BBC Focus Magazine

[M Paul Lloyd]

You're not asking for a discussion. You're asking for volunteers to be the targets of a firing line and defend themselves with faith.

It may well seem that way KingPhillip but I was genuinely hoping for some bona-fide input from someone even if it was only to say that faith was a powerful persuader.

I'm inclined to think that this topic really has run its course.

[Shadowwolf]

Well yes, I was making a point about the misuse of the word 'intractable' and thus felt that the rest of your sentence was irrelevant to that point. As for being unwilling to see the point of view through faith, I'm not unwilling it's simply wrong, reality is not a matter of opinion.

You can't see the world outside of rationality.

Well it kinda works whereas the other doesn't, so I'm happy to go with what works as opposed to wishful thinking however pleasant it might seem. It's not a failing as seems to be implied.

You can't accept irrationality's existence. You deny it.

Oh please don't try and impute that balderdash to me, quite clearly irrationality does exist and in copious amounts across the globe. I don't like it, it would be better if it did not exist but that's not the case. And you know what? I wouldn't care of it's existence if it weren't constantly meddling in society and damaging peoples lives, don't forget that this all stemmed from some self entitled twit clamoring for privilege.

You forbid it.

I think you've dropped some straw again; I have not engaged in absurdities like forbidding it nor could I. However, belief without evidence is still a poor way to go, as far as I am concerned it's wrong, deleterious to society and I've no problem in stating that as I don't subscribe to accomodationism.

You try to not sound condescending, but you show condescension.

If condescension is merely defined as any nay saying against faith well yes it's going to be inevitable and unavoidable then.

You're not asking for a discussion. You're asking for volunteers to be the targets of a firing line and defend themselves with faith.

If you weren't so busy only scanning the single bit that refers specifically to your words you might have noticed this following paragraph.

"However, even under an anonymous handle no one is likely to be eager for a grilling or feel that they must justify whatever is their personal belief to random strangers, and thus are likely to just ignore it. I can fully understand the puzzlement that arises from an otherwise scientific mind suspending their reason and curiosity in special cases, I get that and wonder it myself though I think the answer is as I said above. However, I don't think that anyone should be called out to justify why they do so unless they have personally put their hands up like Collins has done in writing his justification. At the end of the day folks can personally believe whatever they like and don't need to justify that to anyone but themselves. Challenge should only arise if they knock on your door so to speak or seek to mold society in the image of their dogma, then it's fair game. I think that faith puts itself out there enough that we don't need to throw down gauntlets at unassuming believers to pony up some good justification for whatever they believe, that might be a bit too strident."

I've never asked for any such discussion because it is asking for people to stand in a firing line appealing to a standard that's simply not good enough and that's unlikely to happen.

[Thinker]

It may well seem that way KingPhillip but I was genuinely hoping for some bona-fide input from someone even if it was only to say that faith was a powerful persuader.

Challenge should only arise if they knock on your door so to speak or seek to mold society in the image of their dogma, then it's fair game.

You're obviously not knocking hard enough. Try the doorbell.

[Nails]

But the doubts had set in, and when I reread passages of the Old Testament again, I paid attention to what I was actually reading. The God described there was vengeful, destructive, sought the killing of women, children, and even livestock, to completely obliterate some people's (when we were taught that he gave life to all mankind, but in the end played favorites).

I have heard an argument that Yahweh was a caananite god of war, or a god of thunder (hence his appearance at Mount Sinai) but I cannot find any evidence to back this claim up (not that I have really looked past Wikipedia to be fair).
What is pretty clear is that the early people of the middle east were polytheists, with El and Asherah as their cheif gods. This view is well supported by archeology.
This seems to have changed quite dramatically when they were invaded by the Babylonians around 800BC, as this could mean that their gods were not as powerful.
So step forward one god, probably an amalgamation of their older set, who is then only allowing them to be persecuted as punishment for their immorality. The angels then serve as direct replacements for minor deities.

It is interesting however to note though that the Exodus story is widely accepted to be set around 1300BC, shortly after Egypt had flirted with monotheism before reverting back to polytheism.
Also, the bible contains references to many gods, most specifically the first commandment, and the gods use people as their pawns to display their power.
It is crystal clear though that the bible uses plurals for god on many occasions, even stating that "man was made in our image" in Genesis, which was adapted to 'his image' for the english translation. Yahweh is also described as the god of gods, and he who heads the table of gods to name but a few examples off the top of my head.

An impressive reading list though, much better than what I have read on religion!

[Dark One]

I just cannot understand how religion can possibly retain any credibility in our science based world.

I don't think religion has ever had any real credibility. But as far as I'm concerned, God and religion are two very different things. God is God and religion is Man. As long as there are things in the universe that we don’t understand, the majority of people will always fill the gaps with belief. And there will always be people who will take the opportunity to warp and twist that belief to suit their own ends. Even if a way was discovered to offer incontrovertible proof that there was no God or gods, Man's need to dominate and subjugate would very easily find new ways and means. Religion isn't the real problem, we are.

[Lateralman]

Says the bloke dressed up in the shiny Darth Vader suit.

[M Paul Lloyd]

So I guess we really have not yet evolved sufficiently to out grow our childish notions and need for a mature overseer?

I find that really quite sad.

[Dark One]

Look, its not a suit, its a life support system, alright? I NEED it.

I don't think we'll ever grow out of our childish ways unless we actively start messing with our brain chemistry. Only thing is, what else do we get rid of? Emotion? Inhibition? Perhaps if the universe is as hostile as Stephen Hawking seems to think, our more violent inclinations could actually keep us safe.

[Thinker]

So I guess we really have not yet evolved sufficiently to out grow our childish notions and need for a mature overseer?

Nonsense! We have grown out of it! But there is a minority and make no mistake, it is now a minority still believe in the man in the sky. Forget what the census' say about religious position. My girlfriend put down her 10 year old son as CofE for his religion. If you were to ask him his position on god, he would tell to you straight...He ain't there! So as far as the statistics are concerned, its total poppycock.

People want to believe. I would love to believe myself, but I've educated myself into a position where I know its so unlikely that a deity exists that I say I am an athiest. Everybody knows someone who says that classic line, "I don't believe in God, but I believe in something"...You what? You believe in something? What thing is that then? If they can't be bothered to give a straight answer then they are not worth the time of day in a conversation on the topic.

It's about time people started being honest with themselves and each other in this world.

Rant over...

[M Paul Lloyd]

I hope you are right Thinker.....

[Nails]

Nonsense! We have grown out of it! But there is a minority and make no mistake, it is now a minority still believe in the man in the sky. Forget what the census' say about religious position.

Richard Dawkins has used MORi to poll those who answered 'Christian' in the 2011 census.

Just 2% of respondents disagree with the statement that the law should apply to everyone equally, regardless of their personal religious beliefs, with 92% supporting it

Just a third (32%) believe Jesus was physically resurrected; half (49%) do not think of him as the Son of God

At the same time, many who self-identify as Christian hold beliefs that some churches would consider to be incompatible with traditional Christian teaching, such as astrology and reincarnation (27% in each case), ghosts (36%) and fate (64%).

Asked to select which one statement best describes what being a Christian means to them personally, 40% chose 'I try to be a good person' and around a quarter (26%) chose ‘It's how I was brought up'. Around one in six (16%) selected the statement ‘I have accepted Jesus as my Lord and Saviour' and less than one in ten (7%) chose 'I believe in the teachings of Jesus'.

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/644941-rdfrs-uk-ipsos-mori-poll-1-how-religious-are-uk-christians

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/644942-rdfrs-uk-ipsos-mori-poll-2-uk-christians-oppose-special-influence-for-religion-in-public-policy

Some interesting findings.
Christianity really is becoming a minority in this country.

It is quite encouraging that we are not anywhere near as crazy as the Americans at least.

[M Paul Lloyd]

Interesting stuff Nails, but, I'm thinking of religion in far broader terms than just Christianity.

[MikeG]

As you said yourself, it's only fair that the kids make their own decisions later. Do you not worry that by taking them to church they are being indoctrinated with religious ideas?

I had to give this one some thought. No harm can come from that actually, and it does a good job of forming ones moral character, at least when young. I have to figur this one out as I go along.

[MikeG]

It strikes me that we have a very blinkered view of what 'God' is .....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_J._Tipler

http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

Here's another interesting one to read up on.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalism

[MikeG]

I have heard an argument that Yahweh was a caananite god of war, or a god of thunder ...![/quote]

Actually, there are many parallels between Judaism and other religions, including the creation myth, Adam and Eve, the flood, etc. what isn't so well known is tha Christ resembles a number of deities or heroes as well. I was a bit lazy, so Im only pasting the first link I found.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread290806/pg1

There are better web sites out there, but I don't have the time to dig right now. Here's an extract from the link.

Some parallels between Horus and Jesus Christ:

1. Horus born of a virgin. <> Jesus born of a virgin.

2. The foster father of Horus was Seb or Seph. <> Jesus was fostered by Joseph.

3. Horus was of royal descent. <> Jesus was of royal descent.

4. Horus birth accompanied by three solar deities [star gazers] who followed by the morning star of Sirius bearing gifts. <> Jesus birth accompanied by three wise men [Zoroastrian star gazers] who followed by a star “in the east” bearing gifts.

5. The birth of Horus announced by angels. <> The birth of Jesus announced by angels.

6. Herut tried to murder the infant Horus. <> Herod slaughtered every first born in an attempt to kill Jesus the forthcoming messiah.

7. Horus is baptized at age 30 by Anup the Baptiser at a river. <> Jesus is baptized at age 30 by John the Baptist at a river.

8. Horus resists temptation by the evil Sut [Sut was to be the precursor for the Hebrew Satan] on a high mountain. <> Jesus resists temptation by Satan on a high mountain.

9. Horus had 12 followers. <> Jesus had 12 disciples.

10. Horus performed miracles like healing the sick and walking on water. <> Jesus performed miracles like healing the sick and walking on water.

11. Horus raised someone from the grave [his father Osiris] <> Jesus raised Lazarus [notice the name similarity] from the grave. Lazarus is short for Elasarus - the “us” on the end is romanized. Elasarus was derived from “El-Asar” which was the name given to Osiris.

12. Horus was buried and resurrected in the city of Anu. <> The place Bethany mentioned in John was a derivative of the words “Bet” and “Anu” which translates “the house of Anu”. The ‘y’ on the end of bethany is interchangeable with the letter ‘u’.

13. Horus was killed by crucifixtion. <> Jesus was crucified.

14. Horus was accompanied by two thieves at the crucifixtion. <> Jesus was crucified with two thieves.

15. Horus was buried in a tomb at Anu. <> Jesus was buried in a tomb located in Bethany [Bet-Anu].

16. Horus was resurrected after 3 days. <> Jesus was “said” to resurrected after over a period of three days.

17. The resurrection of Horus was announced by three women. <> The resurrection of Jesus was announced by three women.

18. Horus was given the titel KRST which means “anointed one” <> Jesus was given the title Christ [Christos] meaning “anointed one”

[MikeG]

Looks like the BBC has also tackled this topic. Here's another link.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2009/05/h ... cal_p.html

[Shadowwolf]

Really!?

Here!?

"Above"!

Say it ain't so Mr G, say it ain't so

Anyhoo, that aside questions of the genesis of the Abrahamic god, the origins of Jesus or other deities / religions etc. is falling into historical analysis and textual criticism, a bit outside the realms and away from the OP so to speak.

[Nails]

Interesting stuff Nails, but, I'm thinking of religion in far broader terms than just Christianity.

I appreciate that MPL, I was just using it as an example as we are (nearly) all familiar with Christianity.
And in my defence I was answering a question....
It just so happens that the data I used was only aimed at one (or maybe 3?) god(s).

Actually, there are many parallels between Judaism and other religions, including the creation myth, Adam and Eve, the flood, etc. what isn't so well known is tha Christ resembles a number of deities or heroes as well.

It is interesting to note the similarities between deities of neighbouring civilisations.
Greek and Roman gods almost merged together, save the names, to the point where even the stories are remarkebly alike.
Conversely, the European gods were superficially different, the native Americans and Aboriginies even more unique.
Evolution of myths perhaps?

As you said yourself, it's only fair that the kids make their own decisions later. Do you not worry that by taking them to church they are being indoctrinated with religious ideas?

No harm can come from that actually, and it does a good job of forming ones moral character, at least when young. I have to figur this one out as I go along.

I would - and have previously in this thread - argue that this line of thinking is actually a falacy.
Experiments have demonstrated quite clearly that people's moral attitudes are not shaped by their religion, to the point where religious people are no better than the non-religious at working through moral dilemas.
Details can be found here:
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/hauser09/hauser09_index.html

Secondly I object to the statement that a religious upbringing/church attendance causes no harm.
Children have died when their religious parents have put faith before reason - not limited to rejection of medical treatments and/or vaccines. Peversely, some states in America recognise this line of thinking and have legislation to protect parents from the full weight of the law - including vastly reduced sentances when children die from religious thinking suppressing medical help.
Too many religions are more concerned with protecting the afterlife than reducing suffering in the here and now.

[Nails]

Just to add a little extra into this, I have just found a current survery on religion and ethics from Liverpool University.
If anyone wants to take part, the link is here:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/ReligiosityMorality

I found it quite interesting, and it only took about 5 minutes.

[MikeG]

Secondly I object to the statement that a religious upbringing/church attendance causes no harm.
Children have died when their religious parents have put faith before reason - not limited to rejection of medical treatments and/or vaccines. Peversely, some states in America recognise this line of thinking and have legislation to protect parents from the full weight of the law - including vastly reduced sentances when children die from religious thinking suppressing medical help.
Too many religions are more concerned with protecting the afterlife than reducing suffering in the here and now.

You have a point there Nails. But I'm no religious fanatic, so it's unlikely that I would deny my son medical treatment (unless of course he threw the winning lottery ticket in the trash). The US, along with Turkey, are 2 countries which have the highest belief in the creation myth, so they are quite extreme in their religious beliefs. A speech by Rick Santorium was in the news lately, where he literally warned his audience tha Satan was threatening the well being of the US. George Bush had regular prayer meetings in the White House.

Aristotle once said "πάν, μετρον, άριστον", or, "all things in moderation is best". So in my case, I believe that children exposed to the modern ideals of religion may not be a bad thing. Maybe we have fewer cases of 10 year old murderers like Thomson and Venables, literally because of the fear of God.

It really is quite interesting though, how many religions in the ancient world shared some common elements. The Egyptian gods, and other Middle Eastern gods, also shared common elements with the Greco-Roman gods. Amon-Ra, was identified with Zeus for example.