The MI6 Community Religion and Faith Discussion Space (for members of all faiths - and none!)

15859616364108

Comments

  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited March 2018 Posts: 17,816
    patb wrote: »
    I could do a better job of defending religion than this! Just dreadful stuff. Poor and confused approaches here. Perhaps I'll set up a new forum ID and join the faith side to give my fellow atheists something to debate against because a "super sub" is really needed.

    I'm pretty sure we still have a number of posters under various different forum IDs. At least, this is what I have been told on another Bond forum by one who engages in such practices here (under a different name of course). No sense in adding any more. They're bad enough first time around. Duplicity is a terrible thing but not altogether to be unexpected on Bond fora or the internet more widely. It's all a vast aid to anonymity and the mischief-making that can cone along with it.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    Nice quote from David Attenborough:

    When creationists talk about God creating every individual species as a separate act, they always instance hummingbirds, or orchids, sunflowers and beautiful things. But I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, [a worm] that’s going to make him blind.

    And [I ask them], ‘Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child’s eyeball? Because that doesn’t seem to me to coincide with a God who’s full of mercy.


    Yes, and Stephen Fry uses similar arguments. I watched that video with Attenborough recently myself on You Tube. He said the more logical explanation is that that parasitic worm evolved in the river. It's good to know that the Big Bang theory absolves all personal blame for the creation of such worms. It wasn't much more humane than God as far as I can see,but it's much harder to blame a massive explosion than it is to blame God.

    Even for this thread we have reached a new low in logic from the God apologists.

    I'm not going to say any more as I'm concerned the thread will be closed soon (which I suspect is what @Dragonpol is actually angling for here) if I go in with both barrels.

    I'm hoping @DarthDimi will eviscerate this drivel with one of his eloquent posts instead.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited March 2018 Posts: 17,816
    Go in with both barrels by all means. Maybe I'll be educated by it.
  • Posts: 14,839
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    Nice quote from David Attenborough:

    When creationists talk about God creating every individual species as a separate act, they always instance hummingbirds, or orchids, sunflowers and beautiful things. But I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, [a worm] that’s going to make him blind.

    And [I ask them], ‘Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child’s eyeball? Because that doesn’t seem to me to coincide with a God who’s full of mercy.


    Yes, and Stephen Fry uses similar arguments. I watched that video with Attenborough recently myself on You Tube. He said the more logical explanation is that that parasitic worm evolved in the river. It's good to know that the Big Bang theory absolves all personal blame for the creation of such worms. It wasn't much more humane than God as far as I can see, but it's much harder to blame a massive explosion than it is to blame God.

    I hate to say this but you're getting ridiculous. Nobody said evolution or nature was moral. Nobody said that either had any beneficial intentions whatsoever. Science is intself amoral. If a shark eats a human being I will not accuse the shark of immoral behavior or being unethical. But I'd hold a supreme being to higher standards!
    And typical Xian confusion: you're equating the Big Bang Theory with the theory of Evolution. They have nothing to do with each other!

    I'm sure you've called me worse than ridiculous before now. It's water off a

    duck's back to me by this stage.

    There was and still are many occasions when science has been immoral as well, but you conveniently chose to omit that. No matter.

    And as you don't believe in God, why us there the need to hold him to any standard. As an atheist, he doesn't exist to you, so it's all rather pointless if I may say so.

    On my "typical Xian confusion": is that because neither exist or have ever existed?

    I don't think I did say anything harsher than ridiculous but tell me what and when if l have forgotten.

    As for science being immoral you would need to explain what you mean by this. I have been very clear that science is itself amoral: devoid of morals or ethics of any kind. One can use it for good or evil. It is in itself devoid of any conscience or thoughts or intentions.

    As for higher standards it also applies to hypothetical beings if they're revered.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,816
    @Ludovico I can't recall if there was anything said so I'll recant that part of the statement. Sorry for saying that in fact. I still consider you a friend with some similar interests in Bondology to mine but obviously we don't agree on religion and faith. No matter. You can't win 'em all.

    I was referring more to scientists than science in the post you quoted. Science and scientists are synonymous in my mind. That was the sense of the word I meant.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Go in with both barrels by all means. Maybe I'll be educated by it.

    It sounds like you're in desperate need of it if you think science has morals.

    By all means debate the morality of the decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan. But to debate the morality of the process of fission that killed hundreds of thousands is idiocy of, excuse the pun, biblical proportions.

  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,816
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Go in with both barrels by all means. Maybe I'll be educated by it.

    It sounds like you're in desperate need of it if you think science has morals.

    By all means debate the morality of the decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan. But to debate the morality of the process of fission that killed hundreds of thousands is idiocy of, excuse the pun, biblical proportions.

    See my post immediately above for my reasoning.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Go in with both barrels by all means. Maybe I'll be educated by it.

    It sounds like you're in desperate need of it if you think science has morals.

    By all means debate the morality of the decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan. But to debate the morality of the process of fission that killed hundreds of thousands is idiocy of, excuse the pun, biblical proportions.

    See my post immediately above for my reasoning.

    Yeah I just saw. I guess we were both typing at the same time!
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    I was referring more to scientists than science in the post you quoted. Science and scientists are synonymous in my mind. That was the sense of the word I meant.

    And who created the scientists?

    If some scientists are immoral (which I wouldn't argue with as I'm sure there are numerous examples) then it's either because the process of evolution ended up making immoral men or God put in place the rules that made them immoral.

    If you believe in God you always end up at the same place though - it's his game and we all have to play by his rules so anything bad, evil or immoral always ends up back at his door eventually.

    Science for all its 'immorality' didn't create baby cancer, Hitler or AIDS rampantly spreading through Africa because the people are told not to wear johnnies did it?
  • Posts: 14,839
    First scientists and science are not synonymous. It's like saying a beer and the guy brewing it are one and the same!

    As for some scientists being immoral yes sure.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Talking about morality:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/09/church-urges-irish-catholics-to-oppose-abortion-law-reform

    Now we can debate the rights and wrongs of abortion and at what point a foetus can feel pain etc till the cows come home but the bottom line remains that the Church is happy to protect the right to life of what could be described as a cluster of cells but not actual people who are alive, have hopes and dreams and families dependent on them.

    The church will stand up for your rights if you don't exist yet but if your'e an African villager they will ban you from protecting yourself from HIV.

    Seems a rather muddled message at best.

    Thank Christ we dont live in a country where the church has sufficient influence that when they pipe up about something it is likely to sway the vote.
  • Posts: 14,839
    The Catholic Church is pro birth not pro life. Once born nobody has the right to dignity and freedom. And control over their own body. Unfortunately I have to disagree with your last statement: the Church of England has far too much influence over public policies still.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited March 2018 Posts: 9,117
    Ludovico wrote: »
    The Catholic Church is pro birth not pro life. Once born nobody has the right to dignity and freedom. And control over their own body. Unfortunately I have to disagree with your last statement: the Church of England has far too much influence over public policies still.

    Oh absolutely. Their continued privileged representation in the House of Lords is shocking. But at least if the CofE came out backing a particular party or Leave or Remain say it wouldn't make a noticeable dent in the vote such is their irrelevance.

    There are lots of countries out there where the church telling people which way to vote would swing an election but thankfully I don't think we're one of them.
  • Posts: 14,839
    Ludovico wrote: »
    The Catholic Church is pro birth not pro life. Once born nobody has the right to dignity and freedom. And control over their own body. Unfortunately I have to disagree with your last statement: the Church of England has far too much influence over public policies still.

    Oh absolutely. Their continued privileged representation in the House of Lords is shocking. But at least if the CofE came out backing a particular party or Leave or Remain say it wouldn't make a noticeable dent in the vote such is their irrelevance.

    There are lots of countries out there where the church telling people which way to vote would swing an election but thankfully I don't think we're one of them.

    True. I can't wait to see if that candidate to the state senate of Tennessee will win. She's an atheist and has been attacked by the GOP as godless. If she wins in such a godly place then we can say there's a huge shift in people's mentality even in the US: https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/religion/2018/03/08/can-atheist-win-public-office-tennessee-well-find-out-tuesday/387468002/
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Unless she's promising free assault rifles for all I'll be astonished if she wins.

    Interesting to note that she was a baptist for 40 years but came to question her beliefs and realised it was all a load of cobblers. So don't despair believers there's hope for you to that you might be saved.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    1024x1024.jpg
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,816
    A new weapon in threads - pictures and not words. ;)
  • Posts: 14,839
    Unless she's promising free assault rifles for all I'll be astonished if she wins.

    Interesting to note that she was a baptist for 40 years but came to question her beliefs and realised it was all a load of cobblers. So don't despair believers there's hope for you to that you might be saved.

    A lot of prominent atheists in the US are former devout Christians. Matt Dillahunty was a fundamentalist Baptist who became atheist studying to become a priest.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Unless she's promising free assault rifles for all I'll be astonished if she wins.

    Interesting to note that she was a baptist for 40 years but came to question her beliefs and realised it was all a load of cobblers. So don't despair believers there's hope for you to that you might be saved.

    A lot of prominent atheists in the US are former devout Christians. Matt Dillahunty was a fundamentalist Baptist who became atheist studying to become a priest.

    I guess the more closely you scrutinise it the more ridiculous you realise religion is, as demonstrated in this thread.

    Religion would much prefer it if people just believed and behaved themselves like sheep. The moment they start asking questions it's game over.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited March 2018 Posts: 17,816
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Unless she's promising free assault rifles for all I'll be astonished if she wins.

    Interesting to note that she was a baptist for 40 years but came to question her beliefs and realised it was all a load of cobblers. So don't despair believers there's hope for you to that you might be saved.

    A lot of prominent atheists in the US are former devout Christians. Matt Dillahunty was a fundamentalist Baptist who became atheist studying to become a priest.

    Just like a lot of the athiests posting in this thread appear to be lapsed Roman Catholics. I find that interesting in itself, given all of the iniquities and controversies surrounding the Church and the Vatican over the last 30 years or so.

    I'm only surmising here but it seems to me that it was an immense aid in turning these former Christians into athiests. I can understand how that could happen in fact. I say this not as a member of that church myself, although it's easy to forget that the true Church is the people and not the leadership or the building itself. Meeting house is a better word than church in that regard.
  • Posts: 14,839
    If you're wondering if some of us have been raped by a priest @Dragonpol I can only speak for myself and it's not the case. I became an atheist because I found my beliefs in God, Jesus and so on to be unjustified. The stupidity and crimes of the Catholic Church made me anticlerical. You can be anticlerical and believe in God, which seems to be your case (I might be wrong) and an atheist who is not otherwise anticlerical. I think that many on this thread are Catholic apostates is more happenstance than anything else: you'd create a similar thread about it in an Israeli forum you would find atheist Jews, you'd create such thread on say a local Texan forum and they'd be more of a Baptist background.

    I could go on to tell the story of my deconversion when I have time and I'd like to hear others.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Unless she's promising free assault rifles for all I'll be astonished if she wins.

    Interesting to note that she was a baptist for 40 years but came to question her beliefs and realised it was all a load of cobblers. So don't despair believers there's hope for you to that you might be saved.

    A lot of prominent atheists in the US are former devout Christians. Matt Dillahunty was a fundamentalist Baptist who became atheist studying to become a priest.

    Just like a lot of the athiests posting in this thread appear to be lapsed Roman Catholics. I find that interesting in itself, given all of the iniquities and controversies surrounding the Church and the Vatican over the last 30 years or so.

    I'm only surmising here but it seems to me that it was an immense aid in turning these former Christians into athiests. I can understand how that could happen in fact. I say this not as a member of that church myself, although it's easy to forget that the true Church is the people and not the leadership or the building itself. Meeting house is a better word than church in that regard.

    It wasn't the tenets of Catholicism and the scandals around the Catholic church I turned my back on it was the existence of God.

    My Catholic upbringing was very middle England, CofE. We just went to church once a week and went to Catholic schools where, although we had an hours RE a week, it wasn't shoved down our throat and we were taught physics, chemistry and biology properly.

    As an altar boy for 5 years (I largely got into it to give me a way to pass the time during tedious mass) I was even unlucky enough not to get nonced up so can't claim a payout.

    I think as @Ludovico says above it's just a coincidence that the people on here who have turned their back on God seem to be mostly Catholic. After all Catholicism is the biggest Christian denomination. It would be surprising, and perhaps indicative, if everyone who became an atheist was from a Mormon upbringing for example.

    Yes the Catholic church and the Vatican is a disgusting organisation but that is entirely separate debate to the existence of God which transcends these man made little groups.

    I think it's rather spurious to profer the argument that paedo priest scandals are fueling the rise of atheism. CofE attendances have dropped off a cliff in the last 30 years too but they have had no comparable scandals. You may want to pretend otherwise but in the UK Christianity is on the ropes as people are waking up from the past 2000 years indoctrination.

    Your own area is an interesting one though. I would think living in Northern Ireland would be about as good an advert as you could get for the pernicious influence of religion. What are the rates of atheism over there? Is it on the up or is belonging to a particular religious group so entrenched in the community?
  • edited March 2018 Posts: 4,600
    I was chatting to a good friend in the pub last night about the morality of abortion. The issue is, as he is a devout Catholic, I can't really discuss his thoughts. All he can do is repeat the policy of the Vatican. "What do you think" is a useless question as those of faith have chosen to basically give up the luxury of independent thought as they have "bought into" a moral framework that is not their own (it existed before they were alive and will after they die).

    It's a real shame at that people should give up use of the most complex thing on the planent (the human brain) and simply rebrand the morality of an organised religion as their own.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    patb wrote: »
    I was chatting to a good friend in the pub last night about the morality of abortion. The issue is, as he is a devout Catholic, I can't really discuss his thoughts. All he can do is repeat the policy of the Vatican. "What do you think" is a useless question as those of faith have chosen to basically give up the luxury of independent thought as they have "bought into" a moral framework that is not their own (it existed before they were alive and will after they die).

    It's a real shame at that people should give up use of the most complex thing on the planent (the human brain) and simply rebrand the morality of an organised religion as their own.

    Presumably, by the same rationale, he is also an apologist for paedos and happy to let half of Africa die of AIDS?

    It's not even like what religion peddles is harmless. People are dying because of the drivel spewed out by the likes of the Vatican. Yet we are told we must respect it?

    Why are we not told we must respect the cocaine industry which I daresay ruins less lives?
  • Posts: 14,839
    At least cocaine does what it says on the tin. The Vatican is selling at a very high price a product so rare it doesn't exist and that has absolutely no benefit.
  • Posts: 14,839
    I was thinking about this thread @TheWizardOfIce and I think the sex crimes committed by Catholic priests, the subsequent cover up and the other sins so to speak of the Catholic Church, as well as other priests of other denominations (the C of E have a few skeletons in their own closets) may have play an indirect role in a number of deconversions. As a religious authority claims moral high ground based on his religious belief, when this claim is challenged if not eviscerated by facts, then one can question the other claims said priest makes.
  • Posts: 4,600
    I know it's a sensitive topic but, in defence of the non existant God, the behavior of an organised religion and God's existence are two seperate topics. To become an Atheist due the your experience within one organised religion makes little sense , althought its a very understandable reaction.

  • Posts: 14,839
    patb wrote: »
    I know it's a sensitive topic but, in defence of the non existant God, the behavior of an organised religion and God's existence are two seperate topics. To become an Atheist due the your experience within one organised religion makes little sense , althought its a very understandable reaction.

    Oh I agree. You can become atheist for the wrong reasons and for irrational ones.

    What played an important role in my deconversion was a decent and quite nice RE teacher who, trying to strengthen our faith, gave us a series of activities and classes that backfired big time, although it took me a while to be conscious of it.
  • Posts: 4,600
    Perfect example of how a child, just asking basic questions, can undermine thousands of years of fairy worship:

  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,985
    patb wrote: »
    Perfect example of how a child, just asking basic questions, can undermine thousands of years of fairy worship:


    Amazing how children can cut through all the bullshit, that apparently millions of adults cannot.
  • edited March 2018 Posts: 4,600
    Yes, very far points. It is claimed that Jesus was a super hero with super powers but he uses these powers very sparingly and under strange circumstances compared to how much good he could have done. (cures a handful of people via personal meetings rather than just healing all blind people etc, Imagine the blind person getting delayed "sorry, youv'e missed him") the fact that all of the micacles seemed to happen in his presense does imply slight of hand, cold reading, mis reporting, self healing (cable TV examples are there for all to see). A miracle where he was not present would be far better.

    PS today's slice of bonkers:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43369392
This discussion has been closed.