are imbedded in their nature and no-one will take that from them or a war will break out either locally or worldly.

 

I believe in the Christian way that spreads love, tolerance and understanding, many don't and that is their choice.

[Boab]

Watch Ricky Gervais stand up show 'animals' it is hilarious.

 

He destroys Genesis (not the band)

 

Ironically,Phil Collins is the anti-christ....if you believe in religion of course!

[2NaFish]

There are still ?original? documents.

 

 

they're not original, they're old but not the originals. Not by a good few decades, and thats only in the very best cases. A simple game of chinese whispers shows how much can change in that time.

 

But you're right that even if they were it'd prove nothing of itself other than the church keeps good records.

[BigC]

There are a few inconsistancies and contradictions in the Bible but that doesn't take you away from the base fundamentials of it's preachings. Wether you believe in God or not it is a guide to the rights and wrongs, Good versus Evil within mankind.

 

The problem nowadays is that kids have grown up without being taught these morals as their parents have lost their way somehow with the dilution of guidance when they were growing up. Respect and tolerance were taught in the Bible and were practiced for many years keeping families and communities together. The church was a place that used to be the Hub of many communities and since the decline in Religeous teachings, the modern day is a free for all for self interest.

 

To ridicule and abuse believers is as ignorant and intolerant as the Bible bashers who refuse to believe other than their own faith. God is all powerful and comes in many forms. I haven't personally met him, I have spoken to him in times of need, he I believe has answered back in his own way. Do I believe in one God, NO. I believe in faith and if that is in God or a shrine or a symbol then faith is what it is. God is the sun and without it the Earth and all on it would die.

 

A lot of people believe that what is happening on the planet today is God's warning to us that we have to change our ways. Tsunami's, Hurricane's, floods, Earthquakes, Landslides etc are all created by man's need for resources in return God has given us the warning shot's that we are taking too much for granted.

 

I believe if everyone cared for peace and shared their wealth evenly, there would be harmony across the world. The average person only needs so much wealth to live comfortably, but greed and self interest are imbedded in their nature and no-one will take that from them or a war will break out either locally or worldly.

 

I believe in the Christian way that spreads love, tolerance and understanding, many don't and that is their choice.

 

In amongst all the airy fairy stuff you do make a good point about the reduction in church attendances harming the community.

 

If I was dragged to church every week by my folks I probably would have been a lot more involved in projects to help the community than I am.

 

Although I do organise lots of events through my job and do bit and pieces of charity work here and there through work, I definitely don't get to know local people as well as the church going people I know.

 

The problem is, there is nothing to replace church and the sense of community you get from it. That's not because Atheists are less caring or less interested in their neighbours than the religious. It's just that an alternative hasn't been invented yet.

 

Either Humanist groups need to create an alternative, secular alternatives need to appear that are suitable for everyone, or the churches need to evolve away from their current position enough for atheists to come back in.

 

The Humanists in Scotland do organise things but they haven't been too appealing to me (perhaps when I'm older). The churches aren't just going to abandon their doctrine... and a secular middle ground like new investments in community centres isn't going to happen under this government, so things may continue to decline for a while.

 

Perhaps other institutions, like football clubs will fill the vacuum (assuming religions institutions continue to decline as well)....

[GazzaBroon]

I had an Aunt who never went to church, was a fervent Aithiest who despised Religion in all it's forms.

 

On her death bed as she was dying of terminal cancer, knowing that she had no hope of surviving another day she asked my uncle for the hospital priest to give her the 'Last Rights', she was absolved and after this she seemed at peace before passing away.

 

I didn't criticise her for her extreme change of belief, I was just happy that she died in peace with herself.

 

If there was a God, why did he let her die. Did God make her live the lifestyle which led to this deadly disease taking her prematurely?

 

Make out of this as you wish.

[PsychocAndy]

Ok let me be quite clear about this, this thread is not meant to offend anyone or intentionally wind people up.

 

I know three are certain prominent posters on here who have strong religious beliefs and a guy who actually works with the church. I have been getting on better with these people in the past few years and by no means am I trying to change this.

 

I have just recently been introduced to an American comic called George Carlin and his material is absolutely fantastic. Sadly he passed away a few years back.

 

Here is a taste of what he was all about. Like me he is/was a huge social and religious critic.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-RGN21TSGk

 

Hope you enjoy and ideally post any other relative stuff.

 

Pat Condell is also fantastic if you ever see his videos.

 

Again, please let me reiterate that my intentions are not to aggravate or offend certain people.

You've misled me I thought it was going to be like Jesus in a cheese toastie but this. Aye have a go at God, the safe option, He will forgive you.

[Mr Romanov Saviour of HMFC]

As I mentioned in a previous post, mocking all religious people is poor form, but many individual religious people, especially those in the public domain are fair game.

 

Let's take people like Benny Hin or Peter Popoff. Well known and proven charlatans who con money out of innocent people. They MUST be mocked, criticised and exposed.

 

I see what you're saying but it never works like that, does it? It's usually the harmless ones who get ripped for believing in something others don't. The charlatans are heavily outnumbered by those who do good things in the name of God, no?

 

And I'm not religious in any way, shape or form. You die and that is that. 1 shot. I can understand and respect why having faith is important to people though.

[Ulysses]

I see what you're saying but it never works like that, does it? It's usually the harmless ones who get ripped for believing in something others don't. The charlatans are heavily outnumbered by those who do good things in the name of God, no?

 

And I'm not religious in any way, shape or form. You die and that is that. 1 shot. I can understand and respect why having faith is important to people though.

 

+1, as they say. And as anyone who reads my posts will know, I take my atheism seriously.

 

There's no need for some of the things that people say about believers. I won't cede an inch of my view of the whole deity phenomenon, but just ranting and insulting people who do believe is a bit naff, and doesn't really add any value to the debate.

[shaun.lawson]

I see what you're saying but it never works like that, does it? It's usually the harmless ones who get ripped for believing in something others don't. The charlatans are heavily outnumbered by those who do good things in the name of God, no?

 

And I'm not religious in any way, shape or form. You die and that is that. 1 shot. I can understand and respect why having faith is important to people though.

 

+2. Absolutely spot on.

 

A good friend of mine, who had a childhood as horrific as anyone could imagine, doesn't just think, but knows that her very strong faith got her through it. Faith helps people; many, many people, and to demean them for that shows a poverty of spirit which, to return to a point I made earlier, is abundant throughout modern British society.

[P-Dizzle]

+1, as they say. And as anyone who reads my posts will know, I take my atheism seriously.

 

There's no need for some of the things that people say about believers. I won't cede an inch of my view of the whole deity phenomenon, but just ranting and insulting people who do believe is a bit naff, and doesn't really add any value to the debate.

 

Would you say it's insulting to give a scientific answer someone who has told you that they have had a religious experience where their god has spoken to them?

 

Because it is factually accurate and we understand what causes these experiences, but saying such a thing would hurt that person's feelings. Do you not have to answer him honestly, because I think anything less would be treating him like a child when they ask you if Santa is real. We can't indulge these people and their religious beliefs, being rude to them does no good either, but questioning religion should never be repressed.

[shaun.lawson]

Would you say it's insulting to give a scientific answer someone who has told you that they have had a religious experience where their god has spoken to them?

 

Because it is factually accurate and we understand what causes these experiences, but saying such a thing would hurt that person's feelings. Do you not have to answer him honestly, because I think anything less would be treating him like a child when they ask you if Santa is real. We can't indulge these people and their religious beliefs, being rude to them does no good either, but questioning religion should never be repressed.

 

Shaun: "Do you believe Hearts might win the league someday, P-Dizzle?"

 

P-Dizzle: "Well, I know it's very tough - but yeah, maybe. You never know, and seeing how shite the OF are..."

 

Shaun: "You think little Hearts can topple the mighty OF? Are you deluded or something? It's obviously impossible. All statistical evidence over the last 25 years has to tell us that".

 

P-Dizzle: "Don't slag off my club please. It's possible, OK?"

 

Shaun: "Honestly, it's like talking to a child. Do you believe in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy as well, or something?"

 

P-Dizzle: "THWACK!"

 

Shaun: "Ow".

 

And before people ask what the above has to do with religion - good grief folks, why else do you reckon football is so popular in the UK? People believe in their team; gather together regularly as a large community, with many social and family ties; sing songs in their heroes' honour; slag off followers of other, uh, churches; get very emotional and outwardly passionate in a way they never do in any other area of their lives; treat certain players, managers, or even - very occasionally - owners, as forms of deity; and get very angry at those from outside who criticise or question them.

 

People need something to believe in; people need some form of spiritual or emotional escape; people need hope. Heart of Midlothian FC is many people's religion; Tynecastle is their church.

[Fourcandles]

Shaun: "Do you believe Hearts might win the league someday, P-Dizzle?"

 

P-Dizzle: "Well, I know it's very tough - but yeah, maybe. You never know, and seeing how shite the OF are..."

 

Shaun: "You think little Hearts can topple the mighty OF? Are you deluded or something? It's obviously impossible. All statistical evidence over the last 25 years has to tell us that".

 

P-Dizzle: "Don't slag off my club please. It's possible, OK?"

 

Shaun: "Honestly, it's like talking to a child. Do you believe in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy as well, or something?"

 

P-Dizzle: "THWACK!"

 

Shaun: "Ow".

 

And before people ask what the above has to do with religion - good grief folks, why else do you reckon football is so popular in the UK? People believe in their team; gather together regularly as a large community, with many social and family ties; sing songs in their heroes' honour; slag off believers of other, uh, churches; get very emotional and passionate in a way they never do in any other area of their lives; and very angry at those from outside who criticise or question them.

 

People need something to believe in; people need some form of spiritual or emotional escape; people need hope. Heart of Midlothian FC is many people's religion; Tynecastle is their church.

 

Following a political cause, a political party, a hobby, a pass time or even football club are all things we can live for, support, feel are the right thing to do .....you could name hundreds......

 

.......I suppose the difference with religion is that its claims are supernatural.

 

[P-Dizzle]

Sorry, that's a shit comparison. I don't take my core beliefs from my football club, my understanding of morality isn't structured on what was written in the matchday programme. Heart of Midlothian doesn't give me an explanation of the origins of life or give me their version of an afterlife.

 

Are you saying faith is just a plaything that we use to detach ourselves from the world, or are you saying it's at the core of their existence, because your post is not in line with the statement that you agreed with a few posts up. Which is it?

[shaun.lawson]

Following a political cause, a political party, a hobby, a pass time or even football club are all things we can live for, support, feel are the right thing to do .....you could name hundreds......

 

.......I suppose the difference with religion is that its claims are supernatural.

 

 

True, true - but in football's case, fans have little or no control over the outcome (which, I think, partly explains its popularity), and have to buy into something which often seems wholly irrational. And occasionally, just occasionally, there's a synergy between fans and team, some kind of intangible spark, and something extraordinary can happen which can actually feel supernatural. Only very occasionally, mind you.

 

Religion's claims are based on the supernatural: so science and reason naturally refute them. But that isn't to say that the supernatural doesn't exist - actually, none of us know. It's just impossible to prove. In my opinion, there are too many apparent miracles in the world; too many coincidences and chance meetings; too many examples of people being randomly 'protected' from a disaster they'd otherwise have experienced, for the idea of God to be entirely dismissed.

[Ulysses]

Would you say it's insulting to give a scientific answer someone who has told you that they have had a religious experience where their god has spoken to them?

I've done that more than once on this forum. I don't believe I've insulted anybody by doing so. There are some people with spectacularly thin skins who think that anyone who disagrees with them is insulting them, and there's nothing we can do to fix that. But there is also what you might call the "reasonable person test". Say a reasonably-minded person who isn't on one side or other of a discussion looks at what people have said and the way they've said it. If they think someone is being rude or insulting - on either side of the debate - then they probably are.

 

[shaun.lawson]

Sorry, that's a shit comparison. I don't take my core beliefs from my football club, my understanding of morality isn't structured on what was written in the matchday programme. Heart of Midlothian doesn't give me an explanation of the origins of life or give me their version of an afterlife.

 

Are you saying faith is just a plaything that we use to detach ourselves from the world, or are you saying it's at the core of their existence, because your post is not in line with the statement that you agreed with a few posts up. Which is it?

 

Both. And more to the point, many believers don't take their core values from their faith - but rather, impart their values onto their faith. Why else would one Christian abhor homosexuality, while another is appalled by such intolerance? Why else would one Moslem drink alcohol, while another abstains fastidiously throughout their lives? Why else would a Jew, like me, eat bacon, and be positively traumatised by the idea of never touching it again?

 

What religion does for many of its subscribers is provide some kind of structure within which they can fit their values: values which should really be core to all of us, but often, for whatever reason, are not. All religion is based on, in the majority of cases, is simple common sense, discipline and respect for others: it's just that, humans being humans, many have misunderstood this, and twisted it to conform to prejudices they hold, or attitudes which suit the invariably corrupt ruling elites of their society.

[P-Dizzle]

I've done that more than once on this forum. I don't believe I've insulted anybody by doing so. There are some people with spectacularly thin skins who think that anyone who disagrees with them is insulting them, and there's nothing we can do to fix that. But there is also what you might call the "reasonable person test". Say a reasonably-minded person who isn't on one side or other of a discussion looks at what people have said and the way they've said it. If they think someone is being rude or insulting - on either side of the debate - then they probably are.

 

 

So you agree that expressing your views on religion when in discussion, should not have to be sugar coated to protect someone's feelings because their religion means a lot to them?

 

That's how I feel about that, it doesn't mean I try to insult them, but people can be rather touchy if you bring up anything that might cause them to rethink their faiths answer to a question.

[Fourcandles]

+2. Absolutely spot on.

 

A good friend of mine, who had a childhood as horrific as anyone could imagine, doesn't just think, but knows that her very strong faith got her through it. Faith helps people; many, many people, and to demean them for that shows a poverty of spirit which, to return to a point I made earlier, is abundant throughout modern British society.

 

I tend to think repecting religion is one of those case by case things.

 

Example 1. I have 2 sisters who I love dearly and respect greatly for thier charitable work largely prompted by thier 'born again' christianity. They know I am an athiest but I would never turn up at one of thier fund raising coffee mornings and ridicule thier faith.

 

Example 2.

Any one of the 9/11 bombers must have had unimaginably deep faith to do what they did - so is all faith to be repected?

 

I wouldn't say there isn't a straight yes or no answer tbh.

 

.

[shaun.lawson]

I tend to think repecting religion is one of those case by case things.

 

Example 1. I have 2 sisters who I love dearly and respect greatly for thier charitable work largely prompted by thier 'born again' christianity. They know I am an athiest but I would never turn up at one of thier fund raising coffee mornings and ridicule thier faith.

 

Example 2.

Any one of the 9/11 bombers must have had unimaginably deep faith to do what they did - so is all faith to be repected?

 

I wouldn't say there isn't a straight yes or no answer tbh.

 

.

 

I think that's absolutely right. I'd also argue that those responsible for 9/11 went against pretty much every central tenet of their faith - and in reality, many were brainwashed by those who did as I wrote above: twisted and *******ised their faith in order to suit hideous prejudices they held, and nefarious actions they wanted to be committed.

 

To give one example: some years back, a friend of a friend, who'd recently converted to Christianity, expressed out loud that she thought praying was more useful than giving to charity. I ridiculed that as embodying a quite appalling abdication of responsibility; this didn't mean I was ridiculing all her new found faith, though. If it had helped her find peace in her life, good.

 

To give another: a few weeks back, a Hindu student of mine invited me to have dinner with two missionaries he knows: Mormons, to be precise. Yet for all the stereotypes and prejudice which surround our views of Mormons, and for all the questions I naturally asked them, I've hardly ever met two such gentle, wise, peaceable individuals - neither of whom would ever even raise their voice to or judge anyone else - in my entire life.

 

They've very obviously helped my student find answers to very challenging difficulties he's faced this year; and although I don't share their beliefs, I can see no harm in that at all. It's case by case, as you say.

[P-Dizzle]

What religion does for many of its subscribers is provide some kind of structure within which they can fit their values: values which should really be core to all of us, but often, for whatever reason, are not. All religion is based on, in the majority of cases, is simple common sense, discipline and respect for others: it's just that, humans being humans, many have misunderstood this, and twisted it to conform to prejudices they hold, or attitudes which suit the invariably corrupt ruling elites of their society.

 

I agree, and it's the fact that it can be distorted is the reason that religion has caused so many problems in this world. If it is allowed to influence anything more than someone's personal beliefs, then we end up with the prejudices you mention. No Christian can claim to know the true word of god, how many different types of Christian are there in the world? What gives one group's argument more weight than the other?

 

If people actually knew more from history about how it has been manipulated since it's conception. Used to enslave people, used to hold dominion over great lands and those that lived there, used to justify murder and murdering others so that you might gain more influence over people.

 

Personal beliefs are what they are, but some people need to know where to draw the line, and I address that to both sides. The offensive words of the obnoxious atheist are just as offensive to the religious person as the theocratic horror that is destroying lives all across the world is to me.

[Ulysses]

It's just impossible to prove.

It's easy to prove. Just present the evidence.

 

 

In my opinion, there are too many apparent miracles in the world; too many coincidences and chance meetings; too many examples of people being randomly 'protected' from a disaster they'd otherwise have experienced, for the idea of God to be entirely dismissed.

People see coincidences and chance events which they regard as impossible, but which in fact fall well within the bounds of statistical probability. Never mind what you might call high-end science, many people don't get simple statistics. Here's an example. Yesterday on a tea break, I asked a group of 5 people - all with degree-level education - the average number of legs an adult human has. Four of the five got the answer wrong - I am genuinely not kidding. In that context, I can see why people can see things that are statistically likely but think they are somehow "out of this world".

[Ulysses]

So you agree that expressing your views on religion when in discussion, should not have to be sugar coated to protect someone's feelings because their religion means a lot to them?

 

Are you asking a question or making a statement?

[P-Dizzle]

Are you asking a question or making a statement?

 

Both

[Ulysses]

Both

 

In that case, I'll say no just to be on the safe side.

 

I suppose my view is that the answer is a little bit more complicated than that, and a lot depends on how terms such as "sugar coated", "protect" and "feelings" are defined.

[shaun.lawson]

It's easy to prove. Just present the evidence.

 

 

 

People see coincidences and chance events which they regard as impossible, but which in fact fall well within the bounds of statistical probability. Never mind what you might call high-end science, many people don't get simple statistics. Here's an example. Yesterday on a tea break, I asked a group of 5 people - all with degree-level education - the average number of legs an adult human has. Four of the five got the answer wrong - I am genuinely not kidding. In that context, I can see why people can see things that are statistically likely but think they are somehow "out of this world".

 

What was 'statistically likely' about me randomly bumping into an Indian friend, who lives with his family near Delhi and I hadn't seen in 9 years, in Oxford the other week? Given he was only there for an hour, and I only popped in myself, I had to be in the exact same place at the exact same time in order to encounter him - yet I did.

 

Moreover, there wasn't an awful lot that was 'statistically likely' about:

 

1. After going into a blind panic at around 2pm one Thursday afternoon, suddenly realising that, in the worst example of a schoolboy error imaginable, the work I was doing that week featured no contract, meaning the school I freelanced for weren't obliged to pay me anything;

 

2. Making the bus by seconds, dashing down to the school, where the accountant - the only individual there who can pay signed off invoices - was literally about to leave seconds later for 2 weeks' holiday, catching him just as he was about to leave the office, and asking him to wait;

 

3. Dashing upstairs, finding my Head of Department (who I'd called while on the bus, and also persuaded to wait when he'd been about to leave), who's almost never around, discussing my situation with him, all the while being aware that he'd been part of a complaint I'd made that morning which he didn't know about, but as soon as he did, might well make life very difficult for me indeed;

 

4. Persuading him to pay me something that, as no contract had been agreed, the school wasn't obliged to, sign the invoice off then and there (which he almost never does), then dashing back down to find the accountant, who to my immense good fortune, was still waiting for me, and immediately paid it into my account?

 

The above featured a massive series of coincidences and good fortune - without any part of which, I'd have almost certainly been screwed. 'Statistically likely', my foot. And folk will ridicule that - but my girlfriend is always telling me that God is watching over me, and is very upset that I don't share her conviction about that.

 

Is she wrong? Definitively, demonstrably, 100% wrong? I simply can't say.

[Ulysses]

What was 'statistically likely' about me randomly bumping into an Indian friend, who lives with his family near Delhi and I hadn't seen in 9 years, in Oxford the other week? Given he was only there for an hour, and I only popped in myself, I had to be in the exact same place at the exact same time in order to encounter him - yet I did.

 

Moreover, there wasn't an awful lot that was 'statistically likely' about:

 

1. After going into a blind panic at around 2pm one Thursday afternoon, suddenly realising that, in the worst example of a schoolboy error imaginable, the work I was doing that week featured no contract, meaning the school I freelanced for weren't obliged to pay me anything;

 

2. Making the bus by seconds, dashing down to the school, where the accountant - the only individual there who can sign off invoices - was literally about to leave seconds later for 2 weeks' holiday, catching him just as he was about to leave the office, and asking him to wait;

 

3. Dashing upstairs, finding my Head of Department, who's almost never around, discussing my situation with him, all the while being aware that he'd been part of a complaint I'd made that morning which he didn't know about, but as soon as he did, might well make life very difficult for me indeed;

 

4. Persuading him to pay me something that, as no contract had been agreed, the school wasn't obliged to, sign the invoice off then and there (which he almost never does), then dashing back down to find the accountant, who to my immense good fortune, was still waiting for me, and immediately paid it into my account?

 

The above featured a massive series of coincidences and good fortune - without any part of which, I'd have almost certainly been screwed. 'Statistically likely', my foot. And folk will ridicule that - but my girlfriend is always telling me that God is watching over me, and is very upset that I don't share her conviction about that.

 

Is she wrong? Definitively, demonstratively, 100% wrong? I simply can't say.

 

Yet I offer you four things to consider in response (and you haven't dealt with the legs question yet).

 

Firstly, your story is not too dissimilar to something that happened to me once in my 20s - and once again about 4-5 years ago.

 

Secondly, that doesn't greatly surprise me, because in a world where billions of people are doing billions of things, the kind of sequence of events you describe will happen quite often to different people. On that occasion, the sequence happened to you.

 

Thirdly, and this is crucial, if one of those "extraordinary" things had not happened, you would not have given any thought whatsoever to whether or not the others would have happened. You can only be sure your Head of Department is around or is not around when you want him to be in a particular place. There are many other days when your Head of Department may or may not be around - but you neither know nor care. If the event had happened two weeks before, it would have been just another day at the office for the accountant. People notice when apparently extraordinary things happen, and these occasions really stick in their minds as being special but not mundane and mediocre. But in fact they are mundane and mediocre - it's just that because you needed something to happen and it did, you believe that sequence was special. Why? Because our brains are designed to construct a universe in two halves, one half being us and the other half being everything else.

 

Finally, there is nothing remarkable about your meeting with your Indian friend. He was somewhere he was going, and so were you. If you hadn't met him that day it would have been unremarkable and you wouldn't have noticed. In the same way, I recall a mate of mine who was meant to call someone before he left work to go on holidays, but forgot. He met him a few days later at the entrance to the Empire State Building, and although they were on holidays they had a quick chat to sort out their business. Afterwards told me how astonishing a coincidence it was. Except that it wasn't. Both guys went to New York as part of their holidays, both went at the same time, and both chose to visit the Empire State Building (as tourists do). It was highly unusual that both of them were there at the same time - but it was an event that they both set in motion by their holiday choices.

I'd recommend two books - neither of which have anything to do with or say about God. If you haven't read them they'll do a far better job than I could of explaining the enormous capacity of the human mind for deceiving itself. If you've already read them, then I probably should just give up.

 

They are Ben Goldacre's Bad Science, and The Invisible Gorilla: And Other Ways Our Intuitions Deceive Us by Christopher Chabris and Daniel Simons.

[FWJ]

It's easy to prove. Just present the evidence.

 

 

 

People see coincidences and chance events which they regard as impossible, but which in fact fall well within the bounds of statistical probability. Never mind what you might call high-end science, many people don't get simple statistics. Here's an example. Yesterday on a tea break, I asked a group of 5 people - all with degree-level education - the average number of legs an adult human has. Four of the five got the answer wrong - I am genuinely not kidding. In that context, I can see why people can see things that are statistically likely but think they are somehow "out of this world".

So what's the answer? About 1.99?

[Maple Leaf]

So what's the answer? About 1.99?

 

Close. Add a few more nines.

 

Which makes it clear that the vast majority of people have more than the average number of legs.

 

Personally, I have three!

[ToYouToMe]

Yet I offer you four things to consider in response (and you haven't dealt with the legs question yet).

 

Firstly, your story is not too dissimilar to something that happened to me once in my 20s - and once again about 4-5 years ago.

 

Secondly, that doesn't greatly surprise me, because in a world where billions of people are doing billions of things, the kind of sequence of events you describe will happen quite often to different people. On that occasion, the sequence happened to you.

 

Thirdly, and this is crucial, if one of those "extraordinary" things had not happened, you would not have given any thought whatsoever to whether or not the others would have happened. You can only be sure your Head of Department is around or is not around when you want him to be in a particular place. There are many other days when your Head of Department may or may not be around - but you neither know nor care. If the event had happened two weeks before, it would have been just another day at the office for the accountant. People notice when apparently extraordinary things happen, and these occasions really stick in their minds as being special but not mundane and mediocre. But in fact they are mundane and mediocre - it's just that because you needed something to happen and it did, you believe that sequence was special. Why? Because our brains are designed to construct a universe in two halves, one half being us and the other half being everything else.

 

Finally, there is nothing remarkable about your meeting with your Indian friend. He was somewhere he was going, and so were you. If you hadn't met him that day it would have been unremarkable and you wouldn't have noticed. In the same way, I recall a mate of mine who was meant to call someone before he left work to go on holidays, but forgot. He met him a few days later at the entrance to the Empire State Building, and although they were on holidays they had a quick chat to sort out their business. Afterwards told me how astonishing a coincidence it was. Except that it wasn't. Both guys went to New York as part of their holidays, both went at the same time, and both chose to visit the Empire State Building (as tourists do). It was highly unusual that both of them were there at the same time - but it was an event that they both set in motion by their holiday choices.

I'd recommend two books - neither of which have anything to do with or say about God. If you haven't read them they'll do a far better job than I could of explaining the enormous capacity of the human mind for deceiving itself. If you've already read them, then I probably should just give up.

 

They are Ben Goldacre's Bad Science, and The Invisible Gorilla: And Other Ways Our Intuitions Deceive Us by Christopher Chabris and Daniel Simons.

 

The bit of your post I have highlighted is all the more reason then to trust in God, not in ourselves.

[Vlad-Stupid]

CBA reading the thread, have we established why there is no mention of the dinosaurs in the bible yet?

[Amjam]

The bit of your post I have highlighted is all the more reason then to trust in God, not in ourselves.

 

And what if that believe in God is part of that deception? It's a cyclical argument that can't be broken because one half of it is based on faith.

[ToYouToMe]

CBA reading the thread, have we established why there is no mention of the dinosaurs in the bible yet?

 

 

Some say there is mention made - in Job 40:15-24. Not saying that I agree with that necessarily, but it is intriguing. This is the most detailed description you find of an animal anywhere in scripture I think also.

 

Another point I would make is this however - the bible is not a scientific textbook - it offers an explanation as to why the world was created and by whom, not the exact intricacies of that design (which we are still uncovering bit by bit) and why we are here at all, the purpose of our lives.

 

The example that Dr John Lennox gives in the link argues that in fact science and scripture compliment each other, which is what the many Christian scientists past and present have understood, this phenomenon where science is set against faith is a very recent thing, even the supposed Huxley - Wilberforce debate was not a debate such as the ones between Dawkins and Lennox for example.

 

I mean guys like John Polkinghorne believe that evolution was a process initiated by God, it is not that all Christians are anti-science. I believe science is a gift of God, it is when we start making science itself god that we start getting into questionable territory. If you are trying to read Genesis as a scientific text, then of course you will be disappointed, a bit like going to a Hibs match looking for "flair".

 

http://johnlennox.org/index.php/en/resource/limitations_of_science/

[ToYouToMe]

And what if that believe in God is part of that deception? It's a cyclical argument that can't be broken because one half of it is based on faith.

 

Exactly, it is a matter of faith, and despite what some say there is solid evidence to back up faith, but I fully accept there is a point where it is all about blind faith, you simply have to step off the edge (a bit like a base-jumper) and trust God.

 

Not everyone is prepared to take that step, but others are. Why should they be ridiculed for it, perhaps the ones left standing on the edge are the ones missing out?