No it didn't. I was asking someone else a question.

 

It certainly isn't, but what is your point? It does not claim to be, it's simply science. Humans have morals, science is science.

The bible/religion has not given us our morals. The bible teaches some truly unpleasant stuff as well as the supposed love etc. in the new testament. Very little of that moral code is followed by modern Christians or Jews, so where exactly are they getting their morals from?

If you tell me that you think that slavery, rape, murder, intolerance etc. is what you follow, then fine, I'll admit that at least you believe in what the bible says, but if not then where have your moral values come from?

Not from science, they are not supposed to, but maybe you would like to hazard a guess?

Geezer

 

So the point is that a scientistic world view is not enough.

Christianity preaches compassion and universal human brotherhood is it main contribution of it. Before that you had the morality of antiquity, the Roman morality of strength, the Colosseum etc. It's a revolution of morality of sorts. Most of the nasty stuff is found in the old testament which is superseded by the message of Christ etc.

 

Please peeps...do not forget:

God did NOT write the bible.

Jesus did NOT write the bible.


Regular, ego-centrered, power-hungry, humans wrote the Bible.



Although, for a more accurate transcript of Jesus' words, you might want to have a read through "A Course in Miracles".

 

I can turn water into wine, meself. Takes a few weeks.

 

But Dawkin, Hawking etc are preaching their atheism for a 'love of humanity'?

 

Hawking does not preach atheism. For someone so contrary and vocal your ignorance is staggering; you never make your position clear and seem to duck away from challenging questions. Annoying little man. (Not Hawking).

 

No, that's why we have an independent set of morals, just not from religion.

Really?

What about from Matthew 10:34 or from Matthew 10:35 or one of my favourites, Jesus very stongly advocates the law of the Old Testament, so saying it's a message of love is simply not true. So, if you follow the NT, then surely you should kill any disobedient child? Jesus says you should, so it's ok

I await your next non-answer..............

Geezer

 

It is noticeable now that since the old Christian set of values which most people used to follow are being discarded and replaced by selfishness, cheating, and greed, the World is becoming a less pleasant place.

You can waste your time arguing the finer points of religion all you like, but when people respected its teachings and that of natural law, we had a very much better society in general than we do now.

Les

 

We've been over this before Les, it's a myth. OK, society is going through a bit of dip now, but historically, things were much worse.

Also, just how bad is it? If you believe the gutter press, then the world is about to end, but if you actually look around I don't think things are really very bad at all.

Maybe it's because I live in a rural area and in the in the inner cities it's bad, but I think that's more to do with social and economic pressures then lack of religion.

People with good education and a good standard of living will always "behave" better.

Geezer

 

Geezer, keeping in mind that Jesus DIDN'T write the Bible, but is quoted...many years after his death:

Matthew 10:35: Jesus did not mean that we should love him most, but merely love all equally. Why? Because we all come from the same source.

He is also trying to tell people that not to cling on to the physical world. As soon as you begin to bond strongly to "things" here in this world, you begin to lose touch with your true self. The non-physical.

 

Really? Considering that none of the writers of the bible met Jesus or anyone who met him either, that's quite a feat. If Jesus had existed, then anything he may have said is hearsay, and almost certainly won't be what was originally said.

Now this is just daft.

If we look at the text surrounding this verse.......
it's quite clear what he is saying. Your interpretation is utterly foundless.

You can read more before that, nowhere does it say it's so we can love everyone equally. It's unequivocal, love me and my dad or you're for it!

Why give Man a physical being at all? What's the point? It's all rather cruel really, give them a short(compared to eternity) physical life, continually testing them, and if they don't measure up (and after all, they've been given free will and no proof of existence....) damn them to hell for ever. That's a long time. Doesn't really stack up against the love I feel for my children, how about you?

Geezer

 

I didn't actually mean religion so much Geezer although it would look like that I admit.

By Christian values I meant the way people used to think and behave with thought for other people instead of just number one. It is true of course that religious teachings would promote that, but in previous times it was natural for the average person to think that way anyway. All to do to with upbringing I reckon. Even those with a very poor background demonstrated those virtues.

When it comes to education and standard of living that you mention, take a look at the example set by our leaders in government and industry!

Les

 

I can't argue with that one Les!!!!

Geezer

 

Les

 

Gone all quiet on here. People watching The End of God?: A Horizon Guide to Science and Religion on BBC4 now?

 

Based upon what?

You are finding the exceptions and making them the rule. The bible us full of contradictions etc, you have copying errors and translation errors, plus the issue of metaphor and symbolism.

 

He's mocking and vilifying religion in public, looks pretty clear cut to me.

 

First you acknowledge that Jesus could not have written the Bible. THEN, you claim it's his words anyway. Either your debate skills are rusty or you are just trying to wind me up.

Or maybe it is your debate skills? Do you think you win a debate, by insisting the oppostion is just wrong? You need structured, consistent arguments.
I have tried to illuminate another interpretation of the texts from the Bible. Even those who wrote it, may not have understood the folklore.


Well, if you can open your thoughts to this theory: God did not create the physical world. (This kind of talk would've gotten me burned/hanged not many years ago).

Therefore, the Almighty cannot be blamed for the suffering we have gotten ourselves into here. This IS our very own hell. Until we wake up, we are damned here forever, but NOT by God, by our own short-sightedness.

You complain that God has given us no proof of existence. Two comments:


1) As I have suggested many times already, God did not create the physical world, and therefore has no reason to leave a trademark in it.

2) There is "proof", but it lies without the physical world. You will never be able to find it with scientific measuring equipment. You must open other senses to experience it.



Yes, yes, I know you will probably be questioning my sanity by now, and perhaps I should not have gone so far, but please try to think about this. Ignore the Bible, and religion in general, just look at the face value of a physical world, made in our collective mind, with no God to blame. God is only for us to find




I have to add, that I don't pretend to ignore the significance of the physical world. Indeed, Science is the way to explain the structure of this world, and that is why I agree with Hawking: We don't need God to describe the world...he/she didn't make it

 

Have you read his actual words? He's not mocking or vilifying religion at all, just pointing out what science has known for a long time - that the Universe does not require the existence of a God anywhere in its explanation. It's just the media which has chosen to report it that way.

 

He still can't tell us all how it all began though.

Les

 

He can, you just got to have faith in him and his book.

 

Try telling that to Creationists.

 

Excellent programme; I'm glad it touched on neurotheology which answers so many questions.

 

This is simply untrue. I challenge you to post just one genuine quote or YouTube clip to back this up. As I said, staggering ignorance.

 

He is doing very well then!

Les

 

Humans that have 'looked after' other humans tend to have been more succesful and have attracted stronger mates who've adopted similar behaviours. Their genes are passed on to their offspring who, if they continue with this 'moral' behaviour are also succesful and able to pass their genes on. Reciprical 'i'll scratch your back' behaviours are the foundation of our intrinsic morality. Genuine acts of altruism are almost impossible to demonstrate irrefutably. Natural selection really is beutifully simple; no hocus pocus, just sensible, testable and logical explanations.

 

'Happy clappers'?

 

Of course science doesn't it would be a religion.

 

That is a post-facto rationalization not a morality in itself.

We don't have intrinsic morality, look at the breath of human behavior. Are Tibetan monks of the same morality as SS deathcamp guards?

Morality is necessary to stop us acting like animals. Animals just do what they want, they ARE nature. As man we rose above nature and continue to go against our nature to do so, hence the alienated man of high civilization.