All-Purpose Religion Thread

[bickster]

I don't like abuse. I don't dish it out & I don't like it full stop because IMHO

it very often crosses that line and goes over to post on poster, which is against site guidelines, so I thought.

Where's the abuse? I'd look that one up in the dictionary, I'm commenting on the content of your opening line.

What's the matter...do you insist that a thread on religion is only available to anti -religion posters?!!

Is that posting for effect again because nowhere in my post do I say or infer that and even in the wider context of this whole thread, that clearly isn't happening, there are posters who are religious posting quite freely in a reasoned manner with those who aren't religious.

As archaeologists are completely re-writing the history books because of Gobekli Tepe & it's religious implications then surely it's entirely relevant to the thread?

If that relates to the content of the rest of your post, I wouldn't know, I chose to ignore it as the opening sentence read "I don't want to debate", it's content was therefore pretty irrelevant to me. My issue is with the first sentence, which seems to have become your catchphrase now, which in my opinion insults the rest of the forum, religious or not.

[JulieB]

I don't like abuse. I don't dish it out & I don't like it full stop because IMHO

it very often crosses that line and goes over to post on poster, which is against site guidelines, so I thought.

Where's the abuse? I'd look that one up in the dictionary, I'm commenting on the content of your opening line.

Where did I say YOUR post was Abuse? I was commenting about the fact that if an Atheist posts on VT about religion it would be seen as absurd to go completely off the topic and start slandering Atheists.

If a Catholic posted about religion - it would again be seen as being absurd if posters then started slandering Catholics in general about anything & everything, when they'd made a point that was on the topic being discussed.

Why should a general comment on the history of religion and a link to other sites which show that almost all religions trace their roots to Nimrod & Sumeria be used as a reason to slander anyone's beleifs?

However as aptly demonstated that's what always happens.

quote="JulieB"]What's the matter...do you insist that a thread on religion is only available to anti -religion posters?!!

Is that posting for effect again because nowhere in my post do I say or infer that and even in the wider context of this whole thread, that clearly isn't happening, there are posters who are religious posting quite freely in a reasoned manner with those who aren't religious.

But they don't appear to get the same crap that I do. And posters aren't allowed to start trying to sling mud at their particularly faith Bicks simply because they dare to regularly stick up for it..... that's the difference even if IMHO it crosses the line on post on poster...Whatever the topic is that is being discussed!

What's that quote from Socrates again...

“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”

As archaeologists are completely re-writing the history books because of Gobekli Tepe & it's religious implications then surely it's entirely relevant to the thread?

If that relates to the content of the rest of your post, I wouldn't know, I chose to ignore it as the opening sentence read "I don't want to debate", it's content was therefore pretty irrelevant to me. My issue is with the first sentence, which seems to have become your catchphrase now, which in my opinion insults the rest of the forum, religious or not.

Well thanks for adding something to the thread then, apart from trying to nit pick on the opening line of my post.

[JulieB]

Julie, if you look at a link I posted about five pages back to OzVillan. it links to an essay on the origins of the Genesis myth and where it originated. It is stolen, shamelessly straight from Babylonian/Assyrian mythology. There is nothing original about the Jewish religion, they borrowed it all from other neighborhood religions.

If you have a look at the thread from Above Top Secret about All Roads Lead to Babylon... actually shows that essay isn't true. It appears that Sumerian beleifs can be traced all the way back to Nimrod & his family.

Funnily enough the Hancock Museum have been debtaing this very subject on Facebook.

Many archeologists are saying that the roots of civilisation can now be traced back to Ancient Anatolia not the fertile crescent. This is the area under the Black Sea which runs from the borders of Armenia, through Turkey to Iraq & Syria.

If you are at all interested I watched a very good video on You Tube last year of a lecture given by Paul James Griffiths who has spent the last 22 years researching the origins of mankind's ancestory using a historical perspective. He too traces it back to it's roots around Gobekli Tepe area

[limpid]

Socrates also said "The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms". You set out your terms of debate clearly, you won't listen. I hope that brings you wisdom.

Everyone's beliefs are there to be questioned. There is nothing special about religious beliefs.

[limpid]

If you have a look at the thread from Above Top Secret about All Roads Lead to Babylon... actually shows that essay isn't true. It appears that Sumerian beleifs can be traced all the way back to Nimrod & his family.

But that all happened before your god created the earth.

[JulieB]

Socrates also said "The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms". You set out your terms of debate clearly, you won't listen. I hope that brings you wisdom.

Everyone's beliefs are there to be questioned. There is nothing special about religious beliefs.

Totally agree, they are there to be questioned.

If you don't mind me saying Bicks set out his terms of debate by stating that he didn't bother reading the rest of my post. he just nit picked on my opening line. That's not just listening ...that's not even bothering to read. Just seizing on something which was simply designed to state that I didn't want this to get into a slanging match.

People should be able to debate anything without slander or nastiness being involved whatever the topic IMHO.

Like it says in the post match threads... People should respect end of.

[bickster]

I wont debate with those that state at the very outset, that they won't debate, therefore there was no reason to read any further than the "I won't debate line".

[JulieB]

I wont debate with those that state at the very outset, that they won't debate, therefore there was no reason to read any further than the "I won't debate line".

But there again that's not what I said is it Bicks?

Just a post about religions in general - have no wish to enter into a heateddebate.

I quite clearly said Heated debate meaning when it turns nasty like in the past.

If you'd bothered to read any further ... then the end of my post I also qualify that statement at the end.

Hopefully this post will be seen as of general interest, discussing the topic of Religion and will not be seen as in anyway an excuse to post abusive bile, which is simply not necessary IMO.

“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”.............. ― Socrates

Anyhow you are entitled to your opinion and I respect that even if I disagree with it.

[bickster]

You want me to take you back to your first post in this topic and the opening line in that post?

Refusing to enter this debate....

[JulieB]

You want me to take you back to your first post in this topic and the opening line in that post?

I thought you were speaking about the post a couple of pages back, I made earlier today. How the heck would I know you

were rehashing something you'd posted on days ago?

You passed comment..I chose to ignore.... move on.

[chrisp65]

Really, if you don't want to enter into a debate, don't post!

Quite frankly any post that starts with similar lines to that is quite insulting to other posters even at face value..... Either contribute fully and face the consequences of a reasoned debate or don't bother going in. If you don't think your opinions and beliefs will stand up, I suggest you don't bother instead of of chucking in a mumbo jumbo grenade and running away

I think this is why I haven't really bothered. The intention of the thread looked sound. But pretty quickly you've got people being accused of being nutters and mental. The odd thing being I thought there were rules on labelling other groups of supporters etc.. This might be why the 'debate' isn't exactly knocking back and fore. Just piss taking by the oh so clever brigade is just a bit dull.

I'd love to get into a discussion about the role of Oxfam, whether Quakers are a power for good, whether anyone really believes their God has a white beard and a really big chair. If the Methodists persuaded 250,000 people to sing in church rather than drinking themselves into early graves would that be good or bad? But frankly the level of discussion from some just stops debate or the exchange of ideas in its tracks. Discussion on the origin of social mores and whether it's worth paying lip service to religious code isn't going to be permitted. I do wonder if one or two people in this thread have had a bad early experience with a Jesuit priest and a strap on that has slightly coloured their world.

Is it better for someone to believe in God and carry out charitable works on weekends and tithe 10% of salary to Oxfam and have a sticker for the Alpha Course on their car. Or are you less mental if you keep yourself to yourself and spend your money in sweaty computer game shops and arguing on the internet about whether Batman is better than Wonder Boy. Which one of those two has helped humanity move forward?

There is a massive debate to be had on whether kiddy fiddlers are attracted to catholicism, or whether it's the odd rules of catholicism that turn them deviant. Really, how can they want 'normal' men to lead their communities but then tell them they can't marry and mustn't clack one out in private either. Should churches amass money, or chuck it all at poverty issues world wide.

If you were in charge of a massive uneducated primitive population, how would you harness their potential to push civilisation forward? would you attempt reason, consensus, brute force? Or design a compelling religion with stories the simple folk could remember and cause people to self police themselves due to an all seeing eye and afterlife consequences?

Would the Staple Singers have been better or worse without their mix of politics, religion, soul and 'soul'. Personally, I'd rather an hour listening to the Staple Singers than a lifetime listening to Oasis.

Anybody ever watched 'the God Channel' on cable? Why do these channels always eventually get around directly or indirectly to asking you for money?

So much to 'debate'. Or we could just tell people they must have mental problems.

With the possible exception of myself, nobody is perfect. Why can't we be a bit more civil about others? Do unto others and all that.

[JulieB]

Top post Crisp65. You've hit the nail on the head.

Being of the female variety maybe I think differently and it comes across wrong what I'm trying to say to mainly men.

[mjmooney]

Well I agree with Julie in agreeing with Chrisp65 - those are all things worth discussing. Let's do it, this is the all-purpose religion thread after all.

That's why I said I'd like to see some of the more 'mainstream' believers on here. But if somebody comes on saying that the Bible is literally true, and that evolution didn't happen, don't expect us to just roll over and say "OK, it's a valid argument", when it plainly isn't.

BTW I had no bad experiences wih priests myself, but I it's clear that plenty did, and that's a valid topic, too.

[CrackpotForeigner]

I had a few bad experiences with priests at Sunday School in my early childhood. They bored me, often literally, to tears. I often wonder if it might have been better to have spiced things up with a bit of buggery or something.

[legov]

Being of the female variety maybe I think differently and it comes across wrong what I'm trying to say to mainly men.

Honestly Julie I don't know why you keep playing the gender card.

Or the "abuse" card for that matter, if your arguments can't be backed up properly you ought to be ridiculed.

It's as if we were in a room and I said, "There's a fairy right in front of me." Without any strong evidence to back this incredulous claim up one would be justified in calling me "crazy" or "deluded" and the like.

[blandy]

Pedant alert

...a reason to slander anyone's beliefs

This is not possible - you can't slander a belief, whether religious or otherwise.

[JulieB]

Honestly Julie I don't know why you keep playing the gender card.

Or the "abuse" card for that matter, if your arguments can't be backed up properly you ought to be ridiculed.

It's as if we were in a room and I said, "There's a fairy right in front of me." Without any strong evidence to back this incredulous claim up one would be justified in calling me "crazy" or "deluded" and the like.

That is totally unfair Legov.

Firstly I wasn't using the gender card at all. I merely stated maybe I don't come across too well as I'm posting from a female perspective. Men think...women feel et al.

I think it's crazy to see a wonderful organised Universe or Multiverses if you watch the latest lectures on the string theory et al on You Tube ..to simply state that ORDER comes from CHAOS

No where do we see one single demonstration of Order coming from Chaos. From the tinyest atom to the size of the biggest star, EVERYTHING works perfectly to mathematical laws, that just supposedly happened to be.

However the point is why would I feel the need to call YOU crazy for holding the opposite viewpoint? That's your absolute right and I respect YOU for holding it. Nor do I expect YOU to change YOUR viewpoint or not to post an opposing opinion in a VT thread on religion. THAT's what a debate IS isn't it?

Even Richard Dawkins doesn't have all the answers - when he came up with the Monkey banging a typewriter for Millions of years would correctly write the works of Shakespeare... he couldn't get the computer programme he invented to demonstrate this.... to counter act the ridiculous odds of RNA/Amino Acids just happening in the right order for DNA to form. He admitted he had to enter the solution into the programme to get it to come up with the eventual answer. That is surely an admission of the intervention of an intelligence.

That's one of the arguments Stephen Meyer Cambridge Graduate makes in his book Signature in the Cell.

The lecture I posted a link to was attended by the most eminent of scientists and the press and if you watch it to the end, they ask him questions about his reasonings

What he states is that he has no Creationist agenda... he just states that currently the best explanation regarding the origin of life on the Earth is that an intelligent intervention of some kind took place. Perhaps a new theory will be found he states. He quotes Dawkins a number of times because he shows clarity on this subject.

In fact interestingly enough mentioning Dawkins... in a recent radio debate Dawkins is reported as stating...

There was surprise when Prof Dawkins acknowledged that he was less than 100 per cent certain of his conviction that there is no creator.

Prof Dawkins said that he was “6.9 out of seven” sure of his beliefs, referencing the seven point scale of belief that he sets out in his book The God Delusion.

The philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny, who chaired the discussion, interjected: “Why don’t you call yourself an agnostic?” Prof Dawkins answered that he did.

If you bother to even read the posts I made about Gobekli Tepe & the history of Religion going back to Sumeria & Nimrod... the posts were NOTHING to do with there's a fairy in front of me at all.

However if I wanted to beleive that there is a fairy living in my front room that is surely my right.

If you read that thread on Above Top Secret....ALL ROADS LEAD TO BABYLON.... Atheists & people with faith are discussing freely about the history of religion and just how much these ancient beleifs have infiltrated modern day mainstream religions and as put forward with organisations like the Freemasons etc

On that forum it appears NO one is allowed to dis-respect anyone of either persuasion. It's just a shame that as Laura said once... it is impossible to discuss anything regarding religion on VT end of.

That's why it very often ends up as a one sided affair IMHO because it appears the Atheists think if they are nasty enough to people with a belief in God, then no one will be brave enough to argue back and they can have the site to themselves on this subject.

I'm not complaining... so be it... it's just a shame people can't just discuss these matters properly so that more people join in.

PS BTW just for Martin... that's all my own words. Fancy that!!

[limpid]

No where do we see one single demonstration of Order coming from Chaos. From the tinyest atom to the size of the biggest star, EVERYTHING works perfectly to mathematical laws, that just supposedly happened to be.

We see order from chaos all over the place. Waves form in water and sand. Clouds form from water vapour. Rain forms from clouds. Snow forms from rain. Liquids form bubbles. Water carves caves. Molecules make trees. Crystals form in chemical solutions. All of those are the creation of something more complex without an external intelligence.

I guess you have some special definitions for order and chaos as you have capitalised them.

Even Richard Dawkins doesn't have all the answers - when he came up with the Monkey banging a typewriter for Millions of years would correctly write the works of Shakespeare... he couldn't get the computer programme he invented to demonstrate this.... to counter act the ridiculous odds of RNA/Amino Acids just happening in the right order for DNA to form. He admitted he had to enter the solution into the programme to get it to come up with the eventual answer. That is surely an admission of the intervention of an intelligence.

No scientist would ever claim to have all the answers, that's the whole point of science. As I've explained many times, science is the ongoing process of finding faults in science.

Regardless of this, this was not Dawkins' quote. It is a (your?) corruption of a quote designed to explain infinity which pre-dates Dawkins by decades.

if an infinite number of monkeys were left to bang on an infinite number of typewriters, sooner or later they would accidentally reproduce the complete works of William Shakespeare

No-one who understands the mathematical meaning of infinity would try to "get the computer programme he invented to demonstrate this". Dawkins wrote a programme to test something similar to this, but with all the infinities replaced with finite parameters. The programme worked as configured. I'm assuming you are regurgitating something you found on the internet due to your two fundamental errors in this paragraph.

That's one of the arguments Stephen Meyer Cambridge Graduate makes in his book Signature in the Cell.

The lecture I posted a link to was attended by the most eminent of scientists and the press and if you watch it to the end, they ask him questions about his reasonings

This is the person who makes his living selling tickets to his "museum" which shows dinosaurs and humans living alongside one another? I would expect scientists to attend this. Why would they not? Even scientists and atheists like a laugh.

What he states is that he has no Creationist agenda... he just states that currently the best explanation regarding the origin of life on the Earth is that an intelligent intervention of some kind took place. Perhaps a new theory will be found he states. He quotes Dawkins a number of times because he shows clarity on this subject.

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. He's an evangelistic creationist. He's a liar and he lies. He was one of the people who drew up a legal framework to try and brainwash children into being taught creationism as science.

In fact interestingly enough mentioning Dawkins... in a recent radio debate Dawkins is reported as stating...

There was surprise when Prof Dawkins acknowledged that he was less than 100 per cent certain of his conviction that there is no creator.

Prof Dawkins said that he was “6.9 out of seven” sure of his beliefs, referencing the seven point scale of belief that he sets out in his book The God Delusion.

The philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny, who chaired the discussion, interjected: “Why don’t you call yourself an agnostic?” Prof Dawkins answered that he did.

Do you regard Dawkins as some kind of infallible prophet? That is how you portray him. He isn't the representative of some non-deity. He just this guy, you know? He doesn't speak for atheists, he speaks for himself. He's not worshipped or revered. I agree with much of what he says, but not everything. It's not like he wrote the atheist bible. Although to make this discussion fair, perhaps you should read the book that the monkey quote comes from before you feel you can discuss it.

If you bother to even read the posts I made about Gobekli Tepe & the history of Religion going back to Sumeria & Nimrod... the posts were NOTHING to do with there's a fairy in front of me at all.

I did read them and I asked you the same question about them twice. You didn't bother to answer. I don't understand how you can claim anything based on evidence which is from before your god created the earth.

However if I wanted to beleive that there is a fairy living in my front room that is surely my right.

Absolutely. And I'll defend that right. I'll also ridicule you for it. And if you turn it into a method of brainwashing impressionable people, I'm likely to take action and incite others to stop you.

If you read that thread on Above Top Secret....ALL ROADS LEAD TO BABYLON.... Atheists & people with faith are discussing freely about the history of religion and just how much these ancient beleifs have infiltrated modern day mainstream religions and as put forward with organisations like the Freemasons etc

and? So the people who wanted to control and tax the populace used the same methods and the same materials. They then handed these thoughts and ideas down the generations. I bet they misquoted what went before like your creationist did to Dawkins above, hoping that their brand of quackery would acquire something by association.

On that forum it appears NO one is allowed to dis-respect anyone of either persuasion. It's just a shame that as Laura said once... it is impossible to discuss anything regarding religion on VT end of.

It's nice that that forum isn't this one. The internet would be a lot less interesting if all sites were the same.

That's why it very often ends up as a one sided affair IMHO because it appears the Atheists think if they are nasty enough to people with a belief then no one will be brave enough to argue back and they can have the site to themselves on this subject.

But Julie, what happens isn't arguing back, it's a regurgitation of what believers have been told, then the ignoring of any questions without a scripted answer and eventually once someone's been incited to an ad hominem attack, put fingers in ears and going "la la la la this isn't fair".

I'm not complaining... so be it... it's just a shame people can't just discuss these matters properly so that more people join in.

But you are complaining. Saying you aren't doesn't negate the fact that you are. A bit like starting a post with "I'm not going to debate this but..."

[JulieB]

But Julie, what happens isn't arguing back, it's a regurgitation of what believers have been told, then the ignoring of any questions without a scripted answer and eventually once someone's been incited to an ad hominem attack, put fingers in ears and going "la la la la this isn't fair".

What a load of tosh.

I bought the question of Gobekli Tepe being now the world's official oldest temple and I haven't seen one single question about it apart from your question about the dates.

However I thought it was clear from my posts that .....I don't think it is 12,000 years old...because of it's artifact's similarities to other cultures found on Rapa Nui in the Easter Islands, in Sumeria, In Egypt & in South America and I'm discussing this with archaeologists involved with the site via Facebook. Surely those T shaped stones have an association with Tammuz & the Cross of Tau also?

However if it is indeed now being stated that RELIGION was the REASON for mankind first building it's first structure, according to these scientists........then that's a completely different re-write of the history of mankind and it's kinda relevant to the thread.

Nor as I've stated on numerous occasions do I beleive the Earth IS 6,000 years old as you keep stating that I do. I merely beleive that man has been on the Earth just over 6K years. The Earth could be billions of years old.

Where have I posted la la la la la fingers in the ears Simon?

It was another poster who actually decried some of the posts on here if you bother to read his post.

As for dismissing Stephen Meyer... hardly surprising. If he is a Creationist then I don't happen to agree that the earth is 6,000 years old... I don't know because from what I've read he keeps Science & Religon at a distance when arguing the case for Intelligent Design.

Stephen C. Meyer asks Richard Dawkins to Debate, Dawkins Refuses

Anika Smith has noted at Evolution News and Views that Richard Dawkins, author of the recently published book The Greatest Show On Earth, refuses to debate Stephen C. Meyer, author of the recent book The Signature in the Cell.

Dr. Meyer challenged Dawkins to a debate when he saw that their speaking tours would cross paths this fall in Seattle and New York. Dawkins declined through his publicists, saying he does not debate “creationists.”

“Dawkins’ response is disingenuous,” said Meyer. “Creationists believe the earth is 10,000 years old and use the Bible as the basis for their views on the origins of life. I don’t think the earth is 10,000 years old and my case for intelligent design is based on scientific evidence.”

According to Discovery Institute, where Dr. Meyer directs the Center for Science & Culture, the debate challenge is a standing invitation for any time and place that is mutually agreeable to both participants.

It’s a fair question to ask why Richard Dawkins won’t debate even a creationist, but much more telling that he won’t debate Dr. Meyer, who wants only to discuss science. Dr. Dawkins calls “Life” the Greatest Show On Earth, yet he will not debate someone in how that show was produced? Why won’t Richard Dawkins discuss the science? Claiming, as his grounds for rejecting debate, that Dr. Meyer is a creationist, seems like classic Bulverism as explained by C. S. Lewis:

Suppose I think, after doing my accounts, that I have a large balance at the bank. And suppose you want to find out whether this belief of mine is “wishful thinking.” You can never come to any conclusion by examining my psychological condition. Your only chance of finding out is to sit down and work through the sum yourself. When you have checked my figures, then, and then only, will you know whether I have that balance or not. If you find my arithmetic correct, then no amount of vapouring about my psychological condition can be anything but a waste of time. If you find my arithmetic wrong, then it may be relevant to explain psychologically how I came to be so bad at my arithmetic, and the doctrine of the concealed wish will become relevant – but only after you have yourself done the sum and discovered me to be wrong on purely arithmetical grounds. It is the same with all thinking and all systems of thought. If you try to find out which are tainted by speculating about the wishes of the thinkers, you are merely making a fool of yourself. You must find out on purely logical grounds which of them do, in fact, break down as arguments. Afterwards, if you like, go on and discover the psychological causes of the error.

In other words, you must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became to be so silly. In the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so common that I have had to invent a name for it. I call it “Bulverism.” Some day I am going the write the biography of its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father – who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than the third – “Oh, you say that because you are a man.” “At that moment,” E. Bulver assures us, “there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume your opponent is wrong, and then explain his error, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the national dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall.” That is how Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth Century.

But, it could be that Richard Dawkins is just outright scared to debate Stephen Meyer; maybe he has too much riding on the line and can’t risk being bested. I don’t honestly know. Maybe he learned his lesson when he debated John Lennox. At any rate, it seems that according to Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth can only have one type of reviewer.

[JulieB]

Suppose I think, after doing my accounts, that I have a large balance at the bank. And suppose you want to find out whether this belief of mine is “wishful thinking.” You can never come to any conclusion by examining my psychological condition. Your only chance of finding out is to sit down and work through the sum yourself. When you have checked my figures, then, and then only, will you know whether I have that balance or not. If you find my arithmetic correct, then no amount of vapouring about my psychological condition can be anything but a waste of time. If you find my arithmetic wrong, then it may be relevant to explain psychologically how I came to be so bad at my arithmetic, and the doctrine of the concealed wish will become relevant – but only after you have yourself done the sum and discovered me to be wrong on purely arithmetical grounds. It is the same with all thinking and all systems of thought. If you try to find out which are tainted by speculating about the wishes of the thinkers, you are merely making a fool of yourself. You must find out on purely logical grounds which of them do, in fact, break down as arguments. Afterwards, if you like, go on and discover the psychological causes of the error.

In other words, you must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became to be so silly.

That quote from CS Lewis about Bulverism is absolutely spot on IMHO and aptly demonstrates what Crisp65 alluded to.