I agree with some of what you say. I do think though you seem to have a bit of a thing about militant atheism - has someone attacked you in the past? I have known many more people who argue strongly for a religion or church than bang on about atheism. I have found atheist tend to be just dismissive. I am not sure I like the term "real" conversion - reminds me too much of football supporters who go on about "real" fans. It tends to mean people like them. There is no difference between "outer" and "inner" worlds in terms of merit. A devout Catholic is no better nor worse than a person who contemplates the inner world. You will find teachers for both too. Also conversion is not universally bad. If you genuinely believe something is good for you will you not try to persuade others whether it is on health, politics or religion. When they become zealots is when the problems arise - again in each field. It is especially pertinent in religion. Some people believe (still) that if you do not find the right path you will either be eternally damned or at the least fail to find true salvation. If that is your belief is it not right and proper -and good and kind to try to help your fellow man find the light? If you only consider it a badge then of course it is far less important - but I do not really agree many people convert easily - for them it is a way of life - often from birth - and you can no more easily siwtch from being a Christian to Islam than you could from supporting Watford to L*t*n - there now I have to go and wash my mouth out.
Not much point in that (getting ratty)! One thing I've learnt in debating these things is that we're generally all so entrenched in our positions that I'm not expecting to change peoples minds. What I do like to do is show the reason why I hold the opinions I do. I try my damnedest to explain myself regardless. But please understand this: my faith was tested by a Young Earth Creationist friend, a good friend of over 30 years standing, about four years ago. We discussed, as we often did, theology into the small hours over a bottle of Scotch. Alas I could not begin to compete with his scriptural knowledge, and I still can't. His argument was simple: you cannot pick and choose from the bible; you accept the whole or reject it. Only one thing for it: I had to read the whole thing. So I did - cover to cover. Took a while. It shook me. Then I read the koran, in English of course not in the "beautiful poetic language of Arabic" of which it should only be read (erm, bible in Latin only, anyone?) and that shook me more. Ghastly experience. How anyone can take either to be the true inspired word of an almighty, omnipotent, all knowing, benevolent and loving creator is way beyond my comprehension... I realised that I'd been spoon-fed the good bits and the contradictions, absurdities and down right injustices had been left out... and yes I was f*****g angry that supposedly "good people" had lied to me their entire lives. It is far easier to reject the whole. In the mean time, please feel free to read the first two surah's in the koran: joyful stuff once you're past the all compassionate, all merciful, cobblers. I'll also give some attention to the earlier posts, probably Sunday - beer tonight and the small matter of a football match tomorrow... and the golf, of course!
That is exactly my position Fez. It is a subject that interests me - in fact most are - I try to acquire some reading on any subject that I find myself talking to someone about. I have no interest in changing anyone else's position and in fact would be sorry if I caused someone to lose faith unless they themselves had thought long and hard about their position. There is a phrase "where ignorance is bliss, tiz folly to be wise" - so even if I were right it would not help to be "wise" I feel drawn to spiritual matters so have always tried to find a church I could join. Although I have met very kind and loving people along my way I have never found a spiritual home. Two groups I admire tremendously are Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons. I have debated with them and attended more of their services probably than any other sect as their members are truly committed - not Sunday Hat Christians. Both though hold views I cannot share. I have to say that I tend to agree with your friend - you should not be able to pick and choose from the Bible. It is a subject I will come back to another time but briefly - the Bible is either true and worth something or it is not. If it is the inspired word of God then it has to all be taken together. I concede you can try to "interpret" your way out of some if it's inconsistencies - but there are just too many. If God is the God set out in the Bible a Christian should be able to live their lives by it. An omniscient and omnipotent God would not have a book that gets out of date in a blink in eternal time. I know too little about Judaism and Islam to make more comment than that they are from the same stock as the bible. Modern Christians do not actually fit into my narrow minded view of Christians at all - their views would a few hundred years ago have them killed as heretics. You don't have to believe in God? Christ is not the Son of God? He did not literally rise from the dead? What is left other than some nice modern humanist preachings? I have tried to read the Koran but not yet found the patience. Apart from anything else it is quite obvious to me that I could not respect a book whose followers - not terrorists - but devout Muslims hold views about women, sexuality and other religious / non religious people that they do. Buddhism is a different matter entirely - as is Hinduism and other Eastern beliefs.
I have a problem with some aspects of the atheist position - particularly the idea, which I have also seen on here, that religion has, in some way, caused wars in the past. Only people can cause wars. If you look back you will see that most wars were started by Kings, or by other people who claimed their position by hereditary right. Why did they do this ? Lust for power, influence, land etc. Also maybe to distract their populations, or to occupy their barons and lords (If they had nothing to do then things could get hairy for the King). At the end of the day they may have brought God into the picture with some comment like 'God is with us', or 'God blesses our arms' - but this was mostly opportunism, and motivated a 'believing' population more than 'I want more land'. In other words they were using the language common to the age and time. But would we call those religious wars ? It would be more logical to say wars are an inherent part of monarchy, aristocracy and in fact all hierarchical systems - because if wars had to be declared by the normal people ie. those who are forced into the front line - then, war may become obsolete. People throughout history have always used the language and the custom of their time. I was once amazed to see, in the old German Democratic Republic that they had a picture of Thomas Muntzer (a religious teacher of the 15th Century) on their banknotes - amazing for a country which declared religion to be the opium of the people. Yet Muntzer was a Christian who emphasized the need for common possessions, and had communes based on this principle. Their justification of this was that Muntzer was an early Communist, and was only expressing his ideas in religious terms because that was the style of the age - there may be a grain of truth in this. In the same way when Gerrard Winstanley said - 'God made the earth a common treasury for all mankind' or 'You jeer at the name leveller - I tell you God is the head leveller', it was of course blasphemy for many, but understandable also for a society which was used to this language. If he had said instead 'The proletariat must take over the means of production' it would have moved no one at that time. The same is true of books like the Bible, Khoran, Taura, Bhagavad Gita etc. If you believe them to be of any divine origins, then it is not unnatural that God would have expressed himself in a way which was understandable to the people of the time. So in the Khoran we have something allowing men to have more than one wife ok. when it was written many men had died in war and the proportion of women to men was enormous, many of them lived in poverty. It is not necessary to accept all of these books - if they are of divine origins then it is quite possible that what was revealed was suitable for one folk at one time in history, and that all these books come from the same source. Look at what all these books have in common and we may have some kind of signpost, but it will only be that. I am amazed Leo to see that you regard Hinduism in a different light to the others - can anyone explain a religion which places so much value on karma, claiming it to be punishment for your previous life, and used this to justify a caste system ?
A lot of my family are Mormons. Good people on the whole but completely hatstand when you actually read the BoM (which I haven't) especially as it was written by a convicted fraudster. And don't start me on the magical underwear! kin' 'ell!!! JW's are sick in the head - I have known a few too. Awful. islam is the motherlode of bad ideas. Buddhism as a philosophy for life, perhaps...
I think you are confused,Cologne. There is no atheist "position" on wars (or anything else as they are individuals not united by a group). I am sure there are a lot of atheists - and even more religious people - who blame wars on religion. I tend to agree with you that wars are the result of differences between people and that religion or some other factor may often be just the trigger or excuse. However you cannot deny an atheist the right to not believe or to suggest he is a member of a group that dislikes religion. I am now an atheist but consider good luck to all believers in whichever god they believe in. You give an example of Muntzer - but toward what end. He and ten million other people have had ideas, beliefs etc but they are not themselves important to religion in any way. They do or don't believe - it is what they believe in which is the religion. So there is a crossover between communism and other political systems and some religious beliefs - none of that describes the religion. For God a thousand years is a heartbeat. Remember the claim he is omniscient etc. It is a pretty poor show if he set out a book that appealed to people in the first century but was rather ridiculed in the 21st. On that basis he would knw he had to renew and redefine it. In my small opinion a true God would have been clever enough to have couched his book in words that could transcend the ages. The Bible falls very short (as do the other Abrahamic books) when it comes to its teachings on war, sexuality, the place of women and a whole load of other issues. It is not good enough to say it was aimed at people of a time. The books are there for all time - there is not to be a revised version of any of them. No third testament due - unless you happen to be Mormon. Those books have to be as relevant today as they were when written down so a clever god would have been able to express what was needed for the time but without making it not just less relevant but actually harmful later. Hindhuism is very very different in that it is a) not Abrahamic and b) does not suggest a god who sits in judgement on mankind. The one god Brahman seems to have multiple facets and forms. It suggests that mankind itself is divine and seeks to be one with Brahma. Everything is an illusion (bit like my post earlier suggested) and the individual will be reborn until the oneness is achieved. Karma is simply a law of cause and effect which believes in crude terms you have debits or credits to work through each time you are reborn. the caste system - repugnant to us who only believe in one life not a succession of rebirths - is not seen as a punishment but a stage the individual is at.The discussion of Hinduism - and indeed its progeny Buddhism is an entirely different thing to the other three.
Fez - I love your writing - when PC was invented you were at the dentist. I own more than one copy of the BoM and have read it a lot - indeed cover to cover. As you say - completely hatstand. The believers are though on the whole amongst the nicest group of people I have ever encountered and I would do anything for any one of them. JW's too are some of the kindest people I know. They are less off the shelf than the Latter Day Saints though as they simply believe the bible and nothing else and interpret it literally. They simply show the trouble that is caused when you do that. I have time for both - I have never known a single person in either group who has not been kind and generous in spirit and deed. Unfortunately what they believe is something else. "islam - motherlode of bad ideas" - precious. However not actually an argument
Books are books, written by people. Some authors may claim to have been divinely inspired but I can't think of any examples where we don't only have the writer's word for it. I have no problem with people believing what is written in holy books, but their belief in them is an act of faith. I do find it difficult to talk religion with people who insist such books contain incontrovertible truths.
Interestingly it was the Brits who took and used the caste system as a form of social control when we ruled India. Religion has always been used by those in power to maintain their authority ...sadly.... I generally put Buddhist down when asked for my religion...... as it is a great philosophy for living and includes meditation which i got into when i go out of drugs in the early 70s and has really given me inner - peace when i remember to go there and having lived and worked in a Buddhist country i have found it so much more accepting of women and human rights.
Actually the Book of Mormon it is claimed was not written by people but discovered on tablets and translated by Joseph Smith - that may seem to be the same thing - but is not to Latter Day Saints. If books such as the Bible were not divinely inspired and "perfect" as claimed down many centuries then they would only be books. To inspire a religion those who believe must presumably take them as the truth, the wholetruth and nothing but the truth. I totally agree that belief in them is an act of faith - which could be considered a good thing. It is always going to be difficult to argue with a fundamentalist as they have no "room for manoeuvre". However it can be fascinating. Over the course of months if not some years a very good friend of mine who was both a Jehovah's Witness and Greek and I had endless discussions on the bible - he was able to use Greek texts amongst others to try to convince me. However people who believe the world is about 6,000 years old and that every living thing was created as it is and I could never find a compromise. As always though polite conversation can be held with kind people
If I were to adopt a religion Buddhism would be the one for me - inner reflection, harmlessness, calm and meditation go a long way
Why is it so hard to believe that God (if he exists) revealed himself to different people, in different ways, and at different periods in a language which they could understand. Language itself comes from the finite World and cannot describe the infinite - how then could language of any description be eternal - for all people at all times ? As I said, read all of the scriptures, and decide for yourself what they have in common, on the essentials they do not contradict each other. They are all dead books which cannot describe the World of living people, at most they can offer signposts but nothing else. Study of the scriptures cannot lead you to God, this is like saying if you achieve A + C it will equal enlightenment. None of the really spiritual people I have met got there by study or by intellect, some of them couldn't even read. The problem I have with Hinduism is that it leads to inertia - ie. if you believe that a begger or someone else in need is paying the results of his last incarnation then it becomes an excuse for not doing anything to help, or not confronting social problems in any way whatsoever. If you want to place me on a religious scale Leo, then I am a believer but I do not think that I can conceptualize how God is - you can place me somewhere loosely between Quakerism, Sufism and Shamanism.
LOL.... my first post this morning, via my mobile, I was actually waiting for the dental surgery to open. I kid you not. I may be mistaken on occasion but I do not lie. I tend to be kind to Mormons because so many of them are, for all the codswallop they believe, the nicest people I've met (baptists take note). JWs I've met, bar two, have a veneer that is far too easily peeled away to reveal a rotten underbelly all spit and sawdust. Let a baby die for the sake of the parents belief? Utterly callous. And they're not alone. Alas I cannot lay claim to the "motherlode of bad ideas", that is a Sam Harris quote. I presumed a familiarity otherwise I would have cited immediately.
I see an appeal to incredulity based on anecdotal "evidence". Can one prove that there is no god? Absolutely not. But there is no evidence to support the assertion. "God exists" is the positive claim: and with making that claim there lies the burden of proof. That is the same with everything we do in life. To quote Hitchens: that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.... And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Furthermore absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.
I have never said 'God exists', I have said I believe he exists, which is different. Also, if you believe in God, then you believe in him as being unprovable using finite proof or knowledge, as being beyond our knowledge - this is why it is difficult to debate the subject. One question has always disturbed me however. According to the bible all of Jesus's disciples were normal working people, carpenters etc. but absolutely no intellectuals - why would God choose to reveal himself in a book when most people were illiterate ? The Bible was not written by Jesus, but about him by others - is there any evidence that he wanted it written ? The fact that the 'scriptures' dominate our World religions has always given a certain power to the minority elites ie. those who could study. If, as the bible says, the meek shall inherit the Earth, why did he express himself in a language which the meek could not understand ? Would an oral tradition not have been more fitting to his purposes ?
Be nice to Baptists - actually though the Baptists I have me have tended to be an insufferable bunch and very prejudiced. Our good friends who are JW's let us know before babysitting for us that in the incredibly unlikely event that something happened and they had responsibility for our children and they were rushed to hospital and needed a blood transfusion they would not hesitate to approve, knowing it was our wish. I confess we told them that in the opposite circumstances we would give approval for their children to be given blood - even knowing their wish. They smiled and accepted it saying they were grateful we mentioned it and accepted it was what we would have to do. Sensible people.
It is not hard to believe - I am sure it is very likely. We are not talking about language but a message. An all powerful god would simply need to ensure that his book did not contain vile ways of treating people - or at the very least to make sure that if it contained vile actions that these were then pointed out to have been examples of an uncivilised past and not to be used to stone or attack people in the future. Leaving ambiguity which enables people to justify racism, sexism and homophobia is not the work of an omnipotent god is it? You fall into the trap of telling us to pick and choose which bits we like - not acceptable to me.I expect the signposts to say in clear language for example - do not kill people. That would not be so hard would it. Also disagree that scriptures cannot lead you to god. I think they have done that for thousands of years. Some people find their own way to god also. Reading is not a requirement - for millennia the spoken word has worked. Unless your spiritual people "got there" (wherever there is supposed to be) with the aid of a guru or teacher then they have simply invented their own religion - which is fine- but we are talking here about the 3 Abrahamic ones that are Book based. Sorry but in your scenario the books do not amount to anything worthwhile at all. I am not saying they are worthless but your view of them seems to point that way. I have heard many other arguments that defend them better. A snippet or two at the end of each of these exchanges does not do Hinduism justice. Will come back properly later. Just one point - who says inertia is a problem? Perhaps it is some people's belief that you do not interfere with others lives - are you denying them that right of belief? I understand where you stand I think - not surprised at all.
People who say "God Exists" can only ever really be expressing their own belief as (to my knowledge) no religion has a proof. If it did, we would all accept it. I do not see why it is hard to debate a subject because there is no absolute proof. Science is all about looking for evidence to support theories. That is what you do in a debate on religion. People may use miracles or other things to explain their beliefs; others will question why certain things would happen that contradict the existence. Only in this way can people be exposed to ideas and if only 1% of people are open to some change then it is worthwhile. Most people in biblical times may have been illiterate but writing had existed for centuries and was used to preserve in a better way than verbal hand me downs to tell of events etc. Individuals may not have been able to read - but they were able to listen to writings. The bible was put together centuries after Christ - and the first gospel not written till some 70 years after his death. So he clearly did not "want it written". He is shown however to value scriptures so can be presumed to support those relating to his time on Earth. It took a Council in Constantinople in 325AD to agree which texts were and were not included. A sceptic could have a field day with this - people choosing what they wanted to go in the bible and excluding other Gospels etc. You totally miss the point though. If you are a Christian you will believe that God approved and directed the actions involved - otherwise again the whole thing is no more than a nice little fairy tale of good and bad morality. I am not the person to defend the teachings of the bible - we would need a Christian on here to do that - and I am not one.
I am not saying that the books are worthless Leo, but they are fixed at one moment in time, and were written down by people who were also working under the same conditions. To plough through the Bible, the Khoran and the Talmut is not a luxury which people in the past had - they relied on interpretations from people who often had their own interests in mind. To actually study all three books would be the work of a scholar - and it is very difficult to 'study' your way to God - the ego gets in the way. You say 'religions of the book', meaning the 3 so called monotheistic religions, but are you not forgetting things like the Yoga Sutras, the Bhagavad Ghita etc. that also the Indian philosophies were written only in Sanskrit - which only the highest caste could actually read, and also contain a parallel to the 10 commandments ie. Yama and Niyama (do and not do). Hinduism cannot be described as a single religion - but rather as a group of Indian philosophies which have certain things in common (reincarnation being one of them). The word Hindu comes from the description of Alexander the Great for everything found east of the Indus river, which then added the H to help the pronunciation of the later Persian conquerers of India. Reincarnation as an idea contains within it the idea that my present life is a result of the unburned Karma of my previous one - expanded over a whole society it leads to a lack of willingness to confront social problems eg. the poor are being punished and have to go through it, this is what I meant by inertia. We criticize the position of women in some Islamic societies - but try looking at the conditions for many Indian women (dowry deaths etc.). Many poorer Indians convert to Islam to escape the consequences of the caste system.
