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

15253555758108

Comments

  • Posts: 12,303
    FoxRox wrote: »
    That may be true, but it doesn’t have much bearing on the people. It’s just a kind of subconscious tradition it seems like.

    Well I meant that away from the two coasts your election campaign would be dead in the water of you came out as a) an atheist and b) anti guns.

    Maybe. Pre-Trump I’d agree for certain, but obviously things have been changing since his election. I think a lot of people here are tired of the norms and would be okay with something radical the other way after Trump. Slowly the people are becoming more anti-gun. The problem is I don’t know how the politicians can change, because their concern for the people obviously isn’t a big priority.
  • Posts: 14,878
    I don't think we're in as bad a state as America where a person can't be elected unless they profess belief in God.

    How many PM or even MPs for that matter were openly atheist? Nick Clegg said something implying he may be and Corbyn is atheist (and could well become PM) but that's about it. Religiosity is seen as a sign of morality if nothing else and sometimes even credibility. Even Farron cowered behind his faith after the gay question debacle and some were ready to defend or excuse him based on that.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited March 2018 Posts: 17,906
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I don't think we're in as bad a state as America where a person can't be elected unless they profess belief in God.

    How many PM or even MPs for that matter were openly atheist? Nick Clegg said something implying he may be and Corbyn is atheist (and could well become PM) but that's about it. Religiosity is seen as a sign of morality if nothing else and sometimes even credibility. Even Farron cowered behind his faith after the gay question debacle and some were ready to defend or excuse him based on that.

    Ed Miliband was an atheist too, but it's easy to forget him to be honest. Neil Kinnock was another one. Nick Clegg definitely was an atheist too and famously wanted the bishops removed from the House of Lords, for instance, as part of a constitutional reform package. Still, he took a knighthood in the end up!
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Yeah Clegg the only one to blatantly state it I've ever heard of, but even then I daresay there are some mealy mouthed quotes from him you could unearth defending the concept of religion so as notbto offend anyone.

    Where is a vocally atheist politician? An atheist Ian Paisley if you will - that's what we need.
  • Posts: 14,878
    Boy I voted LibDem and I didn't know that about the House of Lords! A real shame he never was PM. Although he would have probably been unable to fulfill this promise.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited March 2018 Posts: 17,906
    Yeah Clegg the only one to blatantly state it I've ever heard of, but even then I daresay there are some mealy mouthed quotes from him you could unearth defending the concept of religion so as notbto offend anyone.

    Where is a vocally atheist politician? An atheist Ian Paisley if you will - that's what we need.

    I definitely remember Ed Miliband (who was Jewish) answering a question about being an atheist in the affirmative when he was Labour Party Leader. It did come up at the time definitely. Even the fact that he was a Party Leader who had children and wasn't married was brought up too. Eventually, he seemed to bow to the pressure and got married to his partner.

    And one Ian Paisley is more than enough!
  • Posts: 14,878
    Clegg also reminded people that his wife is a Catholic (and so are his children?). I've seen more militant atheists.
  • Posts: 4,602
    Clegg sucked up to the establishment big time. He is an atheist but he is also a coward.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,680
    pirate+cushing.jpg
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,906
    SIR Nick Clegg at the very least.
  • Posts: 9,791
    Btw I have t given up on this thread nor do I have a lack of evidence I am busy with real life stuff and writing out a doctoral thesis on why the resurrection happened is a little more time consuming then say a five minute post on 007 so apologies for real life getting in the way but I will have he evidence you all want as soon as I can find an hour to breath
  • Posts: 623
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Makes sense. Good to hear your godfather was understanding. I am definitely agnostic because I can’t say with 100% certainty I don’t believe in God, but I also just can’t follow any kind of religion anymore either when I know I’d be lying to myself.

    I just class myself an 'none-religious'. Calling yourself atheist/agnostic etc always feels like pandering to the 'folklore as fact' people.
    I'm just me, and I don't do religion, because of science.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Btw I have t given up on this thread nor do I have a lack of evidence I am busy with real life stuff and writing out a doctoral thesis on why the resurrection happened is a little more time consuming then say a five minute post on 007 so apologies for real life getting in the way but I will have he evidence you all want as soon as I can find an hour to breath

    'Real life stuff' - the resurrection? The irony.

    But please tell me this is true and promise that you will post your thesis in full; I for one genuinely can't wait to see all the evidence that you are hiding from the world until you deem the time is right for the big reveal.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,906
    Rome wasn't built in a day, old bean.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited March 2018 Posts: 9,117
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Rome wasn't built in a day, old bean.

    Does this mean you are still beavering away on all the reams of 'evidence' you promised us in Dec but which have still yet to materialise?

    Or are you just waiting for God to hand it all down on stone tablets and due to the snow his granite delivery guy hasn't been able to get though?
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,680
    Risico007 wrote: »
    writing out a doctoral thesis on why the resurrection happened

    Please don't. Tax payer's money can no doubt be better invested. I'll happily pick up a zombie comic book if I want to fantasise about dead men walking.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited March 2018 Posts: 17,906
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Rome wasn't built in a day, old bean.

    Does this mean you are still beavering away on all the reams of 'evidence' you promised us in Dec but which have still yet to materialise?

    Or are you just waiting for God to hand it all down on stone tablets and due to the snow his granite delivery guy hasn't been able to get though?

    Yes, I'll try my best to deliver at some point, but these things take time. Great art always does.
  • Posts: 14,878
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Btw I have t given up on this thread nor do I have a lack of evidence I am busy with real life stuff and writing out a doctoral thesis on why the resurrection happened is a little more time consuming then say a five minute post on 007 so apologies for real life getting in the way but I will have he evidence you all want as soon as I can find an hour to breath

    I hope the thesis is better than your posts and that you show more solid arguments and better evidence than what you gave us so far.

    That said... didn't you say the resurrection was already a proven fact? Why then bother writing a thesis arguing that? Why not just point out to the ones that proved it and try to demonstrate something else from the Bible? Like that the earth is flat or something.

    And you DID say you were leaving this thread because us heathens couldn't understand the historian you are...
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Rome wasn't built in a day, old bean.

    Does this mean you are still beavering away on all the reams of 'evidence' you promised us in Dec but which have still yet to materialise?

    Or are you just waiting for God to hand it all down on stone tablets and due to the snow his granite delivery guy hasn't been able to get though?

    Yes, I'll try my best to deliver at some point,

    Try? I thought you were in full possession of the 'evidence'? There is no try only do.
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    but these things take time.
    I'm sure they do son I'm sure they do.
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Great art always does.

    Am I missing something? It's just a simple presentation of facts we're after not asking you to create something from thin air.
  • Posts: 14,878
    ...especially since it's something that is apparently already publicly available.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited March 2018 Posts: 17,906
    I doubt very much that any evidence would satisfy either of you, short of God coming down and visiting with each of you to prove his existence. Faith does not enter into it for closed minds. Nothing I could ever write could change your set-in-stone position on the Christian faith. Hence, it is likely a thankless task and one most likely not worth pursuing any further by myself or others in this thread.
  • Posts: 14,878
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    I doubt very much that any evidence would satisfy either of you, short of God coming down and visiting with each of you to prove his existence. Faith does not enter into it for closed minds. Nothing I could ever write could change your set-in-stone position on the Christian faith. Hence, it is likely a thankless task and one most likely not worth pursuing any further by myself or others in this thread.

    You have it wrong and making a false assumption: our minds are not closed. Evidence proving God, any god, would be enough to change our mind. And faith is NOT evidence, in fact it's the contrary: it's holding something as true is spite of a lack of evidence. Faith is useless to establish something as true, not only to an atheist but to a believer as well. So even if there is a god and even if this god is the Christian god, your belief in him is at the moment unjustified. Unless you know something that we don't but then you can either demonstrate it or you should not complain that we don't believe.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    I doubt very much that any evidence would satisfy either of you, short of God coming down and visiting with each of you to prove his existence. Faith does not enter into it for closed minds. Nothing I could ever write could change your set-in-stone position on the Christian faith. Hence, it is likely a thankless task and one most likely not worth pursuing any further by myself or others in this thread.

    As @Ludovico says our minds are entirely open to any credible (crucial word) evidence you can bring to the table. We're not asking for your opinion on our views just for you to deliver the evidence and let us make our own judgement on it's merits. You claim to have seen some evidence which clearly convinces you. Why can't you give us the same evidence so we can assess it? If it's as irrefutable as it clearly is to you (I mean if it was just a feeble hotchpotch of parchments written 2000 years ago by some Arabic goat herders an intelligent bloke like you wouldn't believe in it would you?) then you could easily convert us. We are here, with our minds open, ready and willing to join you.
    "Dragonpol wrote: »
    So, it's not just a case of blind faith alone. The Bible is a history book in part too. It's a whole series of books collected together, in fact. It's very easy to forget that at times.There is evidence out there too that proves it is factually correct.
    Posted on the 14th of Jan and we're still waiting.

    Why are the religionists so scared to engage in a debate? Almost 2 months down the line and still Draggers is squirming like a politician being grilled by Paxman rather than just outlining all this evidence that 'proves it is factually correct'. Why make a statement like that if you have nothing but 'faith'?

    Given, demonstrated via your increasingly tiresome avoidance of answering the question, you clearly don't have any evidence can I at least enquire what it is that led you believe in God?
    I may well be wrong and you had a moment of road to Damascus like clarity at the age of 20 (please set me straight if this is the case) but I assume, as with the vast majority of 'believers', that what actually happened was your parents fed it to you at an early age. If so why do you still not believe in Father Christmas (I'm assuming you don't but there again you believe in talking snakes so who knows?) as they told you that was true too?

    Anyway a few weeks ago we (exceedingly) generously offered to park the evidence* thing and posed the question 'Let's assume God exists, why is he worthy of your love, respect and devotion?'

    And still had no replies on that one from your side either. Where are all the religionsists and why are they so scared to enter into a discussion? It's almost as if they are aware their arguments are made of straw built on foundations of quicksand and will collapse under the slightest scrutiny; but of course that can't be the reason as they KNOW they are right and we are all wrong so you would imagine they could smash us out of the park if they tried.

    *Presumably @Risico007 will put the evidence debate to bed once and for all with his highly anticipated 'thesis'?

  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,906
    I shall refrain from posting in this thread in future and let @Risico007 provide you with the evidence you need. He seems to be better qualified than I in terms of theology to provide the evidence you need. I wish him all the best in his endeavours.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    I shall refrain from posting in this thread in future and let @Risico007 provide you with the evidence you need. He seems to be better qualified than I in terms of theology to provide the evidence you need. I wish him all the best in his endeavours.

    But you said:
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    There is evidence out there too that proves it is factually correct.

    Because you cannot tell us what this 'evidence' is are we to infer that you haven't actually seen said 'evidence' but have just heard that it's 'out there'?

    In which case what are you basing your belief in the existence of God on? Mere hearsay?
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,906
    I don't have the answers to your questions. I'm not well enough qualified to provide them. @Risico007 will hopefully be of more use to you.

    I've done my bit in creating this thread for members of all faiths and none but now is the time for me to step aside from it. If anyone else wishes to fill the void they are very welcome to, but it is not the job for me I am afraid.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    I don't have the answers to your questions. I'm not well enough qualified to provide them. @Risico007 will hopefully be of more use to you.

    I posted this earlier to a response so far of tumbleweed:
    can I at least enquire what it is that led you believe in God?
    I may well be wrong and you had a moment of road to Damascus like clarity at the age of 20 (please set me straight if this is the case) but I assume, as with the vast majority of 'believers', that what actually happened was your parents fed it to you at an early age. If so why do you still not believe in Father Christmas (I'm assuming you don't but there again you believe in talking snakes so who knows?) as they told you that was true too?

    Anyway a few weeks ago we (exceedingly) generously offered to park the evidence* thing and posed the question 'Let's assume God exists, why is he worthy of your love, respect and devotion?'

    If you aren't qualified to say what led you, Dragonpol, to believe in God then I don't know who is?

  • Posts: 14,878
    Surely @Dragonpol , if you have enough evidence to belief, you can share said evidence and it should easily be understood. I mean, you must have been qualified to assess the value of the evidence that made you a believer!
  • edited March 2018 Posts: 4,602
    There are so many examples where, by producing hard evidence, main stream "faith" or assumptions have been changed (flat earth, Darwin, Centre of the Universe etc)

    Darwin did not have to visit every person and present his evidence. If one person could produce the same level of evidence as Darwin to prove God, then it's game over. All this ballyhoo about closed minds is a classic distraction method and somehow seeks to place the blame on atheists. It's very trasparant and pretty desperate

    Simply by calling it "faith" rather than fact, is a clear admission that the evidence is not there. Do we have faith that 2 and 2 is 4 or do we know it? Do we have faith that the Earth orbits the Sun or do we know it? Do we have faith in the ability for a 747 wing to lift the aircraft or do we know it? If God is fact and the evidence is there, then it's something that you know. It's not a mattter of faith.

    definition: faith; "strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof."

    So by calling it faith, QED, an admission of lack of proof.
  • Posts: 14,878
    So far the claims from theists on this thread has been backed up by claims of having evidence and then dodging due to whatever excuse they could find.
This discussion has been closed.