Leslie

Its entirely up to the individual whether they have blind faith or temper it with a more general view.

Not sure what you mean by scientific process Geezer. We can produce lots of real facts and also probabilities or even possibilities with respect to a scientific theory, and if it is a theory then it cannot be taken as a positive truth. The big bang theory may well be accurate, or it might not. If it is, where did all that matter and energy comefrom initiallY?

With either my first point, or my second, or even both-we all have the right to make our own choice.

Nothing is black and white in my opinion.

Les

Geezer

Exactly, I haven't disagreed with you. But if you believe in God, then you will not be swayed from that position. If a better theory comes along, or something else is proved then it will be accepted.

The zebra crossing outside my office is

Geezer

OllyK

Cosmologists know far more about the origins of the universe than they did a few decades ago. I'll put my money on them finding a natural explanation before they find god.

Leslie

Do you remember all those people who were exceuted in a very unpleasant way for refusing to deny their faith?

Geezer,

Our zebra crossings are more greyish down here-bit like what we were discussing.

Olly,

You may well be right Olly, and I am not denying the possibility of the "Big Bang" theory. But as I mentioned before, it will be really interesting when they can explain where all the matter and energy to set it all off came from in the first place! When they manage that I will buy you a beer! come to that, I don't mind buying you one anyway some time.

Les

Alan C

Fence sitting, i.e. religious moderation, is no stance at all. Being grey achieves nothing when proof, evidence or even rational theories are needed.

I'm afraid religious moderates (of whatever faith) are just as culpable as their more fundamentalist brethren. Muslim moderates had to be castigated heavily before some of them woke up and finally started denouncing the London suicide bombers.

Religious texts are being picked apart slowly, but surely by science and reason. The stance nowadays is to cherry pick those parts of the religious texts that pertain to modernity.

The only 'believers' we really see taking their texts literally are the fanatasists / fantasist's such as the Taliban and Westboro Baptists, to name but two. Everyone else, neatly skips over the chapters and chapters of Biblical texts calling for genocide, child murder, sacrifice and slavery. The actual list of repulsive acts and contradictions is very very long (in the Bible alone), but again, these are never mentioned in Sunday school or your local moderate C of E church. Thankfully.

However, we're not so fortunate in other areas of religion.

David Lock

The Christian Church takes its beliefs and guidance from the teachings of Christ and his followers as decribed in the New Testament. I don't think you will find "chapters of Biblical texts calling for genocide, child murder, sacrifice and slavery" in these teachings which are to be found in the Old Testament, Eye for an Eye and all that. dl

Alan C

David. Though mainly toned down in scale, the New Testament is equally cruel and violent throughout the gospels. What's benign about the prophecy that Jesus will come back as an avenging saviour and kill all the 'bad' people? 'Bad' in this context is everyone failing to abide by the fairly specific rules of the Bible itself. I think you'll find this to be practically everyone...

However, religious folk will interpret these books / gospels to suit themselves (multi-millionaire evangelist preachers anyone?), their church and their lifestyle. Herein lies the root of the problem in interpreting a multiple transcribed and multiple translated ancient desert story and spinning it into the modern day literal teachings of god or Jesus.

What's equally scary is;

• The millions of people deluded enough to actually believe it.
• The small fraction of those millions willing to destroy themselves on a bus to make a religious gesture and receive their 'rapture'.
• The many millions of believers who bend and re-bend the original teachings because over the years, slavery and stoning adulterers is seen as something bad. And then failing to see their hypocrisy in all of this.

moses

i just wish yer brain wasnt as narrow as gaymans **** when not wide open

moses

abdabz u really believe u came fae a monkey or a gorrilla, if u think that , im tolerant , if u wanna believe u r a evolved monkey go ahead and knock yerself oot

here is whit i have for u


YouTube - Evolution Origin - Monkey or Man by Abdur Raheem Green



YouTube - Toward's more peaceful society - Abdur raheem green(1/2)

YouTube - Toward's more peaceful society - Abdur raheem green(2/2)

Leslie

I wonder what your definition of a "religious moderate" is. Are you talking of someone who follows a particular religion but is prepared to accept that others wish to follow another one and that if they live a good life and think of others too are perfectly entitled to do so and cannot be blamed in any way? Also that most religions do advocate living your life in such a way and the evil acts only come from selfish unprincipled people who use the religion for their own purposes.

The existence of a God, whoever he might be cannot be proved nor disproved. You pays your money and takes your choice about what you prefer to believe-that is your inalienable right of course.

Rational theories do not prove anything!

Les

Alan C

Obviously the term 'religious moderate' is subjective, but to me, it is religious fervour that has been toned down because the person in question, questions the very 'rules' laid down in the Bible (or whatever version of the same text they believe in) that they are supposed to follow.

This maybe for many reasons, but you may find that the passages I've referred to that condone slavery for example, don't quite fit in with that persons modern day thinking or human beliefs. There are literally several hundreds of references to such acts that were written in an Iron age context, so it's no wonder that personal & social morals mean that more and more Biblical requirements that were relevant at that time become obsolete.

You probably do have to be a moderate to accept other peoples religion, but the Taliban fantatasist also believes he's doing good by ridding the world of infidels. So again, religious doctrine is very subjective and works from extremes. I'd agree that religious believers are fully predisposed to do good things; but so are non-believers. I'd also agree that history is littered with atrocities caused in the name of religion (whether done specifically in the name of religion or by referencing a racist ideology of extermination on the back of faith as in the case of Hitler).

In mentioning rational theories; Leprechauns, unicorns, fairies, the Lochness monster, aliens, big foot....etc etc etc... also cannot be disproved, but that doesn't mean they exist.
I'd go so far to say that there's far more documentary & physical evidence to support the existence of all those than there is in a god. But I'd say you'd be laughing at me or even thinking of locking me up (and quite rightly) if I'd suggested to you that I'd just heard voices in my head and was instructed to start a new religion.....

And for something so momentous in Human history, and for the basis of faith in millions of people, don't you think it kind of strange that all this belief is structured around absolutely no evidence whatsoever?

But that's another subject...

Alan C

I feel strongly that the time of respect for such 'faith' has passed and we should be free to challenge such morally bankrupt conviction.

Please note that challenge is different to attacking... proper intelligent discourse is the only way to move forward with this.

The best example of this can be got from Sam Harris. Eloquent, intelligent and very, very rational.

David Lock

So Alan you must feel that the universe was just created by chance and that one day it might be understood by humans who can only really understand things in 3 dimensions?

Does that mean that you cannot surmise that there may be another force/thing (god if you like) that exists in a multi-dimensional format which we, as mere humans, can't begin to understand?

Isn't that view a bit arrogant? dl

Bubba po

The existence of such a being may be possible, but highly improbable - especially one which could be responsible for the creation of this universe. It's a reductio ad absurdum; a being cannot create something more complex than itself, so it begs the question "who created the creator?"

Leslie

Thank you for your definition of a religious moderate. I don't think that is really so bad then. Don't you think that you were somewhat unfair in your original post about them then?

The fact that those beings that you mentioned cannot be disproved also doesn't mean that they dont exist of course.

Les

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

I think Alan's point is absolutely valid. He points out that we should be free to challenge those whose belief is based purely on 'faith' and the difficulty of proving them to be wrong. Moreover, if those who believe something continue to do so in the face of overwhelming hard evidence to the contrary, then (IMHO) they absolutely should be challenged.

As any mathematician will tell you, the fact that something cannot be conclusively disproven doesn't constitute proof that it is true. If you're not already familiar with the idea of "Russell's Teapot", or indeed the Flying Spaghetti Monster, now would be a good time to look them up.

Personally I find it much easier to accept the idea that "in the beginning" there was simply a large amount of mass-energy with no structure, than an all-powerful, all-seeing intelligent entity. The "where did it come from" argument applies equally well to a God as it does to the seeds of the Big Bang.

Alan C

I disagree. I think religious moderates create a vacuum of silence around fellow followers (remember I'm not picking on any particular religion here), but I've seen too many apologists saying that suicide bombers were doing it for other reasons apart from their religious beliefs or even staying silent and not denouncing such actions.

I think as a member of a particular faith, moderates should be speaking up more about the failings of that religion. For example: I don't see too many Roman Catholics denouncing the immoral teachings of condom use in Africa.

Therefore my criticism stands.

I could extend this to the Intelligent Design theory (it would be interesting to know where do you stand on this?). Moderates always seem to pick on the beautifull things likes roses, frozen waterfall, birds of paradise, the human eye for example; But (as David Attenborough once pointed out), we hear nothing on the worm that specifically burrows into the eyeballs of Children / people bathing in infected river waters in Africa. If god designed eyes, then he designed that worm that will eventually blind these people.

David, that is pretty much what I believe. Science says 'here's a theory built from a combibnnation of known facts and evidence, and we've pushed some ideas into the mix that MAY be right. Please prove me wrong.' Most scientific advances have been made this way. Yet we don't see anyone questioning the fact they we erradicated many diseases that would have killed people a hundred years ago. We will continue to develop this way.

All scientific theories are up there to be challenged and questioned. So are your political persuasions, your music tastes even your football team. Your religion is protected by special laws (blasphemy) and considerations, so is beyond such criticism and challenge. Religion makes it clear that the religious text of choice is the last and unchangeable word of the Lord. Period.

Just because I choose to put forward valid and rational points (from my perspective), that doesn't make me arrogant any more than it makes you arrogant for counter-questioning these points.

The basis of my beliefs are on what I can see, what I know and (not surprisingly) what things are highly, highly probable. As Bubba puts it, anything that is highly improbable (ie something that has NO or virtually no basis on evidence) is consigned to the bin of other highly imprbable things (eg Nessie) until such days as some form of proof is put forward.

Geezer

Not like......

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household."
Matthew 10:34-37 " then?

There are plenty of equally unpleasnt quotes in the New Testament. It' not only the old testament which is all fire and brimstone.

Geezer

Alan C

Geezer. The Sceptics Annotated Bible has hundreds and hundreds of similar references in both books....

Religion then steps back and uses the 'analogy' theory. ie, 'well Jesus (or whoever) didn't actually mean that all Homosexuals should be stoned to death, that was a metaphor.' As if the metaphor for child sacrifice was any better than thinking the real thing.

As mentioned below, Sam Harris explains religious moderation much better than I.

But by failing to live by the letter of the texts — while tolerating the irrationality of those who do — religious moderates betray faith and reason equally. As moderates, we cannot say that religious fundamentalists are dangerous idiots, because they are merely practising their freedom of belief. We can’t even say that they are mistaken in religious terms, because their knowledge of scripture is generally unrivalled. All we can say, as religious moderates, is that we don’t like the personal and social costs that a full embrace of scripture imposes on us. It is time we recognised that religious moderation is the product of secular knowledge and scriptural ignorance.

Sam refers to such passages as Geezers or: Exodus 31:15: Whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

Meaning, (probably all) Christians are either disobeying, have disobeyed or complicit in the disobayance of their Lord.

Les, David. Do you agree with this statement?

Alan C

Les, David? You still there or licking some wounds
Don't give up now, this was getting good.

I mean that sincerely, it's nice to be able to have a proper chat without Trolls taking over..

David Lock

Alan, I am sure you are correct in all that you say and that I should change my beliefs of 50 years. I tried to argue my corner in the last long religious thread on SN. I am certainly not going to do that again.

Say hi to Sam (whoever he is ) dl

Alan C

I've never met the guy, but I highly recommend his work.
I'd also recommend it from the point of view of being able to argue your corner effectively. I'm no student of the Bible, but if I'm going to criticise it's content then I feel it only respectful to have read and understood those certain parts (I did actually read it many years ago when young).

It is surprising however, that many people of religion have not actually read the book (not sure if you of Les have...). They've only ever had it 'preached' to them in sermons. Which goes a long way to explain the concentration on the 'good' bits to the complete exclusion of the 'bad' bits in most arguments.

Les started to make that mistake by saying that the Bible and it's practicing moderates do good. It does and they do of course (especially the Golden Rule, which is probably the most single exceptional statement the Bible makes), but that's only a fraction of the story......

I'm sure 50 years of belief is very hard to shake off, but I'd suggest that a 'free mind' is well worth working towards...and that the natural evolutionary beauty of the world around us is marvel enough....

Klaatu

The Church believed the Earth was at the centre of our universe at one point in time, and jailed/killed people who disagreed.

Klaatu

I guess you include Al "I invented the internet" Gore in the "scientific community" you talk of? Assumption and concensus isn't science.

Klaatu

Well said that man.

Klaatu

Well I guess Lucy can't be real and resting in museum in Addis Ababa.

Klaatu

This is how I reached the same conclusion as you.

Holy Ghost

**

i disagree. the scientific as a whole does not think otherwise about AGW. until there is total unanimity, this will not be the case. and there is isn't. minority scepticism does not equal an "odd lone voice" - and the intimidation of critics within the scientific community as heretics by others who are hoovering up $billions in AGW research grants suggests that they there may just be a little bit of self-interest at stake here. follow the money: one could say that politicians have finally found a way to tax the air we breathe.

my personal jury is out on AGW - the research presented to us remains flaky and spun. for instance, arctic ice may be decreasing but antarctic ice is increasing we are told. might this not be caused by fractional changes in the axis of rotation of the earth in relation to the sun? i'd like to know - but it's one of those awkward questions for which a straight answer is very, very hard to find.

i'm not a climatologist as you can probably tell but scepticism is healthy: i do know that it's the vital acid test that tempers bad - or opportunistic - science. we shout it down at our peril.

Leslie

Wasn't necessary to try to smoke me out by mockery but just that I have only just read your reply. Not on here all day but was enjoying the nice weather on my old motor bike in fact

I have never heard of "Sam", probably a lot of truth there and I think he must have been what he terms a religious moderate himself to be able to write that.

Its a matter of degree how you define a fundamentalist or a moderate. The common view is that a fundamentalist is someone who is so wrapped up in the tiny details of his religion that he is incapable of accepting anything at all which is in the slightest bit different. Some might say that his head is in an unpleasant place! That is where the trouble stems from unless it is someone using other peoples' beliefs to their own selfish ends as we see these days.

I know people however who follow the precepts of their own religion to the 'nth degree, but who are also able to see that are more ways to skin a cat and are not likely to denounce those of another calling. My point is that people in that mould are more moderate in their outlook and are unlikely to believe that those who dont follow their own religion are automatically bound for hellfire and damnation. The impression you give is that all religious believers should behave in a manner which we see as fundamentalist, if that was so-what would the world be like? surely it is bad enough already.

What is really important in my own mind is that people follow their own conscience and live their lives as they believe whether in a religious manner or just by natural law and common decency. People do understand the difference between right and wrong from a fairly young age and those who go the wrong way have usually not been brought up properly since it is natural for children to rail against authority especially if they have no guidance.

That is why I say that since most religions that I know about teach people to live a good life as we would understand it, then my own moderacy sees nothing wrong in that whatever the actual religion is. I am not concerned about trying to convert people to my own particular beliefs since as I said above-that is their own affair. If you wish to be agnostic or an atheist that is no skin off my nose!

The one thing I am pretty positive about though is that I deplore those who because they have no religious beliefs feel that they have to insult those who do. Why do they have to be so unpleasant unless it is because they are uncertain of their own beliefs that they feel that they have to justify them to themselves. Quite unnecessary especially since I never fell that I have to do the same thing in return. "Live and let live" is a very good maxim!

Les

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

I was with you right up until this paragraph.

Arguing against religious beliefs in the light of hard evidence disproving them doesn't represent a wilful desire to 'be unpleasant' just for the sake of it. It represents a desire to discuss, to enlighten and to progress.

Please do not make the mistake of thinking that belief in science, and not in a God, is the result of ignorance or uncertainty. I come from a (mostly) religious family and went to a school where, as I'm sure many of us did, I was forced to endure daily religious services and timetabled lessons too. Looking back, I find the pervasiveness quite abhorrent - yet I emerged a firm believer in science, and faced with such overwhelming evidence as the existence of dinosaur bones, I struggle to see how any rational human being could come to any other conclusion.

That is why I feel frustrated by the teachings of religion, and why I feel the need to vent that frustration. If that comes across as being 'unpleasant' then I apologise - but nobody ever said that change was always a pleasant experience.

When evidence against the content of the Bible is presented, do you ever feel the need to change your beliefs - or to defend them?

What evidence would it take?