The Route Of All Evil

[iranu]

To all the Christians here -

why do you not believe in the sun god Ra?

why do you not believe the word of Mohammed the last prophet?

why are you not a buddhist?

why do you not believe in a sacred teapot that has been obiting the sun since the creation of the universe? It has divine powers don't you know. That teapot suffered for the sins of man if you didn't know. I believe whole heartedly in the existence and wisdom of this teapot. I cannot prove that it exists or that it created everything I see, but I will chose to believe the sacred texts based on the existence of this wonderful miracle making teapot.

Point being - why believe in something that is not provable? Well you have to have BLIND faith. The teapot god is just as valid a God as any other so why not choose the teapot religion over Christianity?

Dawkins point is simple - Religion is an invalid science because it does not rely on proof.

Religion is dangerous because it brainwashes children. No religious people in the world says you will not be taught anything untill you are 21. Then we will teach you about all the faiths and you can choose to pick one or none at all. It is indoctrination and nothing else. It says this is right and everything else is wrong.

Religion is the worst of all worlds because it is taught as an absolute, there is no if's or buts. At least science is grown up enough to realise that it is an ever advancing beast and that theory can replace theory as understanding becomes better.

As for Darwinism, natural selection and creationism - I was once told by a creationist that fossils were put in the earth by the devil to trick us all. It's that type of absolute that turns people against them. At least a scientist can entertain the possibility of another explanation (as long as it's backed up with some evidence as proof, unlike religion)

Anyway beam me up, oh mighty teapot, let me embrace thee as the master of all knowing and all creation and the best brew this side of alpha centruri. Hail!

[herulach]

To all the Christians here -

why do you not believe in the sun god Ra?

why do you not believe the word of Mohammed the last prophet?

why are you not a buddhist?

why do you not believe in a sacred teapot that has been obiting the sun since the creation of the universe? It has divine powers don't you know. That teapot suffered for the sins of man if you didn't know. I believe whole heartedly in the existence and wisdom of this teapot. I cannot prove that it exists or that it created everything I see, but I will chose to believe the sacred texts based on the existence of this wonderful miracle making teapot.

Point being - why believe in something that is not provable? Well you have to have BLIND faith. The teapot god is just as valid a God as any other so why not choose the teapot religion over Christianity?

I arent religous, but just for arguments sake, what do you know about general relativity, or quantum mechanics, or structural engineering other than what people have told you?

Dawkins point is simple - Religion is an invalid science because it does not rely on proof.

I havent seen the program, but:
a) religion isnt a science, and doesnt claim to be, its a belief structure, guidelines for life if you will, it doesnt attempt to explain anything (other than to say because god/buddha/the holy teapot says so)

Religion is dangerous because it brainwashes children. No religious people in the world says you will not be taught anything untill you are 21. Then we will teach you about all the faiths and you can choose to pick one or none at all. It is indoctrination and nothing else. It says this is right and everything else is wrong.

I went to CofE school all my life, church every sunday till i was 12, im a staunch agnostic and 6 months away from a masters in theoretical physics. Religion does not brainwash children, people brainwash children with religion as a cover story.

Religion is the worst of all worlds because it is taught as an absolute, there is no if's or buts. At least science is grown up enough to realise that it is an ever advancing beast and that theory can replace theory as understanding becomes better.

IIRC, quite a lot of it isnt absolutes (christianity at least) the only absolute being 'god exists', 'jesus was born' etc, which is no different than 'there was a big bang', and to the majority of people 'light travels at 3x10^8 m/s'

As for Darwinism, natural selection and creationism - I was once told by a creationist that fossils were put in the earth by the devil to trick us all. It's that type of absolute that turns people against them. At least a scientist can entertain the possibility of another explanation (as long as it's backed up with some evidence as proof, unlike religion)

Stupid people exist in all walks of life and hold all sorts of belief systems, there existence prooves nothing.

Anyway beam me up, oh mighty teapot, let me embrace thee as the master of all knowing and all creation and the best brew this side of alpha centruri. Hail!

[RVF500]

I was speaking with an extremely devout Muslim guy with whom I was working. He was telling me something that scientists have (with the aid of quantum mathematics) proved the existance of God.

What this tells me is that given the right formulae scientists can prove or disprove anything that they please.

I'll stick with my outmoded and unprovable belief system thanks.

[TeePee]

I arent religous, but just for arguments sake, what do you know about general relativity, or quantum mechanics, or structural engineering other than what people have told you?

The difference is, that not only have they told me about general relativity and quantum mechanics, they've explained to me why it is so, and how it was discovered. They've also given me a set of equations so that I can see it in action for myself. It also makes sense.

'light travels at 3x10^8 m/s'

Usually.

My Flying Spagetti Monster pwns your sacred teapot.

[herulach]

The difference is, that not only have they told me about general relativity and quantum mechanics, they've explained to me why it is so, and how it was discovered. They've also given me a set of equations so that I can see it in action for myself. It also makes sense.

Fair point, for you, but for joe public that isnt the case.

Usually.

You really don twant to get into a who knows more about physics contest

[TeePee]

This is why Joe Public doesn't have the awe for the natural world as in the Guardian article. Science has taken the search for the origin of everything too far away from where Joe Public can understand, or really cares. Religion works for some because they don't have to think about it, it gives them the answer and they just have to rely on blind faith. But for the majority, they are smart enough to see through religion, but don't want to put the effort in to understand the scientific fact.

I bow to your superior knowledge, the flying spagetti teapot has truely blessed you with awesome brainyness

[herulach]

This is why Joe Public doesn't have the awe for the natural world as in the Guardian article. Science has taken the search for the origin of everything too far away from where Joe Public can understand, or really cares. Religion works for some because they don't have to think about it, it gives them the answer and they just have to rely on blind faith. But for the majority, they are smart enough to see through religion, but don't want to put the effort in to understand the scientific fact.

Which is to all intents and purposes the same thing, just accepting what youre told because someone supposedly more knowledgeable than you says it.

I bow to your superior knowledge, the flying spagetti teapot has truely blessed you with awesome brainyness

I wasnt trying to be a knob, or taking it to a personal level, just making a point.

[TeePee]

Sorry, I meant:

I bow to your superior knowledge, the flying spagetti teapot has truely blessed you with awesome brainyness

It's not the same thing, the majority beleive little and care for less, beyond who wins Celebrity Brother Dancing. And that may be where the real tragedy is.

[iranu]

I arent religous, but just for arguments sake, what do you know about general relativity, or quantum mechanics, or structural engineering other than what people have told you?

Actually I have a degree in Metallurgy and Materials Engineering so I do understand quite alot about the natural world. I read many books on all different aspects of the subject but never came across the definitive book that told me all the answers. Nor did I have that book preached or interpreted for me. I learnt not only from being told what to expect but also through practical experiment, deduction and reasoning. I was encouraged to explore and find out for my self. Nobody said this was gospel nor did they say you musn't ask anyone elses opinion. As for general relativity, or quantum mechanics I can do exactly the same and surprisingly do, to a much more limited extent than you of course. Quantum mechanics is certainly baffling.

The point being that structural engineering is not habitually rammed down many childrens throats before they are able to REASON for themselves.

I havent seen the program, but:
a) religion isnt a science, and doesnt claim to be, its a belief structure, guidelines for life if you will, it doesnt attempt to explain anything (other than to say because god/buddha/the holy teapot says so)

If religion is not a science then how come others are trying to explain the complexities of they eye through their religion? It's a fine line.

I went to CofE school all my life, church every sunday till i was 12, im a staunch agnostic and 6 months away from a masters in theoretical physics. Religion does not brainwash children, people brainwash children with religion as a cover story.

Same difference. Religion is the only mass brainwashing technique thats approved of. You are lucky that you live in this free country. In many others you would have been murdered or rejected by friends/familiy for renouncing your faith.

IIRC, quite a lot of it isnt absolutes (christianity at least) the only absolute being 'god exists', 'jesus was born' etc, which is no different than 'there was a big bang', and to the majority of people 'light travels at 3x10^8 m/s'

No incorrect. The evidence points towards a big bang theory and light has been measured to travel in a vacuum at 3x10^8 m/s (although it has been argued that the speed of light is not absolute and that it may have been different in the past, so it's only a matter of education that allows me to say that becasue I have opened my mind - I chose to learn. Ok there are no absolutes in quantum mechanics). There is no evidence for God, Jesus, the virgin birth, resurrection, etc. It's all hear say and myth yet Christians refuse to open their minds to an alternative. ditto other fundamentalists.

Stupid people exist in all walks of life and hold all sorts of belief systems, there existence prooves nothing.

Again your logic fails. The woman in question was a qualified chemist with a masters degree. She was not stupid. She just chose to believe something that was not rational because her faith told her so, it was the only way she could get round the evidence that dinosaur skeletons (a test by the devil btw) are found and this is widely believed in creationist movements.

[Alex]

This was the prime driver behind the spreading of religion; as a means of social control. In many countries (Southern parts of America, places like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran, Isreal and Palestine) this continues to be the case.

That may well be the case, or it may not be. Do you have a source for this, or are you just assuming that because someone told you and it seems like the kind of thing you expect that it is the case? Even if it is, what does that prove? It's a bad thing, and it happens. That just means that the people propogating this religion are going about it the wrong way. That does not make the religion bad. If you look at what the bible teached, hell itself is hardly ever mentioned, and when it is, it mentioned in the context of 'if you live a life of evil, you will go to hell'. Hell is very briefly described, not in the immense detail that Richard Dawkins was implying, and far more often is the exhortations of going to heaven - and is that really such a bad thing to tell children? Hardly an idea likely to cause emotional scarring I think. The problem is people abusing a religion, rather than serving it, as the bible actually commands.

But relegion consists of no "facts" or "working theories". If someone sits down and writes a book, the contents of that book are no more "fact" than anything else. If they can be proven, then that's a different case entirely, but the, er, fact of the matter is that, and I think I can say this without exception, religion is 100% devoid of fact.

Now that's just not true. Jesus existed, that's a known fact for a start. Jesus was well known, and was crucified for claiming to be the messiah, which incensed the Jews and worried the romans. That's a fact. Moses existed and led the Israelites out of Egypt against Pharoah Ramesses II's will. That is recorded historical fact.

The point I was really trying to make though is that religion should be tought for what it is, i.e. a way of viewing life. Plenty of people believe in God's existance, and it is a perfectly reasonable idea - why should people not be tought that it is possible that God exists? even if your view is that it is incredibly unlikely that God exists (and this will always be a matter of opinion - there's nothing you can measure to judge probability of this accurately), but you cannot prove that He doesn't, then at least this should be tought to kids so they understand that a lot of people do actually believe in God.

What precise context of murder and rape would you have liked to have been included?

Well, the rape one is easy - and I'm surprised Richard Dawkins included it in his program. The bible says that Lot gave his daughters so that the men who were visiting would be spared. This is simply a historical statement. Nowhere does it say that this was a good idea (it fairly obviously wasn't) and nowhere does it says God approved of this course of action.

As to this 'murder' issue, context actually is important. The Israelites were commanded that if someone goes off to worship other Gods they should be executed. They were given this command whilst in the desert having been liberated from Egypt. There would be no doubt in any of the Israeilte's minds as to the existance of God. What they had been through in Egypt, and then in the desert would have made absolutely certain of that. Thus, any 'worshipping of other Gods' would have been an act of wilful disobedience againt a God that they knew to exist. Worship of other Gods involved sleeping with prostitutes, making money, and having a position of power over people.

As far as God is concerned at this point, he has saved them from slavery, they say 'well, thanks, but I prefer this other God (even though I know that Yahweh is the only God) 'cause it gives me a better time'. God says the punishment for this is death. Plenty of countries still have the death penalty nowadays, so I fail to see why this death penalty is so morally repugnant.

One thing that I did get from the program was that those bound up in their religious self-obsessions are simply not going to be moved by the musings of arguably the greatest biologist alive today.

My faith is no self-obsession - it is often harder in life if it is true - but I base my beliefs on what I think is true, not what I think is nice. You are however correct - I am not going to be moved by the musings of Richard Dawkins - especially when you understand the background to much that he obviously either does not, or pretends not to so that his arguments look better on the TV. Greatest biologist alive he may be, the greatest theologian, historian, or TV presenter he is not.

[TeePee]

Now that's just not true. Jesus existed, that's a known fact for a start. Jesus was well known, and was crucified for claiming to be the messiah, which incensed the Jews and worried the romans. That's a fact. Moses existed and led the Israelites out of Egypt against Pharoah Ramesses II's will. That is recorded historical fact.

No, it really isn't. Outside of religious texts such as the bible, there is no 'historical record'.

The point I was really trying to make though is that religion should be tought for what it is, i.e. a way of viewing life. Plenty of people believe in God's existance, and it is a perfectly reasonable idea - why should people not be tought that it is possible that God exists? even if your view is that it is incredibly unlikely that God exists (and this will always be a matter of opinion - there's nothing you can measure to judge probability of this accurately), but you cannot prove that He doesn't, then at least this should be tought to kids so they understand that a lot of people do actually believe in God.

Agreed! Religions are about a lifestyle. Christians should stop arguing about historical facts, or scientific principles and start approaching it as a guide to a particular lifestyle that they choose. This can include teaching children about the ways of these different lifestyles, and that there are people in the world that believe in god. But they should hear this from an RS teacher (or parent etc), not from a science teacher as an explanation for how mankind came about.

As far as God is concerned at this point, he has saved them from slavery, they say 'well, thanks, but I prefer this other God (even though I know that Yahweh is the only God) 'cause it gives me a better time'. God says the punishment for this is death. Plenty of countries still have the death penalty nowadays, so I fail to see why this death penalty is so morally repugnant.

The death penalty has been covered in other threads. It IS morally repugnant. While the bible might have me put to death for wearing clothing woven of two fibres (my shirt is a cotton/polyester blend), I think this is another example of the lifestyle argument. You can't take the bible word for word. It's for christians to use to help them with their lifestyle, not to be taken literally.

[Alex]

To all the Christians here -

why do you not believe in the sun god Ra?

why do you not believe the word of Mohammed the last prophet?

why are you not a buddhist?

why do you not believe in a sacred teapot that has been obiting the sun since the creation of the universe? It has divine powers don't you know. That teapot suffered for the sins of man if you didn't know. I believe whole heartedly in the existence and wisdom of this teapot. I cannot prove that it exists or that it created everything I see, but I will chose to believe the sacred texts based on the existence of this wonderful miracle making teapot.

Becuase there is actually some proof about the Christian faith. True, you cannot prove the existance of God. What you can prove easily is that Jesus existed, Jesus claimed to be the son of God, Jesus was crucified for this, his disciples (all) believed strongly enough that they saw him resurrected that they went into the world and died horribly for that belief. Saul of Taursus is easily proved to have been the main persecutor of the Christian faith, and was converted in the space of one journey (and therefore one can reasonably assume something big happened), and then became the biggest supporter of the growing Christian faith.

Point being - why believe in something that is not provable? Well you have to have BLIND faith. The teapot god is just as valid a God as any other so why not choose the teapot religion over Christianity?

Dawkins point is simple - Religion is an invalid science because it does not rely on proof.

Religion is not a science. Christianity is relational, not analytical. Religion, or at least christianity would indeed be an invalid science, but then, if God existed just so we could study Him and do experiments on Him, what kind of God would He be?

Religion is dangerous because it brainwashes children. No religious people in the world says you will not be taught anything untill you are 21. Then we will teach you about all the faiths and you can choose to pick one or none at all. It is indoctrination and nothing else. It says this is right and everything else is wrong.

Parents are allowed to teach their children any number of unprovable things without that being considered indoctrination. The idea that God doesn't exist, for instance. Children are almost all the time still sent to school with outher kids and constantly exposed to the idea that God may not exist. I agree that where kids are sent to separate 'religious schools' this may be brainwashing, and I think it is wrong. The problem is that this is actually very uncommon - we are told that there are thousands of such schools, but - how many more schools are there? These schools, even in their thousands make up a tiny percentage, and even then are tiny schools.

Besides, brainwashing is constantly referred to as if its something only done in a negative way. The idea, for example, that theft is wrong is constantly drummed into children, and parents will try to avoid exposing them to any situation that will make them consider otherwise. This is the exact definition of brainwashing, but would you say this is bad? You can't demonstrate or prove that theft is wrong any more than you can prove that God doesn't exist. You just believe that it is in the best interests of your child to believe this. So it is with Christian parents, who believe that God exists and therefore it is in the best interests of the child to know this.

Religion is the worst of all worlds because it is taught as an absolute, there is no if's or buts. At least science is grown up enough to realise that it is an ever advancing beast and that theory can replace theory as understanding becomes better.

Ifs or buts about what? This argument doesn't really make sense - either God exists or He doesn't, and either Jesus was His son or he wasn't. These are necessarily and obviously absolutes. Now if God exists, and being God is therefore omniscient, then Him telling us the best way to live our lives makes sense. As situations change, so does God's law, for instance, we should never nowadays stone someone to death for chosing to follow another God (see above post). Religion, or at least Christianity isn't about figuring God out - that what Christians believe the bible is for - its about Him telling us through the history of His people what He is like. We can't discover more of Him and therefore develop and change the religion, because if it is true then its true, and if its not then its not.

This doesn't make it 'the worst of all worlds' - its is just the natural consequence of what it is.

As for Darwinism, natural selection and creationism - I was once told by a creationist that fossils were put in the earth by the devil to trick us all. It's that type of absolute that turns people against them. At least a scientist can entertain the possibility of another explanation (as long as it's backed up with some evidence as proof, unlike religion)

And here we agree. This type of creationist nonsense is driving people away from Christianity, and unnecessarily. If science tells us that the world was created over millions of years and that the process of evolution was how we got here, then so be it. The biblical account of creaton os obvously not literal (how can there be a day and night before a Sun and an Earth?) so this just develops a Christian's understanding of how God created the world.

I entertain the possibility that modern scientific theories are correct, especially since none have any impact on whether or not God exists, and Jesus was and is His son.

Anyway beam me up, oh mighty teapot, let me embrace thee as the master of all knowing and all creation and the best brew this side of alpha centruri. Hail!

Indeed.

[Alex]

No, it really isn't. Outside of religious texts such as the bible, there is no 'historical record'.

I'm sorry, which bit of that are you arguing didn't happen?

EDIT: Sorry, will have to come back to this tomorrow - I'm working nights this week and I'm truly knackered. Night all.

[TeePee]

I didn't say anything didn't happen.
I said the existence of Jesus isn't supported by a historical record, simply because there ISN'T a historical record. There is nothing outside of religious texts to say if he did or didn't, and these have questionable reliability at best. It is widely accepted that the bible was largely written around 300AD ('Saint' Constantine), but it's changed so much it's hardly a reliable source. Even the idea of an 'immacuate conception' comes from a mistranslation, and look how popular that is!

[herulach]

Actually I have a degree in Metallurgy and Materials Engineering so I do understand quite alot about the natural world. I read many books on all different aspects of the subject but never came across the definitive book that told me all the answers. Nor did I have that book preached or interpreted for me. I learnt not only from being told what to expect but also through practical experiment, deduction and reasoning. I was encouraged to explore and find out for my self. Nobody said this was gospel nor did they say you musn't ask anyone elses opinion. As for general relativity, or quantum mechanics I can do exactly the same and surprisingly do, to a much more limited extent than you of course. Quantum mechanics is certainly baffling.



The point being that structural engineering is not habitually rammed down many childrens throats before they are able to REASON for themselves.

Fair point

If religion is not a science then how come others are trying to explain the complexities of they eye through their religion? It's a fine line.

I dont think you can argue religion away on a scientific basis was what i meant, just like you cant argue with philosophers.

Same difference. Religion is the only mass brainwashing technique thats approved of. You are lucky that you live in this free country. In many others you would have been murdered or rejected by friends/familiy for renouncing your faith.

One of my friends parents actually stopped me seeing them when i was 12 because i wasnt baptised (Parents decided to give me the choice, which i think is incredibly sensible). But again, I dont think anyone 'approves' of religion as a brainwashing technique, everyone i know who is religous is a pretty rounded person, just that they happen to belive in god (or allah in some of thier cases). We should tar all religion with the same brush as the one we use for fundamentalist extremists.

No incorrect. The evidence points towards a big bang theory and light has been measured to travel in a vacuum at 3x10^8 m/s (although it has been argued that the speed of light is not absolute and that it may have been different in the past, so it's only a matter of education that allows me to say that becasue I have opened my mind - I chose to learn. Ok there are no absolutes in quantum mechanics). There is no evidence for God, Jesus, the virgin birth, resurrection, etc. It's all hear say and myth yet Christians refuse to open their minds to an alternative. ditto other fundamentalists.

But again, to joe average that isnt the case, which was my point, who have no more evidence than someone saying it to them, (im not just talking about UK citizens here, think about the vast majority of the worlds population).

Again your logic fails. The woman in question was a qualified chemist with a masters degree. She was not stupid. She just chose to believe something that was not rational because her faith told her so, it was the only way she could get round the evidence that dinosaur skeletons (a test by the devil btw) are found and this is widely believed in creationist movements.

Perhaps stupid was the wrong word, irrational would probably have been a better choice. Having a degree doesnt (ime) endow any great amount of common sense, ive met all sorts of people with degrees that have frankly ridiculous ideas about how the world works, admittedly a lot of them are philosophy grads, so theyre not exactly a representative sample, but still.

[kalniel]

I didn't say anything didn't happen.
I said the existence of Jesus isn't supported by a historical record, simply because there ISN'T a historical record. There is nothing outside of religious texts to say if he did or didn't, and these have questionable reliability at best. It is widely accepted that the bible was largely written around 300AD ('Saint' Constantine), but it's changed so much it's hardly a reliable source. Even the idea of an 'immacuate conception' comes from a mistranslation, and look how popular that is!

There is plenty of material outside of religious texts, not to mention the historical accuracy of portions of religious text.

http://www.sundayschoolcourses.com/h...u/histjesu.htm

Check the contemporary secular sources section.

That Jesus existed is almost certain. Whether you believe he said what he said, or believe what he said, is another matter.