What do you think of this?

[danielj]

But I think to be fair Dan, with the exception of the odd academic like Prof whatever his name was, Dawkins was it?, most atheists/agnostics only respond when challenged - there are very few of them who actively evangelise their lack of belief, whereas too many religious folk think it their lot in life to treat us as if we are stupid and missing something.

Frankly we all had enough RE and so forth at school to have a clue what religion is about and therefore whether or not we want to be interested - I don't want people asking me if I want to be prayed for to be honest, any more than I want someone in tesco's car park coming up to me telling me I ought to be driving a Daewoo instead of a Terrano.

If I wanted to pray I'd go to church, but I don't, and that doesn't make me wrong, any more than being a church-goer makes you wrong. We all have our own views about life and its mysteries - the older I get the more convinced I get that our whole existence is all a bit too convenient for there not to have been some kind of, lets call it a 'helping hand'. But what that consisted of none of us know do we - fact. My father-in-law genuinely believes it was little green men, but hey, he's entitled cos theres nothing to contradict it.

Until 'god' taps me on the shoulder and says hello - and I don't mean in my head, anyone can claim that - then I don't have ANY evidence of his or her existence. But nor does anyone else, otherwise it would all have been over a long time ago. The bible is just a very old, cobbled-together but useful book of parables, and theres no physical evidence whatsoever, but because we are just insignificant, mortal beings with a tiny lifespan in the scheme of things, we are afraid, and we want something to believe in otherwise what the hell is it all about?

Its when I get BACs telling me that the earth is only 7000 years old and that fossils were 'put there by god to give man something to think about' that I get slightly goggle-eyed.....but if you are a true believer and take the bible for what it purports to be, thats what you believe.....you can't just take the bits that suit you.

And don't tell me to believe what a bunch of men in robes tells me I ought to be believing - what monopoly do they have exactly on the subject?

But at the end of the day, if it gets us all talking and learning a bit from each other and being better people as a result, well who really cares?

nd please don't take any offence will you dan; we often have these 'heart to hearts' and they are always pretty robust and frank, but we're still all mates! LOL :thumbs

No problem. No offence taken.
Don't know if I would agree that most atheists / agnostics only respond when challanged. In so far as that is true in my experience its because everyone is expected to assume the position of atheism / agnosticism as if it was the default position for use in public. Any expression of not adhering to the default position is taken as a challange or evangalisation. On the other hand, I don't take the fact that I have to adhere to the default position as a direct challange. Don't make the mistake of thinking Atheism / agnosticism is not itself a system of belief / philosophy just as Christianity.

As to not wanting people to come up to you in a public place asking you if you wanted to be prayed for it is not something I would recommend because they might just meet someone like yourself who finds it intrusive, an imposition etc. Nonetheless, I don't particularly see anything inherently wrong with people coming up to me in public places advocating or giving out some information on a political or social issue or telling me I should vote this way or that even if I know a good deal on the subject and disagree with them. Wouldn't even see a problem with them telling me I should drive a Daewoo instead of a Terrano. Maybe they have some point to make I didn't think about and if not then I'll tell them they are wrong and no thanks. I would tend to see the whole issue here rather one of how it is done.

I ceratainly would not accept your views on our ability to know some things. You impose a fairly low threshold on the human beings capacity to know and understand. I would understand your view to be very subjectivistic and just having views or opinions on a subject, e.g. religion, going to church, knowledge of afterlife etc. does not make those views or opinions true or false or right or wrong. It does not make mine true or false for that matter either. What makes them true or false is whether they correspond with some objective reality or not.

Wouldn't agree with you about the bible either. There are reams of physical and historical evidence for a substantial part of the contents of the bible, including Jesus. As to wheter that evidence will convince any specific individual that Jesus was God I believe that depends on the individual as much if not more so than the evidence. Most people believe in a lot of things with a lot less physical and historical evidence to support them.

Don't buy the one that belief in God or religion is just a result of us insignificant entities needing some security in a vast universe and so forth. Human beings inventing such a psychological or emotional soother explains nothing. Does the world, existence, life have meaning, order, a purpose or not is the question? There is a huge amount of evidence that it has. But if it has what is its source?

Strange you getting a bit googly eyed about the BAC's telling you the world is only 7,000 years old. There is as little to contradict them as there is to contradict the little green men theory.

I am not telling you to believe what a bunch of men in robes tell you. Believe what you like but it does not mean what you believe is right no more than it means men in robes are wrong. Needless to say I presume you are not talking about barristers or members of the judiciary.

 

[Darwin]

Little Green Men.

you had to say it didnt ya.

would anyone like to explain why their are cave paintings of men in space suits that pre date the bible by thousands of years ?

 

[Darwin]

The koran pre dates the bible by 5000 years so is the bible just a cheap knock off ?

 

[paulp]

bible

Good book but the hero dies

paulp

 

[TONUP]

The koran pre dates the bible by 5000 years so is the bible just a cheap knock off ?

My understanding is that the Koran and Muslim faith date back to around 700 AD, which makes the Christian faith at least 500 years older.

Bearing in mind the dates above I think that the muslim faith is now going through what the christian faith did in the middle ages I.e. stonings and burnings and fanatacism, condeming all forms of what they believe to be heresy.

If we can wait 500 years the religion may become as moderate as the C of E.

In any case the majority of religions throughout the world teach mercy, compassion and charity. It is the interpretation and distortion of this by those seeking to control that causes the problems.

Just my two penneth really, but an interesting subject given the season at hand.

Alan

 

[lacroupade]

Strange you getting a bit googly eyed about the BAC's telling you the world is only 7,000 years old. There is as little to contradict them as there is to contradict the little green men theory.

Dan, you were doing really well til this bit.

But an interesting debate while it lasted. You have my respect. :thumbs

 

[danielj]

Don't think you are in a minority,danielj. As I said I try to be Christian and see the good in people most of the time. I still haven't gotten over the fact that when I went to Galway to the youth mass during John Paul 2's visit to Ireland,Bishop Eamon Casey and Fr Michael Cleary were both on the altar with the Pope. Both since found to have kids at that time. I suppose I was very naive and was still in awe of the clergy back then. My fault for being silly but since then I have grown up a little and don't have a lot of faith in the messengers,they all seem to have feet of clay. Can't speak for how it is to be Roman Catholic in the UK but in Ireland when I was growing up it was very strict as the schools were (and many still are) controlled by the clergy. It would take forever to explain what it was like. Anyway, I'm sorry if anything I said offended you,certainly not my intention to offend anyone on here.

Liam, no offence taken by me at least. I don't disagree with what you are saying about obvious hypocricy such as you mentioned about the the two members of the clergy in question. I went to a good old fashioned Christian Brothers school. And it was during the time that "the leather" was permitted. Some of the brothers were no joke but I still say they were nothing compared to some of the lay teachers. You don't need to explain as I was there too. I was no ideal pupil so got a fair share of the discipline of the time. But it was only from lay teachers that I could say I got what far exceeded a "fair" share.
I doubt there are very many schools still actually controlled by the cleregy as you would seem to understand that. Most of the schools are in practice in control of Boards of Management and the principle / teachers. Even if the cleregy wanted to lay down the law hard and fast they may not be able to do so as the impasse in recent years over schools closing for church holidays illustrates. The clergy wanted the schools to close as they traditionally have but teachers and teachers unions and some parents in a few schools in Dublin objected and refused to close the schools. The schools did not close and now a good number of the schools do not close at all.

 

[danielj]

The koran pre dates the bible by 5000 years so is the bible just a cheap knock off ?

Can't make any sense of that claim. There are books in the bible that predate by at least centuries the muslim religion itself.

 

[Darwin]

Can't make any sense of that claim. There are books in the bible that predate by at least centuries the muslim religion itself.

01. Firstly the confusion arose from the word itself ‘ Kufic’ which follows the name of the town of Iraq , called Kufa . As Kufa was founded in about 638 AD , hence it is a common belief that Kufic script also existed after the city’s foundation i.e., after 638 AD . But such was not the case . Kufic script was named by Arabs long after it origins were already existed and was in use in Arabic texts . For example , if a pyramid in Egypt is extended, reconstructed and beautified in 2007 AD and is given its name after the present-ruling president of Egypt Mr. Hossne Mubarak as ‘The pyramid of Mubarak’, it doesn’t mean that this pyramid is as old as the time of Mr. Mubarak’s ruling period or his age , rather we need to research when this pyramid was made first . Any way now let us ponder on the researcher’s comment on this aspect who undertook a deep investigations on Kufic script :

(A)“ Kufic script was known in Mesopotamia at least 100 years before the foundation of Kufa, we may conjecture that it received its name from the town in which it was first put to official use...”

The actual Koran book may be from circa 700AD but the writing contained in are much older , some are copies of text from the Pyramids which pre date the Bible by a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOng way


not that I am religious in any way , It was mixed in with other info I got from reseaching the Seti project.

 

[danielj]

But two things Liam, firstly I wonder who decided that priests had to be celibate - as we have seen all too often it can lead to serious problems.

Secondly, I'm not quite sure I quite believe you buggers!

As you know, I spent quite a few years travelling to Limerick with a former g/f and was often dragged to mass by her aunt, despite being a prot, and I was usually the only bloke in there!!! The men all used to sit around the gate chewing the fat and smoking until it was all over!

Now I'm only ribbing you as you know by now, but thats country church for you!

Don't see why celibacy leads to serious problems as suggested. If this was true then clergy in religions where celibacy is not a rule would not have any of these serious problems. This is definately not the case. If they were non-celibate they could still have serious problems. And is it not ovbious that it is not celibacy that is the problem its the not sticking to the celibacy that is.
I know what you are saying about church's being full of women and men staying outside. But maybe they were just dragging you to a church where it was at an extreme because usually you will see plenty of men and women inside the church and a good few of both outside as well.

 

[lacroupade]

Don't see why celibacy leads to serious problems as suggested. If this was true then clergy in religions where celibacy is not a rule would not have any of these serious problems. This is definately not the case. If they were non-celibate they could still have serious problems. And is it not ovbious that it is not celibacy that is the problem its the not sticking to the celibacy that is.
I know what you are saying about church's being full of women and men staying outside. But maybe they were just dragging you to a church where it was at an extreme because usually you will see plenty of men and women inside the church and a good few of both outside as well.

Daniel, after telling me you think the earth is only 7000 years old are you now telling me that the significant and accepted incidence of paedophilia (far far more than in any other walk of life) in the catholic church, carried out by serving clergy in many countries over a long period of time, is not a serious issue arising from celibacy? Or are there just a lot of delinquent catholic priests?

Don't take my view - read what your own press says about it. Or are you in denial about that as well?

http://www.tribune.ie/news/article/2009/jul/26/what-turns-our-catholic-priests-into-monsters/

I think you need to wind your neck in. Your earlier tosh I could let wash over me but this is plain bollocks - and offensive in its naivity.

And I'll leave you with one more thought.

Millions of people have died, yes millions, because of, for or over religion. Millions - most of them completely innocent. That includes PEOPLE I KNEW.

I knew an aetheist once who had a nasty cough - thats about the size of it.

On that basis alone you can stick your religion up your arse. :thumb2

"Don't start fires you can't put out"

 

[danielj]

Daniel, after telling me you think the earth is only 7000 years old are you now telling me that the significant and accepted incidence of paedophilia (far far more than in any other walk of life) in the catholic church, carried out by serving clergy in many countries over a long period of time, is not a serious issue arising from celibacy? Or are there just a lot of delinquent catholic priests?

Don't take my view - read what your own press says about it. Or are you in denial about that as well?

http://www.tribune.ie/news/article/2009/jul/26/what-turns-our-catholic-priests-into-monsters/

I think you need to wind your neck in. Your earlier tosh I could let wash over me but this is plain bollocks - and offensive in its naivity.

And I'll leave you with one more thought.

Millions of people have died, yes millions, because of, for or over religion. Millions - most of them completely innocent. That includes PEOPLE I KNEW.

I knew an aetheist once who had a nasty cough - thats about the size of it.

On that basis alone you can stick your religion up your arse. :thumb2

"Don't start fires you can't put out"

Paul, I certainly apologise for any offence my comments have caused. There genuinely was no intention to cause offence or irritation. I do hear what you are saying. I would not under any circumstance suggest that paedophilia by members of the cleregy can be condoned or excused and if my comments gave that impression then I again apologise as nothing of the sort would be acceptable.
Probably was naieve but I didn't see it as starting a fire. But I do hear what you are saying and from this point on I think it probably would be starting a fire for me to continue with this discussion. On that basis I will withdraw from making any further comments on the topic of this particular subject as I have no desire to be offending people or starting rows.
I hope you will accept this in the spirit in which it is offered.

 

[Liam]

Well,it was a lively debate while it lasted. Now let me see...New Years Resolution. I must not start topics that might unintentionally cause some members to inadvertently cause offence to other members How long will that last,I wonder?
Happy Christmas and a prosperous New Year to all members,regardless of which religion or no religion,we all share one thing, we are a bunch of sad people who should spend more time with our families and less time online.

 

[extreme-4x4]

you lot give in too easy......... considering some of the brawls that have gone on here .

and paul offended ........... bol*lo*ks, hes way too think skinned to get offended by something that is ultimately a pay to view site

 

[lacroupade]

Paul, I certainly apologise for any offence my comments have caused. There genuinely was no intention to cause offence or irritation. I do hear what you are saying. I would not under any circumstance suggest that paedophilia by members of the cleregy can be condoned or excused and if my comments gave that impression then I again apologise as nothing of the sort would be acceptable.
Probably was naieve but I didn't see it as starting a fire. But I do hear what you are saying and from this point on I think it probably would be starting a fire for me to continue with this discussion. On that basis I will withdraw from making any further comments on the topic of this particular subject as I have no desire to be offending people or starting rows.
I hope you will accept this in the spirit in which it is offered.

Daniel......I am a royal pain in the ass if you hadn't already worked that out and like nothing more than a good heated debate, the more spirited the better. And that fecker Liam knows it! :lol:lol:lol

I spent a lot of time in the Fair Isle years back in the Limerick area and the West, being engaged to a young lady from those regions, and also have old family connections to Kerry and a brother and sis-in-law in Portlaoise, so I know only too well the issues around growing up with the church in Ireland.

If thats not enough, like a few others on here I've also got Welsh blood, tinged with a touch of Romany from relatives who've done everything from working on the fairs in the early part of the century to owning the Punch and Judy show at Weston-Super-Mare during the 1800s (there goes my invite to the mayors parlour :doh) so I'm a right mongrel.

Mind you, there are a lot more colourful characters than me on here!

Please believe me when I say I therefore have no problem with anyone's religion, colour or creed - and absolutely no wish to cause offence in respect of your personal faith; I know how important it can be and the fact that I don't have any is irrelevant.

If I argue heatedly (and sometimes appear to be 'offended' - although as Extreme says, its not a concept I recognise LOL) its usually because its something I'm quite passionate about. And if I made some references to the catholic church it was in a very wide global sense and only to seek some recognition on your part that 'the system', whether that is church, government or any other institution, doesn't always know or do best, and that you are your own man beneath all that - and its now clear you are.

Your apology is totally unnecessary and unexpected, but acknowledged and accepted in the spirit its given - THANK YOU and SORRY Daniel! :grouphug

You'll soon get to know this isn't a club like any other I've ever been on; we put the world to rights here; Terranos and Mavericks are small beer! and I hope you enjoy it as much as we do! :thumbs

 

[lacroupade]

.....

Well,it was a lively debate while it lasted. Now let me see...New Years Resolution. I must not start topics that might unintentionally cause some members to inadvertently cause offence to other members How long will that last,I wonder? About as long as it took you to write it mate!
Happy Christmas and a prosperous New Year to all members,regardless of which religion or no religion,we all share one thing, we are a bunch of sad people who should spend more time with our families and less time online. Family?! Damn, I knew there was somewhere I was supposed to be!

 

[danielj]

Paul, appreciate that. I didn't take any offence. It is very hard to judge in an online discussion what impact an expression or written argument can have on people. It is a lot easier face to face when you can gauge better how to measure your words to a particular situation or person. I had considered from your reply that I had gauged things wrong and hence I considered an apology entirely in order. I expect you can understand that at the same time I am not saying I apologise for the views I hold. However, some of the points you made are a challange, especially issues raised in the newspaper article you referred to, and were not something I had been fully aware of. I have been looking them up and there are some interesting and complex issues involved and the varying and sometimes contradictory reports and studies are worth reading. And by the way I don't really believe in the little green men theory.

 

[extreme-4x4]

i had a dvd on animals that defy evolution.......


a friend lent it to me he was a bible basher


interesting though

 

[zippy]

Don't see why celibacy leads to serious problems as suggested. If this was true then clergy in religions where celibacy is not a rule would not have any of these serious problems. This is definately not the case. If they were non-celibate they could still have serious problems. And is it not ovbious that it is not celibacy that is the problem its the not sticking to the celibacy that is.
I know what you are saying about church's being full of women and men staying outside. But maybe they were just dragging you to a church where it was at an extreme because usually you will see plenty of men and women inside the church and a good few of both outside as well.

Interesting debate this though i am late into it and have missed all the fun..

You may well be right on some of the origins of the Quran though Mohammed defo came after christ.

 

[zippy]

Don't see why celibacy leads to serious problems as suggested. If this was true then clergy in religions where celibacy is not a rule would not have any of these serious problems. This is definately not the case. If they were non-celibate they could still have serious problems. And is it not ovbious that it is not celibacy that is the problem its the not sticking to the celibacy that is.
I know what you are saying about church's being full of women and men staying outside. But maybe they were just dragging you to a church where it was at an extreme because usually you will see plenty of men and women inside the church and a good few of both outside as well.

Interesting debate this though i am late into it and have missed all the fun..

You may well be right on some of the origins of the Quran though Mohammed defo came after christ.

I cant agree that the quran predates the bible though, since the same applies to the bible. Genesis, exodus, leviticus etc are way older than the modern part of the quran.

I find it Interesting all the rivalry from the Christianity, Islam and Judaism and the abominations committed by zealots of each of these, since they are the three strands of the 'abrahamic religions' - the God of Moses is the god of Mohammed and the father of christ.

Regards
Lee