A few pages on and you still haven't provided proof, you've provided something you think in your head, which again is just a belief. You can try and confuse the situation all you want, but it's plain to see. Why talk about art now? It's totally irrellevant to the subject, and 'another form of truth', as you put it, is actually using the word 'truth' in a totally different sense.

 

Hang on there Tony, you didn't say 'the Bible is symbolic', or even 'certain parts of the Bible are symbolic', you said 'religion is symbolic', using no qualifier and therefore implying the whole of it is. So, is what I said idiotic because it assumes that's what you meant, when at face value it's what you actually said? Or was it idiotic for not instantly and without any further explanation on your part seeing that it's only this little bit here and that little bit there of any given religion which aren't to be taken literally, but these other little bits further on which are? Taking just one obviously thorny example for the sake of argument, what if old Williams took it upon himself one day to make a statement that instead of the seven days of Creation story being symbolic, as now seems to be commonly accepted among 'modern' Anglicans, it was in fact the whole 'existence of a supreme being and creator' idea which had been symbolic all along? Would you still be saying then that it's just another way in which 'religion is symbolic', or would you like any other sane person be hard-pushed not to concede that, 'hmm well, that's ripping out the whole foundation from under our faith, actually'?

 

Proof of what?

I'm not confusing anything. You are the one saying truth is only what can be understood with the intellect, what can be validated with scientific method.

Got any 'proof' for that?

Sounds like a narrow definition.

Art can depict symbolism, it's signs and hints at truth which goes beyond intellectual truth, just like religion in a way.

 

Now humans can only understand and think in three dimensions and it's always seemed a bit odd, even arrogant, to me that they assume that the universe and everything that goes with it can/must be understood in this very limited intellectual capacity. And to consider that there may be other forces at work outside these dimensions is laughable.

So can any of you "non-believers" say why that should be the case?

It would seem more likely than not that there are other dimensions around which we cannot begin to comprehend. If humans choose to accept this possibility and call it god then this seems quite reasonable and, in reality, a more open-minded and sensible approach.

dl

 

It's one thing to acknowledge that it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that said extra-dimensional forces might exist, as any true scientist or scientifically-thinking person would gladly do, but quite another to assume without any actual evidence for it that they for a certain fact do, as all followers of religions that include the belief in a supreme being at their core ultimately must.

 

Perfectly good points made here.

Les

 

How else can the notion of God be understood?

 

Nothing wrong with the size of my box thanks!

For Gods sake, DON'T!!!!!!!

This does bring up another point though, the whole patronising attitude of god botherers. The one that says, "I'm in touch with a higher being and you're just a poor little heathen, I should feel sorry for you". Its this sense of superiority (and in Islam has a name for it, unbelievers are kafir, c.f. ***** and untermensch) , that is yet another reason to reject religion

 

Religion was invented as an early form of "Control" to keep the masses well behaved else they will go to Hell.............. The Bible is a story book and nothing else.
In the "Name" of religion causes most of the world's conflicts conducted by extremists.
There are so many different religions and beliefs around the world that will make conflict inevitable.
In my opinion (and it is just my opinion) Religion is for weak minded people who "Need" something to believe in.
The Human brain naturally thinks that there must be something after death because of it's inquisitive nature. But in reality, when you're dead, you're dead!
If there really was a "God", He must be a real sadist to let all the pain and suffering of so many innocent people continue.
The more the human race learns about the Universe and how it came to be and works the less water the "God Created the earth and everything in it" holds. Anyone who still believes this is severely blinkered.
I have absolutely nothing against religion as long as I am not subjected to any of it's nonsensical ramblings by brainwashed idiots. The teachings of ALL religions are used to indoctrinate children at an early age before they have the ability to question it's accuracy which I think is very wrong.
Anyway, just my 2p's worth and my right to express myself.

 

I was not trying to present reasons why anyone should believe in a God (either sex by the way ) or an all powerful being if you prefer, or anyone else or nothing. I have said often enough that is a matter for the individual and I certainly would not try to influence anyone one way or the other.

The major point I was making, as ever, is that it is totally unnecessary to insult someone because they have different beliefs to yourself. All the nasty remarks such as accusations of mental deficiency etc are a symptom of uncertaincy in the mind of the person who is being so ill mannered. Why is it necessary to care anyway? I am not bothered what anyone else wants to believe. It would have no bearing on how I regard that person and as far as I am concerned it is strictly their affair.

All this guff about trying to prove or disprove one thing or another is a waste of time and effort. It is purely people trying to show us all how right they are and how wrong others are. Its a fail in any case! What is the point? Making insulting remarks does not strengthen the argument either, usually does the opposite.

Religion has always been a contentious subject, those of opposing views will never come to agreement anyway. All it does is to risk causing bad blood. That is why I will never enter into a discussion about the rights or wrong in believing in it or not.

Much easier to keep an open mind, be prepared to look at all sides, and stay out of the futile arguments. Those who are agnostic or accept the possibility of an all powerful being will not even necessarily be interested in the Bible or the Christian story. The whole thing requires a lot more lateral thinking than just trying to refute bits of text from the Bible etc. All that sort of thing proves nothing!

All I have ever asked is that people keep their comments at least good mannered if they feel they have to mouth off about it. This forum is worth more than such vicious name calling as we have seen so far. No one deserves to be called mentally deficient because of their personal beliefs.

Les

 

Religion is used by many as an excuse to behave in the most appalling way to other people... similar in a way to racism. The trouble is there's a few bobble hat wearing / church attending few that pop down for a quick prayer and scone on a Sunday morning that don't really understand the holistic evil that is global religion.

 

I had a wee read of a bible the other day, apparantly it took god 6 days to make everything here and only 1 day for the ENTIRE universe, I guess whoever wrote that bit didn't quite expect the universe to be so big

If the earths 4.54 billion years old, why did God wait until 2010 years ago to send his 'son' to earth ?

Seriously though I tried to read it with an open mind but it really is ridiculous

 

He was waiting for enough of his planned evolution to take place.

 

He obviously didnt wait long enough as apparantly he was crucified

You would have thought he could wait that wee bit longer after waiting for 4.5 billion years

 

at least someones talking sense. shame others won't read and think about what you've put.

 

Mine took a lot of thought over the past 43 years.

 

You must mean the sort of treatment meted out by irreligious organisations as well. How about Stalin's government and their treatment of the people or of course the behaviour of the ethnic cleansers during WW2 as just a couple of examples.

Why not admit that all these atrocities are down to certain people for their own selfish reasons. The average religion would never include such behaviour as part of their teachings, including Islam.

Les

 

Its not worth 2p, or anything really.

Try some wider thinking about it all!

Les

 

Sorry Tony, but that one just doesn't wash. If you're seriously telling me that anything more than the tiniest percentage of the followers of the world's major theistic religions understand their faiths' respective incarnations of God to be no more than symbolic representations of some as-yet-incompletely understood but scientifically explainable force, as opposed to the more traditional humanized supreme entity that's actually described in the Bible, Koran, Talmud, and wherever, then I'm not buying. I can well understand how it might make you, as an educated guy who lives and probably works with technology (and therefore science) on a day-to-day basis, far more comfortable with holding onto your faith, but it flies in the face of even the most current religious orthodoxy and evidence from polls etc on people's beliefs to suggest your view on this is accurate. The overwhelming majority of religious believers really do think of their god as something all-powerful and beyond science, and for a lot of them that's probably a big part of what convinces them to believe in the first place.

 

Yet Dawkins wants to indoctrinate Children with a sciencistic worldview.

It's still control.

 

How is it control, that makes no sense.

 

Right, that's it! I call Godwin's Law - the thread is officially dead!

 

He is "indoctrinating" human beings with the notion: "Don't take anybody's word for it; consider the evidence; make up your own mind".

Do you call that control?

 

Deary me...

I suppose you'd be happy being convicted of a crime you didn't commit based on the 'evidence' provided by two psychics? I mean, in your eyes, that kind of truth is just as valid as what can be understood with the intellect or validated with scientific method.

Of course you're talking about the symbolism of some higher being, or something beyond what we can actually understand. It's not difficult to comprehend how, with a more primitive understanding of their surroundings, humans would assume that there was something beyond what they can see that controlled everything. That doesn't make it any more real.

 

Simple, because that's not the reason why... it's more akin to their interpretation of these so called religious texts.... and there is the issue, a few books written a few thousand years ago based upon stories/fables of the times, not updated nor understood but taken word for word as the basis for modern day beliefs, or if interpreted in another way it's a license from a God to kill other non-believers....

 

It's a case of Open your mind, Don't close it. Science doesn't indoctrinate people, it just opens you up to facts and not pure storytelling fiction like the Bible etc.

 

Tell me anything about what I said which is wrong??

 

By default people that believe in a God have no freewill as it's all predetermined for them

 

If your gonna quote someone at least quote the context in which the quote is taken.
And if there was a choice, then surely choosing something which you can openly challenge, and is based upon not accepting things as they are but setting out to prove things one way or another.
Rather than "thats just the way it is" and not being allowed to challenge anything.
That is definitely wrong.

 

Aye, lad. That's why I put "indoctrinating" in speech marks.